President Trump

[Belz...]

I wouldn't see it as a loss because I haven't lost anything. To lose something, you have to have it in the first place.

Not necessarily. If you play a football game and lose, did you have the win before playing?

 

[Fast Eddie B]

Don't get me wrong, I think Trump can quite legitimately say that he has, in some way, sacrificed something by turning down the deal (though, we only have his word that is was going ahead in the first place). But it is wrong to describe it as a loss, it is simply a missed opportunity.

Imagine if this had been a few years ago and he had foregone investing in Atlantic City casinos. That could have been a "missed opportunity" to lose a bunch of money!

 

[Worm]

Not necessarily. If you play a football game and lose, did you have the win before playing?

You don't lose the win, you lose the game, and you do have to play the game to lose it. (hmm, can we stretch the analogy to forfeiting? not sure how that would work)

 

[fuelair]

No you're wrong. That is precisely what politicians do, come in and say I can do a better job. Your side likes to throw out these little rules you THINK we're all supposed to be following. These unwritten rules come to light when your side is in defeat. We're going to steam roll your policy's!

Is that related somehow to policies?

 

[Belz...]

You don't lose the win, you lose the game, and you do have to play the game to lose it. (hmm, can we stretch the analogy to forfeiting? not sure how that would work)

Yeah but did you have the game before playing it? The thing is, there are many meanings to the word "lose". If we're talking about losing the election, it means participating in it and not winning.

 

[Worm]

There are indeed many meanings. Trump didn't even use the word. He said he 'turned down' the deal. No mention of 'losing' anything.

We weren't talking about the election, we were talking about a potential deal, which didn't happen. Trump didn't lose money, he didn't even lose the deal, he turned it down. I guess you could say he 'lost out' on the deal, though that's not how he described it.

Maybe I could have qualified the statement 'to lose something, you have to have it in the first place. ' by making it clear what sense of 'lose' I was using, I guess I thought it was clear from context. I'm really not sure what the problem is.

 

[Worm]

(deleted dupe)

 

[Spindrift]

There are indeed many meanings. Trump didn't even use the word. He said he 'turned down' the deal. No mention of 'losing' anything.

Wweren't talking about the election, we were talking about a potential deal, which didn't happen. Trump didn't lose money, he didn't even lose the deal, he turned it down. I guess you could say he 'lost out' on the deal, though that's not how he described it.

Maybe I could have qualified the statement 'to lose something, you have to have it in the first place. ' by making it clear what sense of 'lose' I was using, I guess I thought it was clear from context. I'm really not sure what the problem is.

Do we even know the deal was actually offered to Trump in the first place?

 

[Worm]

The other party (DAMAC) apparently confirmed the deal.

"DAMAC can confirm that the discussions took place as stated in the media briefing, but the proposals were declined," a spokesperson for the company said. "These proposals were for a variety of different property deals."
(Source: CNN)

 

[Emily's Cat]

I repeat, get real. Your, 'can't be proved teapot' has zero to do with this situation where there is direct evidence Trump may have had illegal access to confidential DNC campaign information.

If that's the case, then I suggest you consider re-wording your approach on this. Your statements are absolutely in the vein as that invisible teapot:

Can you say with absolute certainty that Trump didn't coordinate with the Russians to cheat?

Can you say with certainty that Comey didn't wrongly interfere with his personal rant on the emails and his last minute letter to Congress, associating Clinton with Weiner along with reopening a closed case only to close it again a few days later because he had nothing, all the while refusing to comment on the ongoing investigation of a Trump team/Russia connection didn't unfairly interfere with the election?

You are LITERALLY insisting that the inability to prove something false means it should be accepted as plausible, solely on the basis of that inability to be proved false.

Can you absolutely with 100% certainty say that invisible pink unicorns don't exist?

Literally the same construction as your statements.

Riddle me this: If Trump's campaign received confidential information from the hacked Podesta and DNC emails, from Russian operatives like the Russian Ambassador, information that wasn't published on Wikileaks, information that they used to their advantage in campaigning, AND, that was proved true by the FBI who is investigating it, would you just brush that kind of election cheating off as unprovable?

IF someone proves a thing, would you brush that off as unprovable? Your question hinges on a speculative item. Until such time as the FBI actually DOES prove that it is true, then speculating that it's possible for the FBI to prove it true is just that - speculation.

ETA: Look - your belief here could turn out to be accurate. I don't know. But right now, your method of argumentation isn't cutting it. You're wielding speculation as if it is evidence, and introducing complicated double negatives as if that makes it true.

 

[Emily's Cat]

With due respect, I don't buy this argument. She had a large lead in California, but so what? California may be an outlier, but this suggestion that get lead overall therefore doesn't amount to much seems spurious to me.

If you want to say it wasn't a popular vote, and want run as one, then fine. Had things been different, the campaigns would have been different.

But the focus on California seems misguided to me.

Okay then.

The argument that Clinton won the popular vote keeps getting tossed around in aggregate. It keeps getting presented as if Clinton won the popular vote in general - almost everywhere. As if her margin of lead on the popular vote was so enormous as to make it a clear miscarriage of democracy that Trump won the electoral.

And yet at the end of the day, Clinton's win of that popular vote isn't widespread and general - that margin is NOT spread across the whole US. That margin is extremely concentrated in one state.

It is true that she won the popular vote. It is not true that her win of the popular vote was widespread across the whole country, as seems to be implied every time this argument gets made.

 

[phiwum]

Okay then.

The argument that Clinton won the popular vote keeps getting tossed around in aggregate. It keeps getting presented as if Clinton won the popular vote in general - almost everywhere. As if her margin of lead on the popular vote was so enormous as to make it a clear miscarriage of democracy that Trump won the electoral.

And yet at the end of the day, Clinton's win of that popular vote isn't widespread and general - that margin is NOT spread across the whole US. That margin is extremely concentrated in one state.

It is true that she won the popular vote. It is not true that her win of the popular vote was widespread across the whole country, as seems to be implied every time this argument gets made.

Given that she lost the electoral vote, it seems impossible that her win of the popular vote was widespread across the whole country. I think you're misunderstanding what others are saying.

But, again, given that it wasn't a popular vote contest, who won the popular vote is not all that essential.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Perhaps between Kellyann Conway and Steve Bannon they brainstormed the 'CA voters don't count' meme. Bet you'll see it elsewhere on social media. Emily's Cat could tell us where she(he) first heard the CA voters don't count meme. How about it Kitty?

Snide re-naiming aside, It isn't a meme that I'm aware of. It was simple observation and actually looking at the numbers, and the distribution of votes. More than anything, it's a counter to the implied generalizability of Clinton's margin. It's a counter to the "She won the popular vote so Trump isn't legitimate" argument. It's not that CA doesn't count. They certainly do, and Clinton got every one of those 55 electoral votes.

My objection is that the way this argument has been put forth implies that Clinton's margin was general and widespread across the nation. It wasn't. Her margin was extremely localized. Acting as if that margin is reflective of the entire US population in general, and that the electoral win was merely a flawed counting method, really doesn't do justice to the truth. The actual distribution of support for Clinton was extremely localize - a singular large spike in a single on of the 50 states.

By all means, go ahead and note that she won the popular vote - she did, no questions. Just don't act as if she won the popular vote "most places" or in any sort of wide-spread fashion. Go ahead and recognize that her margin was effectively all from one extreme spike. It wasn't an even distribution.

 

[Bob001]

......
It is true that she won the popular vote. It is not true that her win of the popular vote was widespread across the whole country, as seems to be implied every time this argument gets made.

If you want to keep playing that game, you also have to note that Trump won many of his states by tiny margins. It's not as if everybody in Florida or Pennsylvania or Michigan or Wisconsin lined up behind him. The fact is that a majority -- literally -- of Americans voted for somebody OTHER THAN Trump. And it's pretty desperate to try to claim California voters count for less than anybody else.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Making it literally laughable that he could win the Republican primaries and become their candidate, much less win in a general election.

Oh, wait...

What does that prove?

The primary opposition to Trump was split between multiple candidates.
Trump lied to everyone. People foolishly believed those lies. They are still believing them even when Trump, himself, says they were meaningless.
Putin put his thumb on the scale.
Comey's last minute letter to save himself from Republican rebuke (if you believe the conveniently leaked to memo Fox reported on) had an unbalanced impact given Comey refused to reveal he was investigating Russian interference.
Lost the popular vote by a very wide margin.
Won the Electoral College by small margins in a few key states.

How does that instill confidence Trump actually won fair and square?

Lowest approval rating of an incoming POTUS (ever?).
Massive protests planned for the day after the inauguration.
There will likely be record low attendance at the inauguration, entertainers don't want to be there.
Trump's glaring incompetence should worry everyone.

 

[Belz...]

If you want to keep playing that game, you also have to note that Trump won many of his states by tiny margins. It's not as if everybody in Florida or Pennsylvania or Michigan or Wisconsin lined up behind him. The fact is that a majority -- literally -- of Americans voted for somebody OTHER THAN Trump. And it's pretty desperate to try to claim California voters count for less than anybody else.

The implication isn't that California voters are worth less, and it's a bit dishonest to frame it that way. The implication is that the smaller states need a boost to be relevant in the union. You can argue for or against that proposition, but let's at least get the argument right.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

If that's the case, then I suggest you consider re-wording your approach on this. Your statements are absolutely in the vein as that invisible teapot:

I don't see anyone posting they understand how you are relating this to the inability to prove the negative. I suggest you focus on the actual discussion rather than your initial flawed version of what the issues are.

You are LITERALLY insisting that the inability to prove something false means it should be accepted as plausible, solely on the basis of that inability to be proved false.

Can you absolutely with 100% certainty say that invisible pink unicorns don't exist?

Literally the same construction as your statements.

This is all straw and nonsense. Maybe you should quote my actual words and show how exactly the say what you think they say? I assure you they don't.


Snipped the rest which was just more of the same.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Okay then.

The argument that Clinton won the popular vote keeps getting tossed around in aggregate. It keeps getting presented as if Clinton won the popular vote in general - almost everywhere. As if her margin of lead on the popular vote was so enormous as to make it a clear miscarriage of democracy that Trump won the electoral.

And yet at the end of the day, Clinton's win of that popular vote isn't widespread and general - that margin is NOT spread across the whole US. That margin is extremely concentrated in one state.

It is true that she won the popular vote. It is not true that her win of the popular vote was widespread across the whole country, as seems to be implied every time this argument gets made.

I suggest you find a source showing the slim margins Trump won by in many states, and while you're at it, take a look at the wide margins Clinton had in all the states in addition to CA. It might help you see the flaw in your reasoning.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

I don't see anyone posting they understand how you are relating this to the inability to prove the negative.

For the record, I clearly understand what Emily's Cat is saying, and agree.

Can you say with absolute certainty that I don't?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Snide re-naiming aside, It isn't a meme that I'm aware of. It was simple observation and actually looking at the numbers, and the distribution of votes. More than anything, it's a counter to the implied generalizability of Clinton's margin. It's a counter to the "She won the popular vote so Trump isn't legitimate" argument. It's not that CA doesn't count. They certainly do, and Clinton got every one of those 55 electoral votes.

My objection is that the way this argument has been put forth implies that Clinton's margin was general and widespread across the nation. It wasn't. Her margin was extremely localized. Acting as if that margin is reflective of the entire US population in general, and that the electoral win was merely a flawed counting method, really doesn't do justice to the truth. The actual distribution of support for Clinton was extremely localize - a singular large spike in a single on of the 50 states.

By all means, go ahead and note that she won the popular vote - she did, no questions. Just don't act as if she won the popular vote "most places" or in any sort of wide-spread fashion. Go ahead and recognize that her margin was effectively all from one extreme spike. It wasn't an even distribution.

Here, let me help you:

Hillary Clinton garnered 4.3 million more votes than Donald Trump in the nation's most populous state.

ORIGIN:On 18 December 2016, the Federalist Papers, a conservative clickbait web site, posted a story headlined "Hillary’s Popular Vote Win Came ENTIRELY from California"...
It's true that if California's vote totals were entirely removed from the equation then Hillary Clinton would lose her popular vote lead, but the logic of that assessment is somewhat flawed. One could, for example, arbitrarily remove the states of New York and Massachusetts from the vote count, docking Clinton roughly 2.6 million votes (and wiping out her popular vote win). Or one could similarly claim that Trump's electoral vote victory "came entirely from Texas," since if Clinton had taken the Lone Star state (and its 38 electoral votes), she would also have won the overall election. One could combine any number of states' vote counts and exclude them from the aggregate, but doing so wouldn't undo the basic mathematical principle that a vote difference in one state can't sway the election results to or from a candidate who doesn't also have significant support from multiple other states. In this case, California wouldn't have put Clinton over the top in the popular vote total without the additional 61.4 million votes she received in other states.

Specifically your's and their logic fails because:

But even if Clinton's 4.3 million vote victory over Trump in California provided her overall winning edge, it wouldn't be an issue if she hadn't also amassed enough votes all the other states to make that outcome possible.