2016 Election -- Part II
Poll
 | 57 votes (47.89%) | ||
| | 33 votes (27.73%) | ||
| | 12 votes (10.08%) | ||
| | 10 votes (8.4%) | ||
| | 4 votes (3.36%) | ||
| | 3 votes (2.52%) |
119 members have voted
I wasn't joking about the new sports car..Quote: ams288I don't know much about MaxPen's financial life. I'll take your word for it. In that case, his butthurt response to my post highlighting the dumb bet he made seems even more strange...
It looks like betting Trump to win was free money. I just know he picked me up in a brand new sports car after the election.Quote: ams288It was booked.
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/questions-and-answers/all-other/25807-2016-election-part-ii/467/#post563671
I'm just sad I didn't see it before he stopped taking action. Free money.
(I don't know how the system works but it would be nice if some of the electors pledged to Hillary voted for Trump, instead, because they're tired of the democratic party nonsense.)
Oh my, if only they would have watched the fair and balanced network...Fox News!
By the way, what I think bugs the smug left the most is that Trump is heterosexual. If you look closely, you'll find that the women are wearing makeup, and there are no khakis to be found on any of them! (Also no safety pins!)
Quote: GreasyjohnI heard yesterday that there are now 7 faithless electors that will not honor their pledge and instead vote for Hillary.
(I don't know how the system works but it would be nice if some of the electors pledged to Hillary voted for Trump, instead, because they're tired of the democratic party nonsense.)
Depends on the state.
The electors were still assigned by the party, so it is more likely that they would simply abstain or vote for another person from their party rather than switching to the other party's candidate
Quote: ams288When is MaxPen gonna pay up?
This is what makes you a ____________(fill in the blank). You are implying that my word is no good. You are interjecting your typical nonsense into a situation that does not concern you. It is fine to ask about a bet without trying to imply that one party would not pay. Especially when that person has nothing to pay and offered it as a way for the other party to break even due to a loss on a previous bet. All which was known when offered and accepted.
If you don't understand how that riles a person up then you are truly hopeless.
Quote: MaxPenThis is what makes you a ____________(fill in the blank).
Genius. (I filled in the blank).
Maybe you should eat a Snickers, you seem a little cranky.
Quote: ams288Genius. (I filled in the blank).
Maybe you should eat a Snickers, you seem a little cranky.
#DELUSIONAL CONFIRMED
Quote: TomGI'll ask again since it's been over a month. I am sure I had a bet to win $50 on Hillary somewhere in here (now owe $75 or $80). Been almost a month and I'm not going to be able to look through all 500 pages until I have more time. Can anyone help me out so I can pay?
So, I did a search for this using a couple different keyword sets that included your username. I found a couple of places where you offered bets, but none were booked by another party, at least not publicly.
I could have it wrong , but I'm not sure you had a mutually agreed upon bet.
Quote: Dalex64Depends on the state.
The electors were still assigned by the party, so it is more likely that they would simply abstain or vote for another person from their party rather than switching to the other party's candidate
Yes, electors are not fly by night people
who raised their hands in a meeting.
They're selected because they're
devout party loyalists, some of them
are rabid loyalists. Switching their
vote to the other party is highly
unlikely, especially since most on the
Right loathe Hillary. If anything,
they would abstain. Why they
would do that is a mystery, Trump
won the EC in a landslide.
On every show now some Dem is crying
their eyes out that the majority voted
against Trump, it's not fair. In 1992
Clinton got crushed be the majority
that voted against him, 56% to 44%.
12 million people separated him from
the majority vote. Hillary has 2.5mil,
big deal. Where were all the riots in
1992 over the unfairness of it all.
Quote: EvenBobYes, electors are not fly by night people
who raised their hands in a meeting.
They're selected because they're
devout party loyalists, some of them
are rabid loyalists. Switching their
vote to the other party is highly
unlikely, especially since most on the
Right loathe Hillary. If anything,
they would abstain. Why they
would do that is a mystery, Trump
won the EC in a landslide.
On every show now some Dem is crying
their eyes out that the majority voted
against Trump, it's not fair. In 1992
Clinton got crushed be the majority
that voted against him, 56% to 44%.
12 million people separated him from
the majority vote. Hillary has 2.5mil,
big deal. Where were all the riots in
1992 over the unfairness of it all.
I don't understand your second paragraph EB. Clinton won that election. Edit: I read up on the 1992 election and now understand your point.
No less an impressive figure than Elizabeth Warren was lamenting just that way. The fact that a big-time Harvard professor doesn't know the difference between majority and plurality screams volumes.Quote: EvenBobOn every show now some Dem is crying their eyes out that the majority voted against Trump, it's not fair.
Quote: GreasyjohnI don't understand your second paragraph EB. Clinton won that election.
I think that's his point.
Quote: RSI think that's his point.
Yes. The Left is careful not to complain that
She didn't win, they complain that the
majority did not elect Trump. In 1992,
the majority rejected Clinton overwhelmingly.
No riots, no complaints. He got 370 EC
votes, he was the landslide winner. Trump
got 306, another landslide. She conceded
right away, She knows how it works.
I think they are mis-using the word majority, when they really mean the most votes, aka plurality, when the most votes are less than half.
Quote: Dalex64I think they are complaining that Clinton got more votes than trump, not that trump didn't get a majority.
It all boils down to the same thing. The
EC winner was rejected by the majority
of the voters, just like Clinton was in
1992. In 1996 Clinton won the majority
by 1/10 of 1%. 49.2%-49.1%.
Nate Silver says in the last 200 years
congress has tried to change the EC
700 times and failed to even make a
dent in it. It's not going anywhere.
Quote: beachbumbabsSo, I did a search for this using a couple different keyword sets that included your username. I found a couple of places where you offered bets, but none were booked by another party, at least not publicly.
I could have it wrong , but I'm not sure you had a mutually agreed upon bet.
Thanks for looking. I'm certain a bet was agreed upon here and definitely not through private exchanges. I'll try looking more thoroughly during Christmas break and if I can't find it I'll consider it a lucky break.
Baldwin tweeted he would stop if Trump would release his tax returns.
didn't show up. Let's see if this one does.
company, in WI this time. The talking heads are
having B9 facepalm moments all over the place,
saying 'Holy crap, he's not all talk and no action,
he's doing what he said he would do.' Obama is
saying 'What can't he just shut up, he's making
me look like an idiot.'
Quote: rxwineTrump tweeted about SNL again. Said it was unwatchable and Alec Baldwin's impersonation was terrible.
Baldwin tweeted he would stop if Trump would release his tax returns.
lol
This is Trumps twisted view on the world
Its somewhat scary that this guy just cant take a joke
Kind of like Nixon, just doesn't get comedy
sad
Quote: sammydvIt's Sunday and I haven't done much news reading last week. Is there any substance to this recount stuff in those cities, or was it settled this past Friday.
In WI Trump has gained 3 votes in the
first 2 days. MI is suing for there not
to be a recount. In PA Stein won't pay
the 1 mil bond, so probably no recount
there.
http://nypost.com/2016/12/04/green-party-ends-statewide-pennsylvania-recount-bid/
http://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2016/12/03/michigan-presidential-ballot-recount-hearing/94930506/
Quote: Dalex64MI is not suing for there not to be a recount, Trump is.
Yes, "Michigan" is suing to stop the recount (as is Trump):
"Trump's court action followed a similar suit filed Friday morning by Republican Attorney General Bill Schuette, who asked the Court of Appeals to send his case directly to the Michigan Supreme Court, to expedite the appeal process."
http://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/2016/12/02/trump-fileslawsuit-block-michigan-recount/94830054/
Quote: GreasyjohnSo Trump accepted a call from the president of Taiwan, breaking a 37-year protocol with China.
Quote: GreasyjohnTrump said regarding the brouhaha that the call generated, "Interesting how the US sells Taiwan billions of dollars of military equipment, but I should not accept a congratulatory call."
Not looking for an argument or anything, but can somebody explain to me why politically there is a difference here? One on hand every president since Carter has sold arms to Taiwan. On the other we are suppose to observe the One China rule and not piss off the mainland by not having diplomatic relations with them?
Quote: Dalex64MI is not suing for there not to be a recount, Trump is.
It's very odd.
If Donald is confident in his Michigan win, he should just sit back and wait for the recount results to come in. When the results still show him winning the state, he can tweet about how he knew it was a waste of time and money all along and this solidifies his victory.
Why go through all this hassle if you actually believe you won the state?
In an anti-recount filing, Trump’s lawyers say the election was ‘not tainted by fraud or mistake’
Quote: ams288Well ain't this rich:
In an anti-recount filing, Trump’s lawyers say the election was ‘not tainted by fraud or mistake’
...not all that much more odd than Hillary calling Trump out for not saying that he would accept the election results and now the two of them being in opposite positions.
There was a ruling ordering the Michigan recount to proceed immediately; I like that since the main idea of the recounts being asked for by a party (Stein) that stands to win absolutely nothing is to try and muddle the electoral vote. Recount away. Just get it done in time to get the EC vote done properly and on time. makes sense to me. It is, of course, a waste of time and money...but it has been so ordered. Get it done!!
Quote: RonCQuote: ams288Well ain't this rich:
In an anti-recount filing, Trump’s lawyers say the election was ‘not tainted by fraud or mistake’
...not all that much more odd than Hillary calling Trump out for not saying that he would accept the election results and now the two of them being in opposite positions.
The False Equivalence King returns!
Quote: ams288Quote: RonCQuote: ams288Well ain't this rich:
In an anti-recount filing, Trump’s lawyers say the election was ‘not tainted by fraud or mistake’
...not all that much more odd than Hillary calling Trump out for not saying that he would accept the election results and now the two of them being in opposite positions.
The False Equivalence King returns!
So...all of it doesn't sound odd to you? I know, I know...your positions are left of left and no one can possibly think both parties, both candidates, or even both people are wrong (even if being differing degrees of wrong). Anything like that you just call a "false equivalency" and throw one of your nice little insults in.
Quote: VCUSkyhawkNot looking for an argument or anything, but can somebody explain to me why politically there is a difference here? One on hand every president since Carter has sold arms to Taiwan. On the other we are suppose to observe the One China rule and not piss off the mainland by not having diplomatic relations with them?
We sell to China. According to China, Taiwan is part of China. So how could China both claim Taiwan and restrict trade to part of itself? They can't. It would legitimize the Taiwan claim to independence.
On the other hand, taking a call from (according to China) an illegal head of state by our head of state legitimizes Taiwan ' s claim to HAVE a head of state. It puts that person on a peer footing with all the other heads of state and furthers their independence . Trump only made it worse by saying something about taking calls from 50 other heads of state, what's different about this one.
That's how I understand it, anyway.
IMO, this was a non issue. Of course China was going to act pissed, but I still find the whole the odd.
Quote: beachbumbabsWe sell to China. According to China, Taiwan is part of China. So how could China both claim Taiwan and restrict trade to part of itself? They can't. It would legitimize the Taiwan claim to independence.
On the other hand, taking a call from (according to China) an illegal head of state by our head of state legitimizes Taiwan ' s claim to HAVE a head of state. It puts that person on a peer footing with all the other heads of state and furthers their independence . Trump only made it worse by saying something about taking calls from 50 other heads of state, what's different about this one.
That's how I understand it, anyway.
The Chinese are upset? It kind of seems at this point that people who want to be upset are the ones who are upset. The Chinese seem to be dealing with it well.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-china-idUSKBN13T0SQ
Quote: VCUSkyhawkNot looking for an argument or anything, but can somebody explain to me why politically there is a difference here? One on hand every president since Carter has sold arms to Taiwan. On the other we are suppose to observe the One China rule and not piss off the mainland by not having diplomatic relations with them?
Carter was the guy who betrayed Taiwan (Free China) and stabbed them in the back in the first place. Carter paid off like a slot machine. He screwed Taiwan, he screwed Rhodesia, he screwed Nicaragua, and he screwed the Shah of Iran. Four of our best allies, all betrayed, in four years.
Big difference between China and Taiwan. For one thing, Taiwan is not a big prison camp like China is. Taiwan did not murder 60 million people like Mao and Cho En Lai did. Taiwan was one of America's strongest allies. So was Iran, so was Rhodesia, so was Nicaragua. Carter should be in jail.
Indeed, there SHOULD be a one China policy, and that one China should be Taiwan. Communist China is a rogue. A gang of tyrants and murderers.
Not like the dummies in those (mostly Democratic) Florida counties that couldn't count the number of lace holes in their shoes in time for the Electoral College assembly in 2000.Quote: RonCRecount away. Just get it done in time to get the EC vote done properly and on time.
Quote: RonCSo...all of it doesn't sound odd to you? I know, I know...your positions are left of left and no one can possibly think both parties, both candidates, or even both people are wrong (even if being differing degrees of wrong). Anything like that you just call a "false equivalency" and throw one of your nice little insults in.
Oh please.
Donald Trump tweets repeatedly about voter fraud. He claims he would have won the popular vote if not for millions of illegal votes.
His lawyers then file legal paperwork on his behalf saying there is no evidence of voter fraud.
Do you not see the hypocrisy? The blatant lies from a PEOTUS to keep the wool over his gullible supporters' eyes?
And when confronted with this, your very first instinct is to bring up Hillary Clinton and blame her for Jill Stein's recount effort. FALSE EQUIVALENCY.
So the constant "both sides" B.S is just that: B.S.
Quote: VCUSkyhawkWhile I won't dispute many of your claims about PRC. I will say that Chiang Kai-shek was not some benevolent ruler. He ran a pretty ruthless regime,
He was a hero, one of our best allies ever, and extremely anti-communist. The United States government, State Dept., forced Chiang into a coalition with the communists, which could only result in the communists getting the upper hand, a one-way street as usual. We forced communism on China, resulting in the biggest bloodbath in the world's history. The communists are an outlaw government, given favor and most-favored-nation status from us. They have no civil rights, all power is consolidated in the Party, they execute people for misdemeanor-type offenses. Their economy relies heavily on prison labor. And quietly, they talk of eventually occupying us. They teach their kids to hate the American imperialists. They are building a huge war machine. Taiwan has a long history of friendly relations with us and we owe them our support.
Nixon, a dirty politician who built a career on being "anti-communist", opened the door, honoring the worst mass murderer in history. Reagan, another politician who built a career on being "anti-communist", continued with that trend. Talk is cheap.
We, have built China into a formidable enemy.
The Chinese people, on the other hand, do not need trade, they need freedom. Much like the people of Cuba. That's tough to do when you don't have a 2nd Amendment.
Quote: VCUSkyhawkStill not making sense to me. I understand the PRC believes that ROC is part of China. However we aren't talking the sale of food stuffs here. We are talking ARMS. It is true that ROC has made it clear that they don't seek to unify via military force, China can not be too happy about ROC advancing their military. This whole One China thing is strange anyway. Taiwan can say all they want that they are the true China, but it don't make it so. PRC can say all they want that ROC is still part of China, that don't make it so. Taiwan has there own currency, military, ect ect.
IMO, this was a non issue. Of course China was going to act pissed, but I still find the whole the odd.
The One China Principle is complicated and may be the most bizarre diplomatic structure in the world. It requires all parties to agree to accept an absolute fiction that Taiwan is not independent from China. But it has served as the foundation of our relationship with China for almost 40 years. Maybe it’s time to rethink it. Maybe, by taking that call, Trump was beginning the implementation of a considered policy shift. .. Before he takes office… With no advanced communication… Before he has even named a secretary of state. More likely, it was a mistake. Trump treated the call the same as all of the other head of state calls, never considering the ramifications.
It was more than a mistake, it was a trap and he fell for it. ROC President Tsai Ing-Wen is a member of the Democratic Progressive Party. She’s not down with the One China Principle, she views Taiwan as independent. She knew the ramifications of that phone call and she benefits immensely by prying the US away from the One China Principle. His arrogant choice to refuse state department briefings, his tendency to wing-it opened the door.
This has been my biggest concern about Trump. He is driven by his ego and I fear that foreign leaders can manipulate him. Now it’s not as bad as it could be, because he is not in office yet. I hope that when he assumes the presidency with his team assembled and he views the state department as his own he will be more considered, but I worry.
had worked at our foreign offices
all over the world. He said China
was by far the best place to work, the
Chinese are much like us once you
get to know them.
He says EU was the worst, those
countries have a stick up their
arse attitude, think they're
privileged and have almost no
sense of humor. The Chinese
are unpretentious and are very
funny, once you break thru their
cultural barrier. They like to drink
and gamble and tell jokes, and
are friendly and outgoing most
of the time.
Quote: http://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/index.ssf/2016/12/recount.htmlIf, for instance, a person voted straight-ticket, but filled in the write-in field with a different presidential candidate, the ballot would then be honored as a vote for the write-in candidate, according to Tom Luitje, election specialist for the Michigan Bureau of Elections.
That is interesting - it implies that if the vote originally went towards the straight-ticket party, but now will be reassigned to the write-in candidate.
It doesn't say what they would do if the person voted straight ticket and marked a ballot for someone else whose name was already on the ballot.
I don't recall what the voting machine records if you mark straight ticket and then fill in votes in the partisan sections either.
Quote: Dalex64I don't recall what the voting machine records if you mark straight ticket and then fill in votes in the partisan sections either.
I was wondering that too.
Even though I always vote for all Dems, I never use the straight ticket option. It may sound weird, but it just doesn't feel right leaving everything blank in the partisan section...
Quote: ams288Oh please.
Donald Trump tweets repeatedly about voter fraud. He claims he would have won the popular vote if not for millions of illegal votes.
His lawyers then file legal paperwork on his behalf saying there is no evidence of voter fraud.
Do you not see the hypocrisy? The blatant lies from a PEOTUS to keep the wool over his gullible supporters' eyes?
And when confronted with this, your very first instinct is to bring up Hillary Clinton and blame her for Jill Stein's recount effort. FALSE EQUIVALENCY.
So the constant "both sides" B.S is just that: B.S.
The issue is that I see more hypocrisy than you and I do acknowledge that at different times one side or the other is guilty of more of it. You tend to write only from one indefensible position:
Republicans/Conservatives evil.
Democrats/Liberals good.
Is Trump a hypocrite on this issue? Absolutely.
There is a lot of hypocrisy in politics and life. It must be nice to have blinders on when you look at who is a hypocrite--heck, you don't see about half of it!1
Quote: RonCIs Trump a hypocrite on this issue? Absolutely.
Agreed. End of story.
There was no need for you to bring Hillary into it and try to accuse her of similar hypocrisy (where none exists), now was there? When someone points out undeniable hypocrisy on the right, you have an almost impulsive need to try to find some hypocrisy on the left to attempt to balance it out or change the subject. Happens all the damn time in this thread. And I get accused of being a broken record for pointing out all the false equivalences. But that is what they are!
...cause something is sure starting to smell fishy with this whole recount in Michigan.
Michigan Republican Party to appeal federal ruling, seek to stop recount
Why is the GOP so afraid of this recount?
If the tables were turned, you KNOW the right wing media's pants would be on fire screaming about fraud and how it was clear the Dems stole the election based on how they were trying to stop a recount...
Quote: VCUSkyhawk. This whole One China thing is strange anyway. .
It is strange but in a lot of ways, this is due to US historical policy
The one China policy actually started in the USA and only recognizing Chiang Kai Shek and not not Mao Zedong
China had a civil war
Mao won and created the Peoples Republic of China, Chiang Kai Shek lost and fled to Taiwan and operated as the Republic of China.
For decades the USA only recognized Chiang Kai Shek as the leader of China and totally ignored Mao even though he was the leader of billions of people in Mainland China
We did not even have an embassy in a country of billions because to the US govt, the legitimate China govt was in Taiwan
Because there was no embassy, there was no communication between 2 of the largest countries on the planet
A ping pong team visited China and that got the ball rolling
Ping pong diplomacy :-)
Finally Nixon visited China and the rest is history
China agreed with the USA regarding one China with one difference, the Beijing govt rules China, not the one in Taipei
