Trump has won

[MrDynamicMan]

On 02/12/2016 at 9:48 AM, Praesi said:

Source or it didnt happen.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/12/donald-trump-conflicts-of-interests/508382/

 

 

[MrDynamicMan]

5 hours ago, Velvet Revolver said:

Trump is a smart man, winning the presidency on a shoe string budget. Probably 5 or 10% of what Hillary spent.

About 60% if I remember correctly. 

[Velvet Revolver]

$50M vs $250M so 1/5 or 20%

[alicskysareblue]

I less concerned about trump then i am who he he putting in cabinet and the gop, they certainly represent his antiimmigrant, anti birth control and anti lgbt rhetoric during his campaign.

 

 

[NTDaws]

guess i would be less concerned if hillary won, but wouldn't she start WW3

[plsno]

8 minutes ago, Dawson Wehage said:

guess i would be less concerned if hillary won, but wouldn't she start WW3

I really wish this "clinton was going to start ww3" meme would die. Nothing she has ever said supports this claim.

[Blade of Grass]

On 2016-12-03 at 1:14 AM, Kumaresh said:

He keeps emphasizing the fact that he wants to "drain the swamp", and I will call him out if he uses their influence at any time. He has a pretty hateful relationship currently with the republican establishment and the MSM, quite doubtful that he would collude with anybody. Still, let us see what happens. I do still have some fear that he could do what you say, that would be even worse than if Clinton did it

He keeps saying he wants to, but then he goes and nominates a ton of Wall Street and FRC people... 

On 2016-12-03 at 5:18 AM, Velvet Revolver said:

$50M vs $250M so 1/5 or 20%

Where are your numbers from? Bloomberg shows that trump only spent about $1 Million less than Clinton (48.4 vs. 47.6,  $ Million), though he did raise less than half of what she raised (171.6 vs. 83.9, $ Million).

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2016-presidential-campaign-fundraising/

[Velvet Revolver]

9 minutes ago, Blade of Grass said:

He keeps saying he wants to, but then he goes and nominates a ton of Wall Street and FRC people... 

Where are your numbers from? Bloomberg shows that trump only spent about $1 Million less than Clinton (48.4 vs. 47.6,  $ Million), though he did raise less than half of what she raised (171.6 vs. 83.9, $ Million).

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2016-presidential-campaign-fundraising/

 

Your link states

Quote

The period covers Oct. 1 through Oct. 19

so in the finals days the great push was on, and more money was spent. I'd like to see the full complete numbers. But when I tried to look the periods were always random depending on when the article was written. I remember watching a CNN broadcast on how much each was spending and at that time it was a head to head race, Trump spend a fraction. Be cool to find the #'s.

[Blade of Grass]

3 hours ago, Velvet Revolver said:

 

Your link states

so in the finals days the great push was on, and more money was spent. I'd like to see the full complete numbers. But when I tried to look the periods were always random depending on when the article was written. I remember watching a CNN broadcast on how much each was spending and at that time it was a head to head race, Trump spend a fraction. Be cool to find the #'s.

My mistake, scanned the numbers too fast. I do find it weird that we haven't seen an update since, but it we extrapolate based off the spending data we currently have it looks like he's spent about half of what she spent. (if you look a bit above that number, you can see the total spend amounts, which show 897.7 vs. 429.5 ($, Million), so if we extrapolate that)

[Praesi]

11 hours ago, noobadin said:

I really wish this "clinton was going to start ww3" meme would die. Nothing she has ever said supports this claim.

Nope. But what she wrote.

[MrDynamicMan]

On 02/12/2016 at 9:48 AM, Praesi said:

<misquote 

 

On 04/12/2016 at 3:58 AM, elderago said:

I less concerned about trump then i am who he he putting in cabinet and the gop, they certainly represent his antiimmigrant, anti birth control and anti lgbt rhetoric during his campaign.

 

 

Gotta call you out, but he didn't personally have anti LGBT rhetoric. However, allot of his appointees do. 

[stconquest]

2 hours ago, Kumaresh said:

I was pretty worried too when I heard that he nominated some of his former wall street pals for major positions. Maybe he has faith in their knowledge of the economy or they share similar viewpoints ( they're friends, y'know ? ) So Trump spent approximately half of what Hillary spent, got slandered to death by the mainstream media and still got waaay more electoral college votes than her

Please link a source for this apparent slander that the main stream media perpetrated against Donald Trump.

 

..also, how do you know he is friends with anyone he plans to appoint?  You are assuming a lot.  Do you really believe you know what you are saying you know?

 

...and Clinton got more pop. votes.  That means more people wanted her to win, instead of Trump.  One could argue that the system was rigged in Trump's favor.

[Velvet Revolver]

4 minutes ago, stconquest said:

...and Clinton got more pop. votes.  That means more people wanted her to win, instead of Trump.

Its been this way since the beginning of time, and they did it for a good reason. So one highly populated area would not "trump" and swing the presidency.

[stconquest]

1 hour ago, Velvet Revolver said:

Its been this way since the beginning of time, and they did it for a good reason. So one highly populated area would not "trump" and swing the presidency.

So take the "democratic", out of the democratic elections then?  Nice.  Makes total sense now.

[Velvet Revolver]

Change it then, its been that way since George Washington.

 

http://www.diffen.com/difference/Electoral_Vote_vs_Popular_Vote

Quote

Does not allow higher populated areas (say, CA or NY) to take advantage of being able to always vote for the candidate, thereby underrepresenting the other rural areas of the nation.

 

 

Quote

	Electoral Vote	Popular Vote
Political Structure	Representative republic	Direct democracy
Progression of Vote	Citizen votes for delegate or representative, generally in accordance with their allegiances/party affiliation. Delegates convene and vote. Winner of that vote is elected for the position in question.	Citizens vote for their choice of official for the position being elected. Votes are counted. Majority of votes is elected to that position.
Bureaucracy	Requires formation of some form of committee, college, or council to vote after they've been elected. May also have government oversight organizations.	Requires no formation of such groups, nor the election of such groups. May also have government oversight organizations.
Establishment of Voting Districts	Mandatory, regional delegates run for given district's delegate locations via their party or individually.	Not required.
Gerrymandering	Present and created as a result of voting districts.	Not created due to lack of need for voting districts.
Party Benefits	Favors majority parties, as they can concentrate resources, change bureaucracy, establish and gerrymander voting districts.	Favors no party size in particular, though greatly improves potential for minority parties e.g., a third political party in the U.S.
Modern History	Does not allow higher populated areas (say, CA or NY) to take advantage of being able to always vote for the candidate, thereby underrepresenting the other rural areas of the nation.	Harder to accomplish beyond geographically-close groups prior to modern transportation and communication. These hindrances are no longer in place for developed nations.

 

[stconquest]

23 minutes ago, Velvet Revolver said:

Change it then, its been that way since George Washington.

 

http://www.diffen.com/difference/Electoral_Vote_vs_Popular_Vote

 

Fuck dude, I am just trying to nip at the Trump fanatics while they spout shit.  What is the number now, over 2 mil?  That is like the biggest loser in US history ever, winning. 

 

IDC if the vote is representative or direct... not my place to have a say.

 

Shit, there are faint rumors of a coalition of electors trying to organize to oppose Trump.  One elector even quit (religious reasons) to not vote for him.

[Quinnbeast]

1 hour ago, Velvet Revolver said:

Change it then, its been that way since George Washington.

 

http://www.diffen.com/difference/Electoral_Vote_vs_Popular_Vote

 

 

One of the worst arguments in history (and I don't mean yours specifically), is the one that basically amounts to "it's tradition". This argument guarantees only that the same mistakes and pitfalls will continue unchallenged. Your own post brings forward some positives of how the popular vote would bring about a more balanced and representative voting system, such as the potential for minority parties to grow in popularity: "greatly improves potential for minority parties e.g., a third political party in the U.S." That alone is worth it's weight in gold. The first 32 of 36 years in the US had a slave-owning white Virginian as President: it was never particularly well balanced or representative even from the outset.

 

The UK voting system has been in place since 1707 - in no way does that serve as an argument as to why it should not change. The longer it goes unchanged, the more archaic and out-of-touch it becomes with the needs of an electorate living in the 21st century. Change is good.

[Mug]

12 hours ago, Blade of Grass said:

Where are your numbers from? Bloomberg shows that trump only spent about $1 Million less than Clinton (48.4 vs. 47.6,  $ Million), though he did raise less than half of what she raised (171.6 vs. 83.9, $ Million).

I'm seeing numerous sources (including the FEC) saying it's ~$500m vs. $250m.

Link to he FEC: http://docquery.fec.gov/pres/2016/12G/

[Blade of Grass]

3 hours ago, Kumaresh said:

Off the tip of my tongue, The statements he made about illegal Mexican immigrants had been twisted by the media into "All immigrants are rapists", read the full statement, not the clipped version by the media. Also claims that the Mexico border wall is financially untenable and he is a xenophobe for suggesting the wall be built.

I mean, the border wall is going to be very expensive, far more expensive then Trump has made it out to be. I wouldn't call that slander though. 

3 hours ago, Kumaresh said:

The wall will have a FUCKING DOOR which people can use to enter as long as they have VALID DOCUMENTATION and there are also these things called flights. American taxpayers are shelling out insane amounts of money because of illegal immigrants and the amount of resources they require, either in the form of welfare and education or in courts and jails and all that money will be saved.

Except it will actually have a negative impact on the economy. (Nadadur, 2009) From the reports I looked at, they all seemed to conclude that illegal immigrants have a net positive effect on the economy, one report (The Hanson report below) concluded that the increased spending on border enforcement would be higher than any tax savings earned. 

 

Hanson, Gordon Howard. The economics and policy of illegal immigration in the United States. Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute, 2010.

Nadadur, Ramanujan. 2009. "Illegal Immigration: A Positive Economic Contribution to the United States." Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 35 (6): 1037-1052. doi:10.1080/13691830902957775.

3 hours ago, Kumaresh said:

There are many more examples of such slander,

None of these have been slander so far https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/libel

 

20 minutes ago, Mug said:

I'm seeing numerous sources (including the FEC) saying it's ~$500m vs. $250m.

Link to he FEC: http://docquery.fec.gov/pres/2016/12G/

Huh, not sure where Bloomberg got their amounts from.... interesting that the totals reported by all are roughly at the same ratio as the FEC report though. 

[stconquest]

20 minutes ago, Kumaresh said:

@Blade of Grass However I may disagree with you, I find it quite enjoyable to converse with you. You always quote studies, never take my words out of context or try to attack me, truly what I would expect from a mod And the fact that you are willing to discuss without a pre conceived notion that anything I say is gonna be false and attack me is quite heartening, take a cue @stconquest. I guess the definition of slander depends on what you consider to be the "truth", a shockingly controversial thing nowadays And the impact of illegal immigrants seems to be quite a hot topic nowadays with studies backing both sides, but how to decide which studies are objectively better ? 

Donald Trump would have to prove in court that his reputation was damaged.  Fuck his reputation, it is utterly shit anyways.  He can't win that case.  Being the bigot Trump is could indicate very real xenophobic tendency.

 

What kind of good reputation do you think Trump has?  He is like a raging teenager; kind of like you act here by calling me "shit for brains". 

 

You post a bunch of garbage and when called out on it, start name calling.  Then you try playing the victim by saying I attack you by asking for a source to validate your argument. 

 

...waiting for that link. 

 

...what a waste of time.

[Guest Kloaked]

@Blade of Grass why haven't you locked this thread yet, or at least removed the trolling comments? Seems to be nothing here but shit talking Trump based on anecdotes and veiled personal attacks.

[stconquest]

....still no sources from AC dude.

[stconquest]

Nope.

 

On 12/3/2016 at 1:14 AM, Kumaresh said:

He keeps emphasizing the fact that he wants to "drain the swamp", and I will call him out if he uses their influence at any time. He has a pretty hateful relationship currently with the republican establishment and the MSM, quite doubtful that he would collude with anybody. Still, let us see what happens. I do still have some fear that he could do what you say, that would be even worse than if Clinton did it

 

 

9 hours ago, Kumaresh said:

I was pretty worried too when I heard that he nominated some of his former wall street pals for major positions. Maybe he has faith in their knowledge of the economy or they share similar viewpoints ( they're friends, y'know ? ) So Trump spent approximately half of what Hillary spent, got slandered to death by the mainstream media and still got waaay more electoral college votes than her

 

7 hours ago, stconquest said:

Please link a source for this apparent slander that the main stream media perpetrated against Donald Trump.

 

..also, how do you know he is friends with anyone he plans to appoint?  You are assuming a lot.  Do you really believe you know what you are saying you know?

 

...and Clinton got more pop. votes.  That means more people wanted her to win, instead of Trump.  One could argue that the system was rigged in Trump's favor.

 

6 hours ago, Kumaresh said:

Off the tip of my tongue, The statements he made about illegal Mexican immigrants had been twisted by the media into "All immigrants are rapists", read the full statement, not the clipped version by the media. Also claims that the Mexico border wall is financially untenable and he is a xenophobe for suggesting the wall be built. The wall will have a FUCKING DOOR which people can use to enter as long as they have VALID DOCUMENTATION and there are also these things called flights. American taxpayers are shelling out insane amounts of money because of illegal immigrants and the amount of resources they require, either in the form of welfare and education or in courts and jails and all that money will be saved. There are many more examples of such slander, I will post them later. Some of Trumps appointees are either people who have supported him during his campaign or were friends with him, look it up carefully Mr. Know it all, do you have shit for brains ? Or are you too scared to look up evidence that doesn't support your ideas and I have to post names ? You don't seem to be so fond of the electoral college, but know that it exists for a very good reason envisioned by the founding fathers. There is no evidence so far about any vote fraud, however many of the states which Clinton won require no proof for voting in the election and there are many "sanctuary cities" which allow illegal aliens to stay, making it very plausible that they voted, and they almost definitely voted for Clinton ( news that they would be deported if Trump won has been extremely common in the media ), so I would be extremely sceptical that Clinton won the popular vote among proper American citizens. You seem to have a pretty nasty and condescending personality towards those whom you disagree with and that's gonna piss a lot of people off

 

6 hours ago, Kumaresh said:

You're gonna have to find all the links yourself If you want me to find them all, it's gonna take me a while. Will post all links in a few hours.....

 

5 hours ago, Kumaresh said:

I am on my phone, I can't be bothered to manage all the tabs and paste all the links using my phone. I need a desktop with a proper keyboard and mouse. I also have to get back to studying right now. So cya in a few hours

 

3 hours ago, Kumaresh said:

I was gonna post it right about now, but it seems you have already prejudged anything that doesn't come from the partisan bought out corporate media as complete bullshit, so I'm not gonna bother ...... I think you assume everything that the media has said about him is completely true and hence not slander I was gonna post the definitions of all the "ists" and "isms" Trump has been accused of being during his campaign and show how those accusations of him are bullshit, but you don't seem to be so fond of such types of arguments, probably gonna chicken out and not gonna give a flying fig cuz the facts don't support you.....

 

41 minutes ago, Kumaresh said:

Calling somebody a racist and a xenophobe when they aren't is not slander ? The net cost of illegal immigrants to USA is 100 billion $ ( They cost 113 billion $ and they pay 13 billion $ in taxes ) and the potential cost of a Mexico wall is 15-25 billion $ as per CNBC and 10-12 billion $ according to Trump , quite a profit to be gained by stopping illegal immigration no ?. My source is the Wikipedia article " Economic impact of illegal immigration in the United States " and the CNBC. Stating that Donald Trump is a Xenophobe for wanting to build the wall is an absolutely false statement and it is damaging to his reputation, how is it not slander ? Are you reading the same statement I wrote or something else ?!?! And all these sources are from 2011, the current impact will be even more, the percentage or criminals among illegal immigrants is higher than among American citizens ( They are around 3.5 percent of the population, yet commit 13.6 percent of the crime as per Fox news ), immigration violations form 52% of all federal cases now ( not all crossing borders, some are cases like overstaying their visa, etc ), even putting illegal immigrants in jail costs tax payer money, and they take away jobs legitimate American citizens could be getting.

 

34 minutes ago, Kumaresh said:

@Blade of Grass However I may disagree with you, I find it quite enjoyable to converse with you. You always quote studies, never take my words out of context or try to attack me, truly what I would expect from a mod And the fact that you are willing to discuss without a pre conceived notion that anything I say is gonna be false and attack me is quite heartening, take a cue @stconquest. I guess the definition of slander depends on what you consider to be the "truth", a shockingly controversial thing nowadays And the impact of illegal immigrants seems to be quite a hot topic nowadays with studies backing both sides, but how to decide which studies are objectively better ? 

 

19 minutes ago, Kumaresh said:

I never understood the acceptance of illegal immigration in America. Listen to this statement and tell me whether it is reasonable or not. " A person owns a large house and he allows people to stay in his house as long as they follow certain conditions and he punishes them if they don't. But some people sneak into his house and don't follow his rules, and some of the proper tenants in his house actually support them and he doesn't like this. So he decides to build a wall around his house so that nobody can sneak in and they have to be vetted by him before they can enter his house. This proves that he hates everybody outside his house. " Does this sound reasonable to you ? It sounds like absolute bullshit to me. Substitute he with a government led by Donald Trump and wall with a Mexico border wall. And all of a sudden it is reasonable ?!?! And stating this bullshit statement has damaged his reputation, making people believe he hates everybody outside America. I am really considering posting  the proper dictionary definitions of all the biases the media throws around shamelessly, but I prefer not to have a useless confrontational conversation with @stconquest, seeing as he has absolutely disregarded everything I have said since the first time I have met him and debunked the gender pay gap, which he still continues to believe.

 

8 minutes ago, Kumaresh said:

You happen to have an exceptional talent of completely disregarding my argument when replying to me

 

5 minutes ago, Kumaresh said:

Nah, I think this thread is going okay

 

2 minutes ago, Kumaresh said:

I posted quite a few sources in my reply to @Blade of Grass, it would do you well to look into them and into my full reply to him. An ideal example of how to have a proper and civil conversation. I intended to post this as a response to your comments originally, but then I became acutely aware that you weren't gonna consider my argument

[Blade of Grass]

2 hours ago, Kloaked said:

@Blade of Grass why haven't you locked this thread yet, or at least removed the trolling comments? Seems to be nothing here but shit talking Trump based on anecdotes and veiled personal attacks.

I try to recuse myself from moderating posts in threads of which I'm active in. If you see content you think violates the forum's community standards, please report them. 

[NTDaws]

3 hours ago, Kumaresh said:

I would respectfully disagree. There are many reasons besides "It's tradition" to continue the electoral college. Some of these reasons are quite complicated, and one of the main arguments I have seen is that the electors make a decision on the qualifications of the candidate for the job and pass a moral judgement on him. This election is going to be quite a controversial one and the electors of the states which permit "faithless electors" might just swing to Hillary Clinton

 

1 hour ago, Blade of Grass said:

I try to recuse myself from moderating posts in threads of which I'm active in. If you see content you think violates the forum's community standards, please report them. 

This thread doesn't abuse the Community Guidelines, yes if something is inappropriate in the thread or comment in the thread should be removed. But therefore this topic should not be locked.