Hillary Clinton could still win the presidency

[Targovia]

Do you have any idea how hard running a presidential campaign is?
You don't, but neither do I. It seemslike it would be a Very stressful thing to pull off.

Not as stressful as being the First Lady, running two presidential campaigns, serving as a senator for a decade, and being secretary of state.

Perhaps, but it would be more stressful to a first-timer with little experience in the matter.

He won the campaign fair and square, using the electoral college, which is the system that allows equal representation amoung the states. Failure to recognize this means you refuse to acknowledge democracy.

[Shonburg]

I asked if you had proof that they voted illegal, not that they hypothetically could possibly maybe have done so given the right circumstances.

Clearly, none of them would be urged to vote when a candidate runs on a campaign to kick them out of the country. Just a quarter of them needed to vote to swing the election the way it did.

So do you have proof that this is what happened?

[The Emerald Legion]

> Complains about how their vote was worthless to someone who voted republican in Maryland.

I'm just as shafted by this system as you.

I find it puzzling you support a system you fully agree gives you the shaft.

I have a weird and somewhat masochistic sense of propriety. I COULD move someplace else where my vote would do more. Or I could go more out of my way to convince other people to vote with me, and thus, tip the balance in my favor. I do neither, so when I lose, I don't feel it proper to rail against the system for it.

[Ifreann]

yeah ok, they'll just stay at home

I asked if you had proof that they voted illegal, not that they hypothetically could possibly maybe have done so given the right circumstances.

Someone on Twitter said that millions of people voted illegally for Clinton. I don't see what more proof is necessary.

[San Lumen]

I asked if you had proof that they voted illegal, not that they hypothetically could possibly maybe have done so given the right circumstances.

Someone on Twitter said that millions of people voted illegally for Clinton. I don't see what more proof is necessary.

Yes because twitter is such a reliable source.

[Lost heros]

I find it puzzling you support a system you fully agree gives you the shaft.

I have a weird and somewhat masochistic sense of propriety. I COULD move someplace else where my vote would do more. Or I could go more out of my way to convince other people to vote with me, and thus, tip the balance in my favor. I do neither, so when I lose, I don't feel it proper to rail against the system for it.

You shouldn't have to jump through hoops to make sure your vote counts.

[Grand Britannia]

Clearly, none of them would be urged to vote when a candidate runs on a campaign to kick them out of the country. Just a quarter of them needed to vote to swing the election the way it did.

So do you have proof that this is what happened?

How exactly do we do that?

It's unfortunate Dems oppose the only thing that would make such a breach noticeable.

[Nilla Wayfarers]

Not as stressful as being the First Lady, running two presidential campaigns, serving as a senator for a decade, and being secretary of state.

Perhaps, but it would be more stressful to a first-timer with little experience in the matter.

He won the campaign fair and square, using the electoral college, which is the system that allows equal representation amoung the states. Failure to recognize this means you refuse to acknowledge democracy.

Well, no. The Electoral college does not allow equal representation between the states. Montana gets 3 votes while California gets dozens.
But nor does it properly represent the people. Those 3 votes in Montana are disproportionately powerful.
The Electoral college is not democracy. But there are threads for that if you'd like to look and see.

So no. He didn't win the election fairly, because the electoral college is inherently unfair.

[Nilla Wayfarers]

Someone on Twitter said that millions of people voted illegally for Clinton. I don't see what more proof is necessary.

Yes because twitter is such a reliable source.

<----------Joke






Your head.

[Galloism]

You mean Donald "Small loan of a million dollars" Trump?

To his credit, he turned a million dollars into a net worth of 4.5 billion.

No, he didn't. He also inherited over 200 million dollars.

[Aclion]

You know I still haven't really seen an explanation for why republicans are so against this recount when in theory it can only strengthen their position.

Because it's a political stunt by Jill Stein.

[Gauthier]

To his credit, he turned a million dollars into a net worth of 4.5 billion.

No, he didn't. He also inherited over 200 million dollars.

And most of his money now comes from cheating others out of theirs (i.e. stiffing contractors and employees, Trump Fundation, Trump You...)

[Galloism]

I find it puzzling you support a system you fully agree gives you the shaft.

I have a weird and somewhat masochistic sense of propriety. I COULD move someplace else where my vote would do more. Or I could go more out of my way to convince other people to vote with me, and thus, tip the balance in my favor. I do neither, so when I lose, I don't feel it proper to rail against the system for it.

Eh, I've been railing against it for years, continuously, win or lose.

[The East Marches]

Fairness is a matter of perspective friendo. It was very fair to those of who didn't live in the city. The city could dominate the representatives section, the rest of the state had the senate. It forced compromise and reason.

To be honest, two houses with different methods like that? I approve. It keeps both the minority and minority from running over each other.

However, if, in the governor's race, rural people effectively have three votes to each urban one is fucked up.

Yes but would it be in the best interest of myself, if I were thinking solely in self-interest, to give up such a power?

[Shonburg]

So do you have proof that this is what happened?

How exactly do we do that?

It's unfortunate Dems oppose the only thing that would make such a breach noticeable.

Uh, not really. When you get accidentally registered illegally and try to go and vote the person checking your registration will see you're ineligible to vote and turn you away.

[Grand Britannia]

How exactly do we do that?

It's unfortunate Dems oppose the only thing that would make such a breach noticeable.

Uh, not really. When you get accidentally registered illegally and try to go and vote the person checking your registration will see you're ineligible to vote and turn you away.

Too bad there's loopholes they don't fix.

[Targovia]

Perhaps, but it would be more stressful to a first-timer with little experience in the matter.

He won the campaign fair and square, using the electoral college, which is the system that allows equal representation amoung the states. Failure to recognize this means you refuse to acknowledge democracy.

Well, no. The Electoral college does not allow equal representation between the states. Montana gets 3 votes while California gets dozens.
But nor does it properly represent the people. Those 3 votes in Montana are disproportionately powerful.
The Electoral college is not democracy. But there are threads for that if you'd like to look and see.

So no. He didn't win the election fairly, because the electoral college is inherently unfair.

Oh, so the system which the Framers set up to mimic their dream of a denocratic society ISN'T democratic?

Pfft

HAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[Galloism]

To be honest, two houses with different methods like that? I approve. It keeps both the minority and minority from running over each other.

However, if, in the governor's race, rural people effectively have three votes to each urban one is fucked up.

Yes but would it be in the best interest of myself, if I were thinking solely in self-interest, to give up such a power?

Of course not, but then your basis is self interest instead of justice or fairness.

It's akin to being against anti-corruption laws because you're corrupt. You have no ethical authority.

[The East Marches]

Yes but would it be in the best interest of myself, if I were thinking solely in self-interest, to give up such a power?

Of course not, but then your basis is self interest instead of justice or fairness.

It's akin to being against anti-corruption laws because you're corrupt. You have no ethical authority.

Ethical authority and other things generally aren't consider by people. Human beings tend to look for their own interests. Also you have differing definitions of justice and fairness. Which is why I find the claim that something is "unjust" or "unfair" to be lacking.

[Galloism]

Of course not, but then your basis is self interest instead of justice or fairness.

It's akin to being against anti-corruption laws because you're corrupt. You have no ethical authority.

Ethical authority and other things generally aren't consider by people. Human beings tend to look for their own interests. Also you have differing definitions of justice and fairness. Which is why I find the claim that something is "unjust" or "unfair" to be lacking.

You and I and Jackie are voting on where to go to dinner. We're all coworkers and equals (hypothetically), but I get three votes and you and Jackie only get one vote each.

Fair?

[Kravanica]

To his credit, he turned a million dollars into a net worth of 4.5 billion.

No, he didn't. He also inherited over 200 million dollars.

3.7 billion, actually.

Or am I reading this number wrong?

[Kravanica]

No, he didn't. He also inherited over 200 million dollars.

And most of his money now comes from cheating others out of theirs (i.e. stiffing contractors and employees, Trump Fundation, Trump You...)

Where is the proofs.

[San Lumen]

Ethical authority and other things generally aren't consider by people. Human beings tend to look for their own interests. Also you have differing definitions of justice and fairness. Which is why I find the claim that something is "unjust" or "unfair" to be lacking.

You and I and Jackie are voting on where to go to dinner. We're all coworkers and equals (hypothetically), but I get three votes and you and Jackie only get one vote each.

Fair?

No and thats what some are saying we should do in election. Urban votes should count less than rural votes and no one has yet given a valid reason as to why thats fair.

[Galloism]

No, he didn't. He also inherited over 200 million dollars.

3.7 billion, actually.

Or am I reading this number wrong?

Well, Donald's said his net worth varies based on his personal feelings.

No, seriously.

[Grand Britannia]

No, he didn't. He also inherited over 200 million dollars.

3.7 billion, actually.

Or am I reading this number wrong?

Looks like it took a dip recently.