That study proves that a number significantly greater than 0% of illegals voted.
...
What I would call whining is the people who hate that Hillary lost the EC vote are still complaining about the popular vote. THAT sounds more like whining to me.
I'm not secretly hoping for a mandate, but I strongly believe that widespread voting fraud will be uncovered. The end goal should be honesty, not mandate.
I would dispute the part in bold, personally.
When the lower range of the number is 0.2% that isn't tipping anything, and by your own admission 1/3 of the illegal votes may well have been in support of Trump (so claiming that anywhere close to 4MM will get stripped from Hillary is ridiculous)
I think most of the complaints about hillary losing due to EC vs popular vote have quieted down.
It was definitely a level of whining when it occured, though, just like it was with Bush v Gore.
But it is not an inaccurate statement to say that Trump did not get the majority of the popular vote.
And for him to continue to the beat the drum that he supposedly won the popular vote just comes off as kind of pathetic.
That study proves that a number significantly greater than 0% of illegals voted.
...
What I would call whining is the people who hate that Hillary lost the EC vote are still complaining about the popular vote. THAT sounds more like whining to me.
I'm not secretly hoping for a mandate, but I strongly believe that widespread voting fraud will be uncovered. The end goal should be honesty, not mandate.
I would dispute the part in bold, personally.
When the lower range of the number is 0.2% that isn't tipping anything, and by your own admission 1/3 of the illegal votes may well have been in support of Trump (so claiming that anywhere close to 4MM will get stripped from Hillary is ridiculous)
I think most of the complaints about hillary losing due to EC vs popular vote have quieted down.
It was definitely a level of whining when it occured, though, just like it was with Bush v Gore.
But it is not an inaccurate statement to say that Trump did not get the majority of the popular vote.
And for him to continue to the beat the drum that he supposedly won the popular vote just comes off as kind of pathetic.
Unless he's right. But yeah, if he's wrong, it'll look pretty bad.
edit -> The study 'guesses' about 2.8 million illegal votes in estimate. I trust their math better than anything I could pull together, considering it's a study. I'm really just waiting for the results of the investigation rather than rely on conjecture. For instance I'm not going to speculate that Trump is dead wrong on this. But my gut estimate of 4 million still stands. I believe once all is laid bare, the final numbers will be shocking. Of course, right now shocking numbers are considered 'absurd'. Meanwhile, I'm sure evidence is being destroyed.
edit -> The study 'guesses' about 2.8 million illegal votes in estimate. I trust their math better than anything I could pull together, considering it's a study. I'm really just waiting for the results of the investigation rather than rely on conjecture. Until then, I'm not going to speculate that Trump is dead wrong on this. But my gut estimate of 4 million still stands. I believe once all is laid bare, the final numbers will be shocking. Of course, right now shocking numbers are considered 'absurd'. Meanwhile, I'm sure evidence is being destroyed.
Not quite.
That is the HIGHEST END of their range (just like the low end of 0.2% or 38,000 votes was the lowest end of the range)
You don't pick the highest end and claim that was the "likely" conclusion.
There is a statistically appropriate to use average in there somewhere (which may not be the arithmetic mean of the two numbers, depending on their methodology).
edit -> The study 'guesses' about 2.8 million illegal votes in estimate. I trust their math better than anything I could pull together, considering it's a study. I'm really just waiting for the results of the investigation rather than rely on conjecture. Until then, I'm not going to speculate that Trump is dead wrong on this. But my gut estimate of 4 million still stands. I believe once all is laid bare, the final numbers will be shocking. Of course, right now shocking numbers are considered 'absurd'. Meanwhile, I'm sure evidence is being destroyed.
Not quite.
That is the HIGHEST END of their range (just like the low end of 0.2% or 38,000 votes was the lowest end of the range)
You don't pick the highest end and claim that was the "likely" conclusion.
There is a statistically appropriate to use average in there somewhere (which may not be the arithmetic mean of the two numbers, depending on their methodology).
Yes, you're right. That was the highest end of the range. I apologize. I should have looked at the study again rather than pull the number from memory. Did not mean to mislead anyone with that statistic.
edit -> The study 'guesses' about 2.8 million illegal votes in estimate. I trust their math better than anything I could pull together, considering it's a study.
Studies can be wrong, and that one has been challenged.
"The problem is that the Cooperative Congressional Election Study database used by the authors, while large, is known to be riddled with errors. It's a poll conducted by the private firm YouGov (not Congress) of Internet respondents. Critics say it's weak in determining citizenship, and in eliciting accurate responses from supposed noncitizens about their voter registration and voting habits. (Many respondents say they're registered U.S. voters but aren't.)"
It's not definitive, of course, but until you see several studies confirming it (peer review), it's still conjecture.
And look at the desperate efforts to undermine the electoral college - arguing (falsely) that HRC won the majority of the popular vote, the electoral college being invalid since it was based on pro-slavery concerns (it wasn't),
I think any argument trying to undermine the election via stating the electoral college is invalid is absurd.
It is the system we have. And the stability of our rule of law is import enough that our system should be honored, unless it is changed through the proper channels.
The results of the election could, completely reasonably, encourage a revisitation of our system.
(i.e. how most of the states have a "first past the post" system on electoral votes, which I'm sure I'm not alone in finding to be an inappropriate representation of the will of the people)
Not saying you were in favor of the pathetic disavow the electoral college crowd - just that it exists and had/has a negative influence (IMHO) on the already shaky political climate in the country.
I think a more effective remedy to the problem would be to lose the barriers to a real third (and more) party arising - rather than the occasional dubious clones of the Democrats or Republicans. Part of the dilemna we are in with our rampant political vitriol is that there are only two "sides" (for lack of a better term) - the assumption being that if our side is right the other is wrong - when in reality they are more often both wrong. No surprise that this has led to the rather nasty polarization we are in.
And look at the desperate efforts to undermine the electoral college - arguing (falsely) that HRC won the majority of the popular vote, the electoral college being invalid since it was based on pro-slavery concerns (it wasn't),
I think any argument trying to undermine the election via stating the electoral college is invalid is absurd.
It is the system we have. And the stability of our rule of law is import enough that our system should be honored, unless it is changed through the proper channels.
The results of the election could, completely reasonably, encourage a revisitation of our system.
(i.e. how most of the states have a "first past the post" system on electoral votes, which I'm sure I'm not alone in finding to be an inappropriate representation of the will of the people)
Not saying you were in favor of the pathetic disavow the electoral college crowd - just that it exists and had/has a negative influence (IMHO) on the already shaky political climate in the country.
I think a more effective remedy to the problem would be to lose the barriers to a real third (and more) party arising - rather than the occasional dubious clones of the Democrats or Republicans. Part of the dilemna we are in with our rampant political vitriol is that there are only two "sides" (for lack of a better term) - the assumption being that if our side is right the other is wrong - when in reality they are more often both wrong. No surprise that this has led to the rather nasty polarization we are in.
Would you dispute that those barriers exist mostly in the form of a "first past the post" electoral system on the part of most states?
I am not stating that the study is made of pure facts, and I realize the results of estimates are conjecture. However to state that zero illegals voted in the 2008 US election like Harvard tried to do is absurd. Stating that there is no evidence that voter fraud exists is equally absurd. People lost their jobs over the Jill Stein recount alone and there is video evidence that voter fraud is happening. I am using conjecture by saying it's widespread, but I also stated I'm waiting for the results of the current investigation. I'd love to be wrong and see that the US voting is honest.
Not saying you were in favor of the pathetic disavow the electoral college crowd - just that it exists and had/has a negative influence (IMHO) on the already shaky political climate in the country.
Honestly, I'd have no real issue with the electoral college if the election and census cycles were more aligned.
Right now, we do a census every ten years, but elections every four. When elections fall on a year that is far removed from a census (2008, 2016), I don't think the college is as reflective of the population as it should be.
And look at the desperate efforts to undermine the electoral college - arguing (falsely) that HRC won the majority of the popular vote, the electoral college being invalid since it was based on pro-slavery concerns (it wasn't),
I think any argument trying to undermine the election via stating the electoral college is invalid is absurd.
It is the system we have. And the stability of our rule of law is import enough that our system should be honored, unless it is changed through the proper channels.
The results of the election could, completely reasonably, encourage a revisitation of our system.
(i.e. how most of the states have a "first past the post" system on electoral votes, which I'm sure I'm not alone in finding to be an inappropriate representation of the will of the people)
Not saying you were in favor of the pathetic disavow the electoral college crowd - just that it exists and had/has a negative influence (IMHO) on the already shaky political climate in the country.
I think a more effective remedy to the problem would be to lose the barriers to a real third (and more) party arising - rather than the occasional dubious clones of the Democrats or Republicans. Part of the dilemna we are in with our rampant political vitriol is that there are only two "sides" (for lack of a better term) - the assumption being that if our side is right the other is wrong - when in reality they are more often both wrong. No surprise that this has led to the rather nasty polarization we are in.
Would you dispute that those barriers exist mostly in the form of a "first past the post" electoral system on the part of most states?
I think the barriers are more in state (and local) laws that make it difficult to not only start but grow a party - especially in more than one state. You have weird anomalies - in 2010 the Republicans put up what was one of the worst candidates for governor (this guy wasn't even suitable for dog catcher) I have ever seen - as a response Tancredo ran under the Constitution party and single handedly damn near relegated the Republicans to minor party status in Colorado. While briefly technically a major party in Colorado, the Constitution party soon faded back to relative obscurity. I suspect if there were more real parties we would see more regional parties (such as the old Farmer-Labor party) that would arise at the expense of the two major ones.
Not saying you were in favor of the pathetic disavow the electoral college crowd - just that it exists and had/has a negative influence (IMHO) on the already shaky political climate in the country.
Honestly, I'd have no real issue with the electoral college if the election and census cycles were more aligned.
Right now, we do a census every ten years, but elections every four. When elections fall on a year that is far removed from a census (2008, 2016), I don't think the college is as reflective of the population as it should be.
If the EC was reflective of the population, the candidates would only need to campaign to the interests of the East and West Coast, Texas, Florida, and Illinois. Everyone else would get the shaft. Candidates wouldn't even bother visiting other states. That's the purpose of the EC.
I'm sure you've seen the 'explain it like I'm five' example - Someone is campaigning for school presdent. There are 4 teachers in room A, 1 teacher in room B, and 1 teacher in room C. Why would the school president ever bother to give speeches in rooms B and C when he or she can just pander to A's every need and win the vote every time?
EO apparently coming out this week regarding LGBT that is going to:
* Allow federal employees to refuse to serve LGBT people based on the belief that marriage is between a man and a woman or that gender is an immutable characteristic from birth, impacting a broad range of federal benefits.
* Allow taxpayer funds to be used to discriminate against LGBT people in social services.
* Allow adoption agencies that receive federal funding to discriminate against LGBT parents.
* Make sexual orientation and gender identity fireable offenses for federal employees and federal contractors by eliminating non-discrimination protections.
What the hell dude? Surely this isn't real. The supreme court has already ruled in favor of non-discrimination. I'm not sure how this could possibly be constitutional. POTUS is not "above" the law. Last I checked, this was a democracy, not a dictatorship.
Not saying you were in favor of the pathetic disavow the electoral college crowd - just that it exists and had/has a negative influence (IMHO) on the already shaky political climate in the country.
Honestly, I'd have no real issue with the electoral college if the election and census cycles were more aligned.
Right now, we do a census every ten years, but elections every four. When elections fall on a year that is far removed from a census (2008, 2016), I don't think the college is as reflective of the population as it should be.
If the EC was reflective of the population, the candidates would only need to campaign to the interests of the East and West Coast, Texas, Florida, and Illinois. Everyone else would get the shaft. Candidates wouldn't even bother visiting other states. That's the purpose of the EC.
I'm sure you've seen the 'explain it like I'm five' example - Someone is campaigning for school presdent. There are 4 teachers in room A, 1 teacher in room B, and 1 teacher in room C. Why would the school president ever bother to give speeches in rooms B and C when he or she can just pander to A's every need and win the vote every time?
That isn't what Tulpa is referring to with "reflective of the population"...
He is saying that the EC distribution is updated out of synch to where certain elections may be more distorted than others with regard to how closely they align with how the EC is SUPPOSED TO BE distributed.
That has nothing to do with fully distributing it per capita.
EO apparently coming out this week regarding LGBT that is going to:
* Allow federal employees to refuse to serve LGBT people based on the belief that marriage is between a man and a woman or that gender is an immutable characteristic from birth, impacting a broad range of federal benefits.
* Allow taxpayer funds to be used to discriminate against LGBT people in social services.
* Allow adoption agencies that receive federal funding to discriminate against LGBT parents.
* Make sexual orientation and gender identity fireable offenses for federal employees and federal contractors by eliminating non-discrimination protections.
What the hell dude? Surely this isn't real. The supreme court has already ruled in favor of non-discrimination. I'm not sure how this could possibly be constitutional. POTUS is not "above" the law. Last I checked, this was a democracy, not a dictatorship.
Where have you been the last 8 years?
On top of that. We arent a democracy. We are a republic
And look at the desperate efforts to undermine the electoral college - arguing (falsely) that HRC won the majority of the popular vote, the electoral college being invalid since it was based on pro-slavery concerns (it wasn't),
I think any argument trying to undermine the election via stating the electoral college is invalid is absurd.
It is the system we have. And the stability of our rule of law is import enough that our system should be honored, unless it is changed through the proper channels.
The results of the election could, completely reasonably, encourage a revisitation of our system.
(i.e. how most of the states have a "first past the post" system on electoral votes, which I'm sure I'm not alone in finding to be an inappropriate representation of the will of the people)
Not saying you were in favor of the pathetic disavow the electoral college crowd - just that it exists and had/has a negative influence (IMHO) on the already shaky political climate in the country.
I think a more effective remedy to the problem would be to lose the barriers to a real third (and more) party arising - rather than the occasional dubious clones of the Democrats or Republicans. Part of the dilemna we are in with our rampant political vitriol is that there are only two "sides" (for lack of a better term) - the assumption being that if our side is right the other is wrong - when in reality they are more often both wrong. No surprise that this has led to the rather nasty polarization we are in.
The real solution is the elimination of parties entirely. Obviously not practical or possible, and the partisan divide and lack of compromise is only getting worse so we're super fucked in any regard. The next best thing is a viable third party from the middle, which ain't gonna happen anytime soon
EO apparently coming out this week regarding LGBT that is going to:
* Allow federal employees to refuse to serve LGBT people based on the belief that marriage is between a man and a woman or that gender is an immutable characteristic from birth, impacting a broad range of federal benefits.
* Allow taxpayer funds to be used to discriminate against LGBT people in social services.
* Allow adoption agencies that receive federal funding to discriminate against LGBT parents.
* Make sexual orientation and gender identity fireable offenses for federal employees and federal contractors by eliminating non-discrimination protections.
What the hell dude? Surely this isn't real. The supreme court has already ruled in favor of non-discrimination. I'm not sure how this could possibly be constitutional. POTUS is not "above" the law. Last I checked, this was a democracy, not a dictatorship.
Where have you been the last 8 years?
On top of that. We arent a democracy. We are a republic
The biggest problem we currently have is a media... (The same media that covered for Obama for 8 years is out to destroy Trump...wonder why).
And look at the desperate efforts to undermine the electoral college - arguing (falsely) that HRC won the majority of the popular vote, the electoral college being invalid since it was based on pro-slavery concerns (it wasn't),
I think any argument trying to undermine the election via stating the electoral college is invalid is absurd.
It is the system we have. And the stability of our rule of law is import enough that our system should be honored, unless it is changed through the proper channels.
The results of the election could, completely reasonably, encourage a revisitation of our system.
(i.e. how most of the states have a "first past the post" system on electoral votes, which I'm sure I'm not alone in finding to be an inappropriate representation of the will of the people)
Not saying you were in favor of the pathetic disavow the electoral college crowd - just that it exists and had/has a negative influence (IMHO) on the already shaky political climate in the country.
I think a more effective remedy to the problem would be to lose the barriers to a real third (and more) party arising - rather than the occasional dubious clones of the Democrats or Republicans. Part of the dilemna we are in with our rampant political vitriol is that there are only two "sides" (for lack of a better term) - the assumption being that if our side is right the other is wrong - when in reality they are more often both wrong. No surprise that this has led to the rather nasty polarization we are in.
The real solution is the elimination of parties entirely. Obviously not practical or possible, and the partisan divide and lack of compromise is only getting worse so we're super fucked in any regard. The next best thing is a viable third party from the middle, which ain't gonna happen anytime soon
The problem with 3rd parties is they really only show up once every four years for the general.
Not saying you were in favor of the pathetic disavow the electoral college crowd - just that it exists and had/has a negative influence (IMHO) on the already shaky political climate in the country.
Honestly, I'd have no real issue with the electoral college if the election and census cycles were more aligned.
Right now, we do a census every ten years, but elections every four. When elections fall on a year that is far removed from a census (2008, 2016), I don't think the college is as reflective of the population as it should be.
If the EC was reflective of the population, the candidates would only need to campaign to the interests of the East and West Coast, Texas, Florida, and Illinois. Everyone else would get the shaft. Candidates wouldn't even bother visiting other states. That's the purpose of the EC.
I'm sure you've seen the 'explain it like I'm five' example - Someone is campaigning for school presdent. There are 4 teachers in room A, 1 teacher in room B, and 1 teacher in room C. Why would the school president ever bother to give speeches in rooms B and C when he or she can just pander to A's every need and win the vote every time?
That isn't what Tulpa is referring to with "reflective of the population"...
He is saying that the EC distribution is updated out of synch to where certain elections may be more distorted than others with regard to how closely they align with how the EC is SUPPOSED TO BE distributed.
That has nothing to do with fully distributing it per capita.
Yep, sorry Tulpa. I take it back. You want it to be more in sync with the census. I totally misread that.
It's scary some people in this very thread think the United States is a Democracy.
We are indeed a Republic, but we have arguably slipped into a Constitutional Democracy. Republics are about freedoms, about people having the power, not their elected officials. Democracies are about denying wants to the minority vote, removing rights, and sowing division through techniques such as identity politics and 'organizing' communities (ie: the projects) under the guise of humanity. A Democratic Republic is what the globalists want us to become, so we can be just like such lovely countries as the Democratic Republic of the Congo (used to be the Republic of Zaire), the Democratic Republic of Georgia, of Yemen, of Afghanistan, of Algeria, of Vietnam, of Korea, of Ethiopia, etc.
Constitutional Convention of 1787:
“Well, Doctor, what have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?”
Ben Franklin replied, “A Republic, if you can keep it.”
How does it begin? The institutions start floating the word 'democracy' more and more in the heads of schoolchildren and in the news, to make everyone believe a country is a Democracy and not a Republic. "That's not Democracy and that's not what this country stands for!" All word manipulation. Once you've slipped into a 'democratic republic' state, there are still votes, sure, but they are willfully manipulated by the power structure who operate on their own self-interests, and the people have no say. The middle class no longer exists. Violence and fear spreads. Not pretty.
If the EC was reflective of the population, the candidates would only need to campaign to the interests of the East and West Coast, Texas, Florida, and Illinois. Everyone else would get the shaft. Candidates wouldn't even bother visiting other states. That's the purpose of the EC.
I'm sure you've seen the 'explain it like I'm five' example - Someone is campaigning for school presdent. There are 4 teachers in room A, 1 teacher in room B, and 1 teacher in room C. Why would the school president ever bother to give speeches in rooms B and C when he or she can just pander to A's every need and win the vote every time?
I'm not disputing that, but I'm saying since we had a census in 2010, and an election in 2016, that's too far removed to properly reflect the current population. Some of those states may have lost population (we're moving more coastal), and so they might have more electors than their population would warrant, by the rules of the college currently.
edit -> The study 'guesses' about 2.8 million illegal votes in estimate. I trust their math better than anything I could pull together, considering it's a study. I'm really just waiting for the results of the investigation rather than rely on conjecture. For instance I'm not going to speculate that Trump is dead wrong on this. But my gut estimate of 4 million still stands. I believe once all is laid bare, the final numbers will be shocking. Of course, right now shocking numbers are considered 'absurd'. Meanwhile, I'm sure evidence is being destroyed.
[Officials discover 4 million people voted illegally] Cirellio: I knew my gut feeling was right!
[Officials discover 4 million people did not vote illegally] Cirellio: All the evidence was destroyed by George Soros/Globalists/The Boogeyman. I knew my gut feeling was right!
edit -> The study 'guesses' about 2.8 million illegal votes in estimate. I trust their math better than anything I could pull together, considering it's a study. I'm really just waiting for the results of the investigation rather than rely on conjecture. For instance I'm not going to speculate that Trump is dead wrong on this. But my gut estimate of 4 million still stands. I believe once all is laid bare, the final numbers will be shocking. Of course, right now shocking numbers are considered 'absurd'. Meanwhile, I'm sure evidence is being destroyed.
[Officials discover 4 million people voted illegally] Cirellio: I knew my gut feeling was right!
[Officials discover 4 million people did not vote illegally] Cirellio: All the evidence was destroyed by George Soros/Globalists/The Boogeyman. I knew my gut feeling was right!
Nah, I promise not to do that.
edit - I don't want to be right, I just want what's best for our country. I think all of us here do.
More lies coming from the news saying Trump was Anti-LGBT.
Remember this scene when he was campaigning?
I don't think even Obama ever did anything like that when he was running in 2008! Sure he later got on board with the gay marriage thing and did that light up the White House in rainbow lights sort of deal, but just like with LBJ and the Civil Rights act of 1964, they only got on board once they saw it was politically fashionable to do so. In the case of the latter, the 1957 Civil Rights Act (which was the first major federal civil rights legistlation since Reconstruction) started out pretty much the same as the later 1964 one, but the Senate Majority Leader at the time was afraid it'd be too divisive for his Democratic party so the bill got severaly watered down (Ike had no choice but to sign it into law because he knew for the moment that was the best that could be done). Now, go ahead and google/wiki and find out who that Senate Majority Leader was
If someone had told you not too long ago either Trump would be President or a Republican on the RNC stage would make a pro-LGBT platform, I don't know under which circumstance they'd have thought you were the most crazy...
edit -> The study 'guesses' about 2.8 million illegal votes in estimate. I trust their math better than anything I could pull together, considering it's a study. I'm really just waiting for the results of the investigation rather than rely on conjecture. For instance I'm not going to speculate that Trump is dead wrong on this. But my gut estimate of 4 million still stands. I believe once all is laid bare, the final numbers will be shocking. Of course, right now shocking numbers are considered 'absurd'. Meanwhile, I'm sure evidence is being destroyed.
[Officials discover 4 million people voted illegally] Cirellio: I knew my gut feeling was right!
[Officials discover 4 million people did not vote illegally] Cirellio: All the evidence was destroyed by George Soros/Globalists/The Boogeyman. I knew my gut feeling was right!
I was actually going to propose a wager, where the loser pays out to the charity of the winner's choice.
I'd take the side that the ultimate number of proven illegal votes is closer to zero than it is to 4 million.
Cirellio could have the side that the number is closer to 4 million than it is to zero.
edit -> The study 'guesses' about 2.8 million illegal votes in estimate. I trust their math better than anything I could pull together, considering it's a study. I'm really just waiting for the results of the investigation rather than rely on conjecture. For instance I'm not going to speculate that Trump is dead wrong on this. But my gut estimate of 4 million still stands. I believe once all is laid bare, the final numbers will be shocking. Of course, right now shocking numbers are considered 'absurd'. Meanwhile, I'm sure evidence is being destroyed.
[Officials discover 4 million people voted illegally] Cirellio: I knew my gut feeling was right!
[Officials discover 4 million people did not vote illegally] Cirellio: All the evidence was destroyed by George Soros/Globalists/The Boogeyman. I knew my gut feeling was right!
I was actually going to propose a wager, where the loser pays out to the charity of the winner's choice.
I'd take the side that the ultimate number of proven illegal votes is closer to zero than it is to 4 million.
Cirellio could have the side that the number is closer to 4 million than it is to zero.
Hahaha. Well, I'd take that wager as I feel very strongly about this. However it's not about being right, it's about wanting what's best for the country - and I think fair and legal elections definitely fall under that category. Also I fear what charity we'd each choose lol
TBH I'd be more interested in donating to charities that provide video games to children's hospitals and such rather than direct political causes.
You act like crazy people and criminals would give a damn about the rules
you are trying to make rules that dont really help anything and fix problems that dont exist.
whens the last time criminals gave a damn about a law? Are they not going to drive to commit a crime now because they have a suspended license? Are they going to not shoot someone because oh shucks i dont have a gun license. Please.
They will get the gun they need on black market or steal it from a family member etc. Hell most crazies will pass a background check to get a gun anyway. People being irresonsible and dumb with guns isnt really an issue that needs to be addressed
They act like making a law will fix what amounts to a deficiency in character. That's the whole problem with the "nanny state" mentality-- it assumes that everyone is going to act like children from the get-go. Thus we end up with a nation of overcertified and codependent idiots.
The issue is for all the people that don't lock up their guns and their kid shoots themselves with it. Or don't lock up their guns and someone steals them and does something horrible with them. The people at the range who can't understand the simple rule of when the buzzer goes off you put the gun down and don't touch it and step behind the yellow line. For the people who take pictures with unloaded guns but point them at the camera to make a good picture. The people who use their guns while under the influence of alcohol. The people who put a .44 magnum in the hands of a 90 lb woman who has never shot before because they think it is badass, sexy, or cool and she blows her head or loses an eye because of the recoil. The list is endless of peoples stupidity that i have personally witnessed and have read about.
The founding fathers never said that it was Government's role to interfere with natural selection. I don't have children and I don't drink alcohol, so why should my liberties be suppressed on the grounds which you have listed?
The issue is for all the people that don't lock up their guns and their kid shoots themselves with it. Or don't lock up their guns and someone steals them and does something horrible with them. The people at the range who can't understand the simple rule of when the buzzer goes off you put the gun down and don't touch it and step behind the yellow line. For the people who take pictures with unloaded guns but point them at the camera to make a good picture. The people who use their guns while under the influence of alcohol. The people who put a .44 magnum in the hands of a 90 lb woman who has never shot before because they think it is badass, sexy, or cool and she blows her head or loses an eye because of the recoil. The list is endless of peoples stupidity that i have personally witnessed and have read about.
The founding fathers never said that it was Government's role to interfere with natural selection. I don't have children and I don't drink alcohol, so why should my liberties be suppressed on the grounds which you have listed?
The founding fathers also thought slavery was just A ok. There are many things the founding fathers got wrong which is why i laugh when people bring them up. Are you really that stuck in the past that you think ideas from hundreds of years ago might not possibly be applicable in this day and age? Not saying they got everything wrong, but isn't it reasonable to think they may have been wrong in some areas? Keep in mind handguns that hold 10 rounds also didn't exist, and rifles had nowhere near the capacity of rounds as today as well. Times change, and you have to evolve with them.
Just because you don't drink alcohol or have kids doesn't mean you are not an idiot and could endanger someone else because of your stupidity. And it also doesn't mean there not others out there that do stupid things like this. (I don't mean YOU obviously, just in general)
How are your liberties being suppressed, can you give me an example? No one is saying to take away guns, where are you getting this idea? But taking a simple test and maybe a quick gun safety course, like a drivers test and driving school, is not unreasonable unless you are concerned you don't know nearly as much about guns and gun safety as you claim. This is by no means infringing on your liberties.
There is no reasoning with people you, so i am going to agree to disagree. And if you want to discuss further, make your own thread because this is just derailing the current discussion.
Comments
I don't think he's whining, personally.
That study proves that a number significantly greater than 0% of illegals voted.
...
What I would call whining is the people who hate that Hillary lost the EC vote are still complaining about the popular vote. THAT sounds more like whining to me.
I'm not secretly hoping for a mandate, but I strongly believe that widespread voting fraud will be uncovered. The end goal should be honesty, not mandate.
I would dispute the part in bold, personally.
When the lower range of the number is 0.2% that isn't tipping anything, and by your own admission 1/3 of the illegal votes may well have been in support of Trump (so claiming that anywhere close to 4MM will get stripped from Hillary is ridiculous)
I think most of the complaints about hillary losing due to EC vs popular vote have quieted down.
It was definitely a level of whining when it occured, though, just like it was with Bush v Gore.
But it is not an inaccurate statement to say that Trump did not get the majority of the popular vote.
And for him to continue to the beat the drum that he supposedly won the popular vote just comes off as kind of pathetic.
I don't think he's whining, personally.
That study proves that a number significantly greater than 0% of illegals voted.
...
What I would call whining is the people who hate that Hillary lost the EC vote are still complaining about the popular vote. THAT sounds more like whining to me.
I'm not secretly hoping for a mandate, but I strongly believe that widespread voting fraud will be uncovered. The end goal should be honesty, not mandate.
I would dispute the part in bold, personally.
When the lower range of the number is 0.2% that isn't tipping anything, and by your own admission 1/3 of the illegal votes may well have been in support of Trump (so claiming that anywhere close to 4MM will get stripped from Hillary is ridiculous)
I think most of the complaints about hillary losing due to EC vs popular vote have quieted down.
It was definitely a level of whining when it occured, though, just like it was with Bush v Gore.
But it is not an inaccurate statement to say that Trump did not get the majority of the popular vote.
And for him to continue to the beat the drum that he supposedly won the popular vote just comes off as kind of pathetic.
Unless he's right. But yeah, if he's wrong, it'll look pretty bad.
edit -> The study 'guesses' about 2.8 million illegal votes in estimate. I trust their math better than anything I could pull together, considering it's a study. I'm really just waiting for the results of the investigation rather than rely on conjecture. For instance I'm not going to speculate that Trump is dead wrong on this. But my gut estimate of 4 million still stands. I believe once all is laid bare, the final numbers will be shocking. Of course, right now shocking numbers are considered 'absurd'. Meanwhile, I'm sure evidence is being destroyed.
edit -> The study 'guesses' about 2.8 million illegal votes in estimate. I trust their math better than anything I could pull together, considering it's a study. I'm really just waiting for the results of the investigation rather than rely on conjecture. Until then, I'm not going to speculate that Trump is dead wrong on this. But my gut estimate of 4 million still stands. I believe once all is laid bare, the final numbers will be shocking. Of course, right now shocking numbers are considered 'absurd'. Meanwhile, I'm sure evidence is being destroyed.
Not quite.
That is the HIGHEST END of their range (just like the low end of 0.2% or 38,000 votes was the lowest end of the range)
You don't pick the highest end and claim that was the "likely" conclusion.
There is a statistically appropriate to use average in there somewhere (which may not be the arithmetic mean of the two numbers, depending on their methodology).
edit -> The study 'guesses' about 2.8 million illegal votes in estimate. I trust their math better than anything I could pull together, considering it's a study. I'm really just waiting for the results of the investigation rather than rely on conjecture. Until then, I'm not going to speculate that Trump is dead wrong on this. But my gut estimate of 4 million still stands. I believe once all is laid bare, the final numbers will be shocking. Of course, right now shocking numbers are considered 'absurd'. Meanwhile, I'm sure evidence is being destroyed.
Not quite.
That is the HIGHEST END of their range (just like the low end of 0.2% or 38,000 votes was the lowest end of the range)
You don't pick the highest end and claim that was the "likely" conclusion.
There is a statistically appropriate to use average in there somewhere (which may not be the arithmetic mean of the two numbers, depending on their methodology).
Yes, you're right. That was the highest end of the range. I apologize. I should have looked at the study again rather than pull the number from memory. Did not mean to mislead anyone with that statistic.
edit -> The study 'guesses' about 2.8 million illegal votes in estimate. I trust their math better than anything I could pull together, considering it's a study.
Studies can be wrong, and that one has been challenged.
http://earlyvoting.net/commentary/non-citizen-voting-and-why-political-scientists-who-are-publicly-engaged-may-need-an-editor/
http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-steal-your-election-20141031-column.html
"The problem is that the Cooperative Congressional Election Study database used by the authors, while large, is known to be riddled with errors. It's a poll conducted by the private firm YouGov (not Congress) of Internet respondents. Critics say it's weak in determining citizenship, and in eliciting accurate responses from supposed noncitizens about their voter registration and voting habits. (Many respondents say they're registered U.S. voters but aren't.)"
It's not definitive, of course, but until you see several studies confirming it (peer review), it's still conjecture.
And look at the desperate efforts to undermine the electoral college - arguing (falsely) that HRC won the majority of the popular vote, the electoral college being invalid since it was based on pro-slavery concerns (it wasn't),
I think any argument trying to undermine the election via stating the electoral college is invalid is absurd.
It is the system we have. And the stability of our rule of law is import enough that our system should be honored, unless it is changed through the proper channels.
The results of the election could, completely reasonably, encourage a revisitation of our system.
(i.e. how most of the states have a "first past the post" system on electoral votes, which I'm sure I'm not alone in finding to be an inappropriate representation of the will of the people)
Not saying you were in favor of the pathetic disavow the electoral college crowd - just that it exists and had/has a negative influence (IMHO) on the already shaky political climate in the country.
I think a more effective remedy to the problem would be to lose the barriers to a real third (and more) party arising - rather than the occasional dubious clones of the Democrats or Republicans. Part of the dilemna we are in with our rampant political vitriol is that there are only two "sides" (for lack of a better term) - the assumption being that if our side is right the other is wrong - when in reality they are more often both wrong. No surprise that this has led to the rather nasty polarization we are in.
And look at the desperate efforts to undermine the electoral college - arguing (falsely) that HRC won the majority of the popular vote, the electoral college being invalid since it was based on pro-slavery concerns (it wasn't),
I think any argument trying to undermine the election via stating the electoral college is invalid is absurd.
It is the system we have. And the stability of our rule of law is import enough that our system should be honored, unless it is changed through the proper channels.
The results of the election could, completely reasonably, encourage a revisitation of our system.
(i.e. how most of the states have a "first past the post" system on electoral votes, which I'm sure I'm not alone in finding to be an inappropriate representation of the will of the people)
Not saying you were in favor of the pathetic disavow the electoral college crowd - just that it exists and had/has a negative influence (IMHO) on the already shaky political climate in the country.
I think a more effective remedy to the problem would be to lose the barriers to a real third (and more) party arising - rather than the occasional dubious clones of the Democrats or Republicans. Part of the dilemna we are in with our rampant political vitriol is that there are only two "sides" (for lack of a better term) - the assumption being that if our side is right the other is wrong - when in reality they are more often both wrong. No surprise that this has led to the rather nasty polarization we are in.
Would you dispute that those barriers exist mostly in the form of a "first past the post" electoral system on the part of most states?
Not saying you were in favor of the pathetic disavow the electoral college crowd - just that it exists and had/has a negative influence (IMHO) on the already shaky political climate in the country.
Honestly, I'd have no real issue with the electoral college if the election and census cycles were more aligned.
Right now, we do a census every ten years, but elections every four. When elections fall on a year that is far removed from a census (2008, 2016), I don't think the college is as reflective of the population as it should be.
And look at the desperate efforts to undermine the electoral college - arguing (falsely) that HRC won the majority of the popular vote, the electoral college being invalid since it was based on pro-slavery concerns (it wasn't),
I think any argument trying to undermine the election via stating the electoral college is invalid is absurd.
It is the system we have. And the stability of our rule of law is import enough that our system should be honored, unless it is changed through the proper channels.
The results of the election could, completely reasonably, encourage a revisitation of our system.
(i.e. how most of the states have a "first past the post" system on electoral votes, which I'm sure I'm not alone in finding to be an inappropriate representation of the will of the people)
Not saying you were in favor of the pathetic disavow the electoral college crowd - just that it exists and had/has a negative influence (IMHO) on the already shaky political climate in the country.
I think a more effective remedy to the problem would be to lose the barriers to a real third (and more) party arising - rather than the occasional dubious clones of the Democrats or Republicans. Part of the dilemna we are in with our rampant political vitriol is that there are only two "sides" (for lack of a better term) - the assumption being that if our side is right the other is wrong - when in reality they are more often both wrong. No surprise that this has led to the rather nasty polarization we are in.
Would you dispute that those barriers exist mostly in the form of a "first past the post" electoral system on the part of most states?
I think the barriers are more in state (and local) laws that make it difficult to not only start but grow a party - especially in more than one state. You have weird anomalies - in 2010 the Republicans put up what was one of the worst candidates for governor (this guy wasn't even suitable for dog catcher) I have ever seen - as a response Tancredo ran under the Constitution party and single handedly damn near relegated the Republicans to minor party status in Colorado. While briefly technically a major party in Colorado, the Constitution party soon faded back to relative obscurity. I suspect if there were more real parties we would see more regional parties (such as the old Farmer-Labor party) that would arise at the expense of the two major ones.
Not saying you were in favor of the pathetic disavow the electoral college crowd - just that it exists and had/has a negative influence (IMHO) on the already shaky political climate in the country.
Honestly, I'd have no real issue with the electoral college if the election and census cycles were more aligned.
Right now, we do a census every ten years, but elections every four. When elections fall on a year that is far removed from a census (2008, 2016), I don't think the college is as reflective of the population as it should be.
If the EC was reflective of the population, the candidates would only need to campaign to the interests of the East and West Coast, Texas, Florida, and Illinois. Everyone else would get the shaft. Candidates wouldn't even bother visiting other states. That's the purpose of the EC.
I'm sure you've seen the 'explain it like I'm five' example - Someone is campaigning for school presdent. There are 4 teachers in room A, 1 teacher in room B, and 1 teacher in room C. Why would the school president ever bother to give speeches in rooms B and C when he or she can just pander to A's every need and win the vote every time?
EO apparently coming out this week regarding LGBT that is going to:
* Allow federal employees to refuse to serve LGBT people based on the belief that marriage is between a man and a woman or that gender is an immutable characteristic from birth, impacting a broad range of federal benefits.
* Allow taxpayer funds to be used to discriminate against LGBT people in social services.
* Allow adoption agencies that receive federal funding to discriminate against LGBT parents.
* Make sexual orientation and gender identity fireable offenses for federal employees and federal contractors by eliminating non-discrimination protections.
What the hell dude? Surely this isn't real. The supreme court has already ruled in favor of non-discrimination. I'm not sure how this could possibly be constitutional. POTUS is not "above" the law. Last I checked, this was a democracy, not a dictatorship.
Where have you been the last 8 years?
Not saying you were in favor of the pathetic disavow the electoral college crowd - just that it exists and had/has a negative influence (IMHO) on the already shaky political climate in the country.
Honestly, I'd have no real issue with the electoral college if the election and census cycles were more aligned.
Right now, we do a census every ten years, but elections every four. When elections fall on a year that is far removed from a census (2008, 2016), I don't think the college is as reflective of the population as it should be.
If the EC was reflective of the population, the candidates would only need to campaign to the interests of the East and West Coast, Texas, Florida, and Illinois. Everyone else would get the shaft. Candidates wouldn't even bother visiting other states. That's the purpose of the EC.
I'm sure you've seen the 'explain it like I'm five' example - Someone is campaigning for school presdent. There are 4 teachers in room A, 1 teacher in room B, and 1 teacher in room C. Why would the school president ever bother to give speeches in rooms B and C when he or she can just pander to A's every need and win the vote every time?
That isn't what Tulpa is referring to with "reflective of the population"...
He is saying that the EC distribution is updated out of synch to where certain elections may be more distorted than others with regard to how closely they align with how the EC is SUPPOSED TO BE distributed.
That has nothing to do with fully distributing it per capita.
Remember this scene when he was campaigning?
EO apparently coming out this week regarding LGBT that is going to:
* Allow federal employees to refuse to serve LGBT people based on the belief that marriage is between a man and a woman or that gender is an immutable characteristic from birth, impacting a broad range of federal benefits.
* Allow taxpayer funds to be used to discriminate against LGBT people in social services.
* Allow adoption agencies that receive federal funding to discriminate against LGBT parents.
* Make sexual orientation and gender identity fireable offenses for federal employees and federal contractors by eliminating non-discrimination protections.
What the hell dude? Surely this isn't real. The supreme court has already ruled in favor of non-discrimination. I'm not sure how this could possibly be constitutional. POTUS is not "above" the law. Last I checked, this was a democracy, not a dictatorship.
Where have you been the last 8 years?
On top of that. We arent a democracy. We are a republic
A bit of good news, those EO rumors were false. Statement released that Trump will be keeping current LGBTQ workplace protections.
Everyone wins
And look at the desperate efforts to undermine the electoral college - arguing (falsely) that HRC won the majority of the popular vote, the electoral college being invalid since it was based on pro-slavery concerns (it wasn't),
I think any argument trying to undermine the election via stating the electoral college is invalid is absurd.
It is the system we have. And the stability of our rule of law is import enough that our system should be honored, unless it is changed through the proper channels.
The results of the election could, completely reasonably, encourage a revisitation of our system.
(i.e. how most of the states have a "first past the post" system on electoral votes, which I'm sure I'm not alone in finding to be an inappropriate representation of the will of the people)
Not saying you were in favor of the pathetic disavow the electoral college crowd - just that it exists and had/has a negative influence (IMHO) on the already shaky political climate in the country.
I think a more effective remedy to the problem would be to lose the barriers to a real third (and more) party arising - rather than the occasional dubious clones of the Democrats or Republicans. Part of the dilemna we are in with our rampant political vitriol is that there are only two "sides" (for lack of a better term) - the assumption being that if our side is right the other is wrong - when in reality they are more often both wrong. No surprise that this has led to the rather nasty polarization we are in.
The real solution is the elimination of parties entirely. Obviously not practical or possible, and the partisan divide and lack of compromise is only getting worse so we're super fucked in any regard. The next best thing is a viable third party from the middle, which ain't gonna happen anytime soon
EO apparently coming out this week regarding LGBT that is going to:
* Allow federal employees to refuse to serve LGBT people based on the belief that marriage is between a man and a woman or that gender is an immutable characteristic from birth, impacting a broad range of federal benefits.
* Allow taxpayer funds to be used to discriminate against LGBT people in social services.
* Allow adoption agencies that receive federal funding to discriminate against LGBT parents.
* Make sexual orientation and gender identity fireable offenses for federal employees and federal contractors by eliminating non-discrimination protections.
What the hell dude? Surely this isn't real. The supreme court has already ruled in favor of non-discrimination. I'm not sure how this could possibly be constitutional. POTUS is not "above" the law. Last I checked, this was a democracy, not a dictatorship.
Where have you been the last 8 years?
On top of that. We arent a democracy. We are a republic
The biggest problem we currently have is a media... (The same media that covered for Obama for 8 years is out to destroy Trump...wonder why).
And look at the desperate efforts to undermine the electoral college - arguing (falsely) that HRC won the majority of the popular vote, the electoral college being invalid since it was based on pro-slavery concerns (it wasn't),
I think any argument trying to undermine the election via stating the electoral college is invalid is absurd.
It is the system we have. And the stability of our rule of law is import enough that our system should be honored, unless it is changed through the proper channels.
The results of the election could, completely reasonably, encourage a revisitation of our system.
(i.e. how most of the states have a "first past the post" system on electoral votes, which I'm sure I'm not alone in finding to be an inappropriate representation of the will of the people)
Not saying you were in favor of the pathetic disavow the electoral college crowd - just that it exists and had/has a negative influence (IMHO) on the already shaky political climate in the country.
I think a more effective remedy to the problem would be to lose the barriers to a real third (and more) party arising - rather than the occasional dubious clones of the Democrats or Republicans. Part of the dilemna we are in with our rampant political vitriol is that there are only two "sides" (for lack of a better term) - the assumption being that if our side is right the other is wrong - when in reality they are more often both wrong. No surprise that this has led to the rather nasty polarization we are in.
The real solution is the elimination of parties entirely. Obviously not practical or possible, and the partisan divide and lack of compromise is only getting worse so we're super fucked in any regard. The next best thing is a viable third party from the middle, which ain't gonna happen anytime soon
The problem with 3rd parties is they really only show up once every four years for the general.
Not saying you were in favor of the pathetic disavow the electoral college crowd - just that it exists and had/has a negative influence (IMHO) on the already shaky political climate in the country.
Honestly, I'd have no real issue with the electoral college if the election and census cycles were more aligned.
Right now, we do a census every ten years, but elections every four. When elections fall on a year that is far removed from a census (2008, 2016), I don't think the college is as reflective of the population as it should be.
If the EC was reflective of the population, the candidates would only need to campaign to the interests of the East and West Coast, Texas, Florida, and Illinois. Everyone else would get the shaft. Candidates wouldn't even bother visiting other states. That's the purpose of the EC.
I'm sure you've seen the 'explain it like I'm five' example - Someone is campaigning for school presdent. There are 4 teachers in room A, 1 teacher in room B, and 1 teacher in room C. Why would the school president ever bother to give speeches in rooms B and C when he or she can just pander to A's every need and win the vote every time?
That isn't what Tulpa is referring to with "reflective of the population"...
He is saying that the EC distribution is updated out of synch to where certain elections may be more distorted than others with regard to how closely they align with how the EC is SUPPOSED TO BE distributed.
That has nothing to do with fully distributing it per capita.
Yep, sorry Tulpa. I take it back. You want it to be more in sync with the census. I totally misread that.
It's scary some people in this very thread think the United States is a Democracy.
We are indeed a Republic, but we have arguably slipped into a Constitutional Democracy. Republics are about freedoms, about people having the power, not their elected officials. Democracies are about denying wants to the minority vote, removing rights, and sowing division through techniques such as identity politics and 'organizing' communities (ie: the projects) under the guise of humanity. A Democratic Republic is what the globalists want us to become, so we can be just like such lovely countries as the Democratic Republic of the Congo (used to be the Republic of Zaire), the Democratic Republic of Georgia, of Yemen, of Afghanistan, of Algeria, of Vietnam, of Korea, of Ethiopia, etc.
Constitutional Convention of 1787:
“Well, Doctor, what have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?”
Ben Franklin replied, “A Republic, if you can keep it.”
How does it begin? The institutions start floating the word 'democracy' more and more in the heads of schoolchildren and in the news, to make everyone believe a country is a Democracy and not a Republic. "That's not Democracy and that's not what this country stands for!" All word manipulation. Once you've slipped into a 'democratic republic' state, there are still votes, sure, but they are willfully manipulated by the power structure who operate on their own self-interests, and the people have no say. The middle class no longer exists. Violence and fear spreads. Not pretty.
If the EC was reflective of the population, the candidates would only need to campaign to the interests of the East and West Coast, Texas, Florida, and Illinois. Everyone else would get the shaft. Candidates wouldn't even bother visiting other states. That's the purpose of the EC.
I'm sure you've seen the 'explain it like I'm five' example - Someone is campaigning for school presdent. There are 4 teachers in room A, 1 teacher in room B, and 1 teacher in room C. Why would the school president ever bother to give speeches in rooms B and C when he or she can just pander to A's every need and win the vote every time?
I'm not disputing that, but I'm saying since we had a census in 2010, and an election in 2016, that's too far removed to properly reflect the current population. Some of those states may have lost population (we're moving more coastal), and so they might have more electors than their population would warrant, by the rules of the college currently.
edit:, sorry, missed your revised post.
edit -> The study 'guesses' about 2.8 million illegal votes in estimate. I trust their math better than anything I could pull together, considering it's a study. I'm really just waiting for the results of the investigation rather than rely on conjecture. For instance I'm not going to speculate that Trump is dead wrong on this. But my gut estimate of 4 million still stands. I believe once all is laid bare, the final numbers will be shocking. Of course, right now shocking numbers are considered 'absurd'. Meanwhile, I'm sure evidence is being destroyed.
[Officials discover 4 million people voted illegally] Cirellio: I knew my gut feeling was right!
[Officials discover 4 million people did not vote illegally] Cirellio: All the evidence was destroyed by George Soros/Globalists/The Boogeyman. I knew my gut feeling was right!
edit -> The study 'guesses' about 2.8 million illegal votes in estimate. I trust their math better than anything I could pull together, considering it's a study. I'm really just waiting for the results of the investigation rather than rely on conjecture. For instance I'm not going to speculate that Trump is dead wrong on this. But my gut estimate of 4 million still stands. I believe once all is laid bare, the final numbers will be shocking. Of course, right now shocking numbers are considered 'absurd'. Meanwhile, I'm sure evidence is being destroyed.
[Officials discover 4 million people voted illegally] Cirellio: I knew my gut feeling was right!
[Officials discover 4 million people did not vote illegally] Cirellio: All the evidence was destroyed by George Soros/Globalists/The Boogeyman. I knew my gut feeling was right!
Nah, I promise not to do that.
edit - I don't want to be right, I just want what's best for our country. I think all of us here do.
More lies coming from the news saying Trump was Anti-LGBT.
Remember this scene when he was campaigning?
I don't think even Obama ever did anything like that when he was running in 2008! Sure he later got on board with the gay marriage thing and did that light up the White House in rainbow lights sort of deal, but just like with LBJ and the Civil Rights act of 1964, they only got on board once they saw it was politically fashionable to do so. In the case of the latter, the 1957 Civil Rights Act (which was the first major federal civil rights legistlation since Reconstruction) started out pretty much the same as the later 1964 one, but the Senate Majority Leader at the time was afraid it'd be too divisive for his Democratic party so the bill got severaly watered down (Ike had no choice but to sign it into law because he knew for the moment that was the best that could be done). Now, go ahead and google/wiki and find out who that Senate Majority Leader was
If someone had told you not too long ago either Trump would be President or a Republican on the RNC stage would make a pro-LGBT platform, I don't know under which circumstance they'd have thought you were the most crazy...
edit -> The study 'guesses' about 2.8 million illegal votes in estimate. I trust their math better than anything I could pull together, considering it's a study. I'm really just waiting for the results of the investigation rather than rely on conjecture. For instance I'm not going to speculate that Trump is dead wrong on this. But my gut estimate of 4 million still stands. I believe once all is laid bare, the final numbers will be shocking. Of course, right now shocking numbers are considered 'absurd'. Meanwhile, I'm sure evidence is being destroyed.
[Officials discover 4 million people voted illegally] Cirellio: I knew my gut feeling was right!
[Officials discover 4 million people did not vote illegally] Cirellio: All the evidence was destroyed by George Soros/Globalists/The Boogeyman. I knew my gut feeling was right!
I was actually going to propose a wager, where the loser pays out to the charity of the winner's choice.
I'd take the side that the ultimate number of proven illegal votes is closer to zero than it is to 4 million.
Cirellio could have the side that the number is closer to 4 million than it is to zero.
edit -> The study 'guesses' about 2.8 million illegal votes in estimate. I trust their math better than anything I could pull together, considering it's a study. I'm really just waiting for the results of the investigation rather than rely on conjecture. For instance I'm not going to speculate that Trump is dead wrong on this. But my gut estimate of 4 million still stands. I believe once all is laid bare, the final numbers will be shocking. Of course, right now shocking numbers are considered 'absurd'. Meanwhile, I'm sure evidence is being destroyed.
[Officials discover 4 million people voted illegally] Cirellio: I knew my gut feeling was right!
[Officials discover 4 million people did not vote illegally] Cirellio: All the evidence was destroyed by George Soros/Globalists/The Boogeyman. I knew my gut feeling was right!
I was actually going to propose a wager, where the loser pays out to the charity of the winner's choice.
I'd take the side that the ultimate number of proven illegal votes is closer to zero than it is to 4 million.
Cirellio could have the side that the number is closer to 4 million than it is to zero.
Hahaha. Well, I'd take that wager as I feel very strongly about this. However it's not about being right, it's about wanting what's best for the country - and I think fair and legal elections definitely fall under that category. Also I fear what charity we'd each choose lol
TBH I'd be more interested in donating to charities that provide video games to children's hospitals and such rather than direct political causes.
^ response to magus
You act like crazy people and criminals would give a damn about the rules
you are trying to make rules that dont really help anything and fix problems that dont exist.
whens the last time criminals gave a damn about a law? Are they not going to drive to commit a crime now because they have a suspended license? Are they going to not shoot someone because oh shucks i dont have a gun license. Please.
They will get the gun they need on black market or steal it from a family member etc. Hell most crazies will pass a background check to get a gun anyway. People being irresonsible and dumb with guns isnt really an issue that needs to be addressed
They act like making a law will fix what amounts to a deficiency in character. That's the whole problem with the "nanny state" mentality-- it assumes that everyone is going to act like children from the get-go. Thus we end up with a nation of overcertified and codependent idiots.
The issue is for all the people that don't lock up their guns and their kid shoots themselves with it. Or don't lock up their guns and someone steals them and does something horrible with them. The people at the range who can't understand the simple rule of when the buzzer goes off you put the gun down and don't touch it and step behind the yellow line. For the people who take pictures with unloaded guns but point them at the camera to make a good picture. The people who use their guns while under the influence of alcohol. The people who put a .44 magnum in the hands of a 90 lb woman who has never shot before because they think it is badass, sexy, or cool and she blows her head or loses an eye because of the recoil. The list is endless of peoples stupidity that i have personally witnessed and have read about.
The founding fathers never said that it was Government's role to interfere with natural selection. I don't have children and I don't drink alcohol, so why should my liberties be suppressed on the grounds which you have listed?
The issue is for all the people that don't lock up their guns and their kid shoots themselves with it. Or don't lock up their guns and someone steals them and does something horrible with them. The people at the range who can't understand the simple rule of when the buzzer goes off you put the gun down and don't touch it and step behind the yellow line. For the people who take pictures with unloaded guns but point them at the camera to make a good picture. The people who use their guns while under the influence of alcohol. The people who put a .44 magnum in the hands of a 90 lb woman who has never shot before because they think it is badass, sexy, or cool and she blows her head or loses an eye because of the recoil. The list is endless of peoples stupidity that i have personally witnessed and have read about.
The founding fathers never said that it was Government's role to interfere with natural selection. I don't have children and I don't drink alcohol, so why should my liberties be suppressed on the grounds which you have listed?
The founding fathers also thought slavery was just A ok. There are many things the founding fathers got wrong which is why i laugh when people bring them up. Are you really that stuck in the past that you think ideas from hundreds of years ago might not possibly be applicable in this day and age? Not saying they got everything wrong, but isn't it reasonable to think they may have been wrong in some areas? Keep in mind handguns that hold 10 rounds also didn't exist, and rifles had nowhere near the capacity of rounds as today as well. Times change, and you have to evolve with them.
Just because you don't drink alcohol or have kids doesn't mean you are not an idiot and could endanger someone else because of your stupidity. And it also doesn't mean there not others out there that do stupid things like this. (I don't mean YOU obviously, just in general)
How are your liberties being suppressed, can you give me an example? No one is saying to take away guns, where are you getting this idea? But taking a simple test and maybe a quick gun safety course, like a drivers test and driving school, is not unreasonable unless you are concerned you don't know nearly as much about guns and gun safety as you claim. This is by no means infringing on your liberties.
There is no reasoning with people you, so i am going to agree to disagree. And if you want to discuss further, make your own thread because this is just derailing the current discussion.