If you wanted to rig your enemies election...

[Rational Poster]

Because L.A. County has a larger population than the overwhelming number of states in the Union. Of course they would produce more of the country's wealth.

Not only do you think minorities shouldn't have a voice when it comes to elections, but now you imply that only the wealthy's voices should be heard?

I don't think 1/3rd of people should be able to tell 2/3rd of people how to spend their money.

No I do not.

 

[Rational Poster]

Do you need a refresher on what you actually said, instead of what you now wish you had said?









Yes, it is how majorities work. Anything else?

Again, you assumed my argument incorrectly and you're wrong.

I accept your concession since you just pasted the same thing again and offered no new arguments.

 

[Teppodama]

The blue counties produce 66% of the country's wealth though.

By that logic, the 1% that the wealth belongs to should be the only ones ultimately making the decisions.

 

[Rational Poster]

By that logic, the 1% that the wealth belongs to should be the only ones ultimately making the decisions.

Well, that's how things seem to work, huh?

 

[HIMBOB]

No one in the Western World is happy with their leaders. Trump has better approval numbers than May, Macron, and Merkel. Did your fantasy riggers make that happen too?

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/europes-merkel-macron-may-less-popular-than-trump/article/2641178

Fuck sake I hope this is wilful stupidity and not a reflection of your capacity to understand simple fucking questions.

My recommendation is

A. Calm your tits,
B. Read the original question I asked,
C. Repeat steps A through B till you understand the question.

Until I see progress from you, we are done.

 

[HIMBOB]

If you take away California Hillary would have not won the popular vote. She also won New York. I know we're going to disagree on this, but one or two states shouldn't have a voice over the entire country. This is the purpose of the electoral college.

Irrelevant.

This is not me complaining about Trump this is me asking
"If you were a world leader and wanted to rig your enemies election which of the following would be desirable outcomes?"

 

[WoodChips]

They would make people think there's a push to limit free speech.

They would make fake news that makes minorities look bad.

They would stir up nationalism and try to stifle diversity and change.

They would spread paranoia and fear about immigration.

They would spread fear about women gaining power.

 

[Starman]

I don't think 1/3rd of people should be able to tell 2/3rd of people how to spend their money.

No I do not.

Are you able to produce a consistent argument or not? You argued that California should have a bigger influence in American elections than other states because...

The blue counties produce 66% of the country's wealth though.

So should how much wealth one accumulates factor into how powerful one's vote is nor not?

Again, you assumed my argument incorrectly and you're wrong.

I didn't assume anything. I said Hillary Clinton did not win a majority of votes. You literally responded, "That's not how majorities work dude."

So was my statement right or wrong? I said Hillary didn't win a majority of the votes and you said that's not how majorities work. Was I or was I not correct with my statement? Do you or do you not think my math is correct? Do you or do you not think she won a majority of the votes? If you think she didn't, then why did you say "derp, that's not how majorities work dude, lol."

Yes it is. That is exactly how majorities work. Yes or no?

 

[Starman]

Fuck sake I hope this is wilful stupidity and not a reflection of your capacity to understand simple fucking questions.

My recommendation is

A. Calm your tits,
B. Read the original question I asked,
C. Repeat steps A through B till you understand the question.

A.) You engage in name-calling and profanity and tell me to "calm my tits." Are you irony impaired by any chance?

B.) I did, and I responded. Since you are asking a hypothetical question about imaginary people doing imaginary things, trying to ascribe motivations or desires is futile, as the only thing they'd want is what I'd imagine them to want.

C.) Read point B until you are able to discern reality from fantasy. If you've got a point to make, make it. Try engaging in a real conversation about things happening in the real world, instead of in your head.

Until I see progress from you, we are done.

You've been done, you just didn't know it.

 

[Rational Poster]

Are you able to produce a consistent argument or not? You argued that California should have a bigger influence in American elections than other states because...



So should how much wealth one accumulates factor into how powerful one's vote is nor not?



I didn't assume anything. I said Hillary Clinton did not win a majority of votes. You literally responded, "That's not how majorities work dude."

So was my statement right or wrong? I said Hillary didn't win a majority of the votes and you said that's not how majorities work. Was I or was I not correct with my statement? Do you or do you not think my math is correct? Do you or do you not think she won a majority of the votes? If you think she didn't, then why did you say "derp, that's not how majorities work dude, lol."

Yes it is. That is exactly how majorities work. Yes or no?

I never said she did or didn't win a majority. I brought up majority and you sprung into defense mode for your Dear Leader.

I was talking in totality, and then you tried to make a new goal post for your Dear Leader.

A majority of Americans do not support Donald Trump.

 

[Starman]

I never said she did or didn't win a majority. I brought up majority and you sprung into defense mode for your Dear Leader.

I said she did not win a majority, to which you replied ""That's not how majorities work dude." Yes or no?

I was talking in totality, and then you tried to make a new goal post for your Dear Leader.

In totality she did not win a majority of anything. I'm not moving the goal posts. This is literally what I said from the very beginning.

A majority of Americans do not support Donald Trump.

Trump won a majority of the states and a majority of the electorate. What did Hillary Clinton win a majority of? I'll wait.

 

[Rational Poster]

I said she did not win a majority, to which you replied ""That's not how majorities work dude." Yes or no?



In totality she did not win a majority of anything. I'm not moving the goal posts. This is literally what I said from the very beginning.



Trump won a majority of the states and a majority of the electorate. What did Hillary Clinton win a majority of? I'll wait.

You responded to my argument by making a completely different argument I wasn't making.

I simply referred to a majority, as in the 53% of people that didn't vote for Trump.

I did not bring up Hillary Clinton once and I'm not here to defend her. She lost, get over it.

You're just here to deflect for your Dear Leader.

 

[Starman]

You responded to my argument by making a completely different argument I wasn't making.

It seems you need another refresher. You responded to me, not me to you.

The popular vote is a joke, and has zero to do with how presidents are elected in the United States.

I know like, who cares what a majority of people in a democracy think?

Donald Trump received 62,985,134 votes. Hillary Clinton received 65,853,652 votes. The other 3 candidates won 8,286,698 votes.

65,853,652 people voted for Hillary Clinton. 71,271,832 people voted for anyone but Mrs. Clinton. The majority of the country did not vote for Mrs. Clinton. She did not win a majority of the vote.

That's not how majorities work dude.

Yes, it is. What part of my statement was wrong?

Basically the part that skips grade school mathematics.

Again, that is exactly how majorities work. You're using the same math as me to determine that a majority of voters didn't vote for Trump. By what right can you make the claim "derp, dat's now how majorities work, derp, lol I'm stupid." You are literally looking at the same numbers as me, and drawing the exact same conclusions. Except, as I said, for this: Hillary Clinton did not win a majority of the votes cast, did not win a majority of the states, and did not win a majority of the electorate. At least Donald Trump won a majority of the states and a majority of the electorate.

If you agree with all of those facts, why did you responded to my posts saying, "derp, that's not how majorities work." That is, in fact, EXACTLY how majorities work. What was your point in saying that's not how majorities work if, in fact, you now admit that is indeed exactly how they work?

I simply referred to a majority, as in the 53% of people that didn't vote for Trump.

No, you didn't. You never said 53% of the "people" didn't vote for Trump. You didn't say that until page 6 of this debate. You started this argument on page one by quoting my accurate claim about Clinton not winning a majority of the votes by saying "derp, that's not how majorities work."

You only tried to back-pedal and change your argument on page 6 when you realized how weak and inaccurate your snarky claims of "derp, that's not how majorities work" was. That is exactly how majorities work.

Yes, Trump didn't win a majority of the votes. Neither did Clinton. He did win a majority of states and a majority of the electorate. So what is your ultimate point? What do you want to say? It's page 7 here, buddy, time to put a cohesive argument together.

I did not bring up Hillary Clinton once and I'm not here to defend her. She lost, get over it.

Then why did you challenge mathematically true claims with ridiculously inaccurate responses like, "derp, that's not how majorities work cuz I'm too stupid to know better, derp"?

You're just here to deflect for your Dear Leader.

Deflect from what? What claim is even being made in this thread? I'm not deflecting from anything, I'm educating. You're just embarrassed everyone was here to see it, Irrational Poster.

 

[Rational Poster]

It seems you need another refresher. You responded to me, not me to you.













Again, that is exactly how majorities work. You're using the same math as me to determine that a majority of voters didn't vote for Trump. By what right can you make the claim "derp, dat's now how majorities work, derp, lol I'm stupid." You are literally looking at the same numbers as me, and drawing the exact same conclusions. Except, as I said, for this: Hillary Clinton did not win a majority of the votes cast, did not win a majority of the states, and did not win a majority of the electorate. At least Donald Trump won a majority of the states and a majority of the electorate.

If you agree with all of those facts, why did you responded to my posts saying, "derp, that's not how majorities work." That is, in fact, EXACTLY how majorities work. What was your point in saying that's not how majorities work if, in fact, you now admit that is indeed exactly how they work?




No, you didn't. You never said 53% of the "people" didn't vote for Trump. You didn't say that until page 6 of this debate. You started this argument on page one by quoting my accurate claim about Clinton not winning a majority of the votes by saying "derp, that's not how majorities work."

You only tried to back-pedal and change your argument on page 6 when you realized how weak and inaccurate your snarky claims of "derp, that's not how majorities work" was. That is exactly how majorities work.

Yes, Trump didn't win a majority of the votes. Neither did Clinton. He did win a majority of states and a majority of the electorate. So what is your ultimate point? What do you want to say? It's page 7 here, buddy, time to put a cohesive argument together.



Then why did you challenge mathematically true claims with ridiculously inaccurate responses like, "derp, that's not how majorities work cuz I'm too stupid to know better, derp"?



Deflect from what? What claim is even being made in this thread? I'm not deflecting from anything, I'm educating. You're just embarrassed everyone was here to see it, Irrational Poster.

I was never talking about Hillary. The post I originally quoted you on, you didn't refer to Hillary either, you just referred to the popular vote as a joke.

I commented on that about the majority, implying that the majority didn't vote for Trump. You assumed I meant that the majority voted for Hillary, incorrectly.

When I said that's not how majorities work, I was talking about the actual majority. Not the majority you assumed.

That actual majority did not support Trump in the last election.

 

[HereticBD]

@Starman straight up embarrassing fools in this thread. Mercy rule should probably be enforced at this point.

 

[Starman]

I was never talking about Hillary. The post I quoted you on, you didn't refer to Hillary either, you just referred to the popular vote as a joke.

Because it was being cited as a reason why Trump's victory was illegitimate, and why Hillary deserved to win. But I understand why you want to try and omit the context of this entire discussion, because you come off looking worse than you do even now.

I commented that about the majority, implying that the majority didn't vote for Trump. You assumed I meant that the majority voted for Hillary, incorrectly.

I didn't assume anything, and you didn't imply anything. I said the popular vote was a joke (the popular vote that was being used to justify the claim that Hillary Clinton was somehow the rightful winner of the election.)

You sarcastically asked why should we care what the "majority" thinks? Again, this is in reference to the popular vote. I then correctly pointed out that the "majority" didn't vote for Hillary. (They didn't).

You said that's not how majorities work. (It is.) If your reference to "the majority" wasn't to the voters being accounted for in the popular vote, then what the hell was it in reference to?

When I said that's not how majorities work, I was talking about the actual majority. Not the majority you assumed.

You weren't talking about the majority of people who voted in the election? Again, that was the entire context of my initial statement. If you weren't talking about the majority of voters, what majority were you talking about?

That actual majority did not support Trump in the last election.

Majority of what? The majority of voters? No, they didn't. They didn't support Clinton either. So, again, what is your point?

 

[WoodChips]

@Starman straight up embarrassing fools in this thread. Mercy rule should probably be enforced at this point.

I think these guys did a fine job defending their positions. Trump lovers expect an easy time.

 

[Starman]

I think these guys did a fine job defending their positions. Trump lovers expect an easy time.

What was their position and what exactly did any of them do to defend it?

I've been doing this for 7 pages. Believe me, I never once thought educating Leftists would be easy. If I did, I would've gotten out of here on page 2.

 

[WoodChips]

What was their position and what exactly did any of them do to defend it?

I've been doing this for 7 pages. Believe me, I never once thought educating Leftists would be easy. If I did, I would've gotten out of here on page 2.

 

[Starman]

That's what I thought.