Technically Hillary Clinton could still be elected President.

Rainman16 · 12-11-2016 05:47PM

Nonoperational · 12-11-2016 05:55PM

Give it up man. Ridiculous and never going to happen.

LLMMLL · 12-11-2016 06:12PM

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Thanks.... I have a similar opinion of you too, but I didn't want to say anything until you did first!

The phrases are very apt.
The 'safe space' concept is very very real & is not a term of abuse.
Snowflake is obviously, but then "emotional fortitude of a toddler" doesn't roll off the tongue as nicely.

I mean, read the first paragraph of this journalism, or this slice of teeney-angst from Lena Dunham.

I can't think of a better word for the sheer scale emotional fragility of our generation when something doesn't go our way.

This is pure ridiculous. I work in an irish uni and the vast vast majority of the students don't give a toss about the social justice movement.

The debate societies like to invite controversial speakers so they might get into the national papers. The debate societies are usually filled with right leaning people rather than left anyway. Te only other group who makes a big deal about this stuff is the gender equality society whih probably has about ten regular attendees.

Lena Dunham is not a spokesperson for everyone under 30.

Use your intelligence. The media does not reflect popular opinion. It just wants to sell papers. The next generation are fine.

infogiver · 12-11-2016 06:13PM

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Thanks.... I have a similar opinion of you too, but I didn't want to say anything until you did first!

The phrases are very apt.
The 'safe space' concept is very very real & is not a term of abuse.
Snowflake is obviously, but then "emotional fortitude of a toddler" doesn't roll off the tongue as nicely.

I mean, read the first paragraph of this journalism, or this slice of teeney-angst from Lena Dunham.

I can't think of a better word for the sheer scale emotional fragility of our generation when something doesn't go our way.

"I touched my face and realised I was crying ".
What's wonderful is that lots of young people in the 1st world have had it so good, so easy, so rosy.
And are so privileged and generally accustomed to getting what they want in 2016, that this is they're reaction to a democratic vote not going they're way.
I have seen not one of them rail and thrash out against they're own peer group for being too lazy and immature and downright entitled to actually go down to the polling station.
This is actually the extent to which they simply cannot tolerate even the concept of criticism or personal responsibility.
It really is a pity.

ZeitgeistGlee · 12-11-2016 06:15PM

LLMMLL wrote: »

Lena Dunham is not a spokesperson for everyone under 30.

Lena Dunham shouldn't be a spokesperson for anyone, period.

Achasanai · 12-11-2016 06:26PM

Rightwing wrote: »

More like Clinton could still end up in jail.

Has Trump the courage to do what he said he would?, that's the question.

He's been rowing back on a huge amount of what he promised. All to be expected, of course, but it will be interested to see how certain sections of the media and the alt-right (the opposite side of the coin to the so-called snowflake generation) will take it when their assumed revolution doesn't materialise.

LordAwesome · 12-11-2016 06:36PM

Trump doesn't have to go after Clinton, Gowdy will do it for him when he's appointed AG.

PopePalpatine · 12-11-2016 06:57PM

Nonoperational wrote: »

Give it up man. Ridiculous and never going to happen.

The only way Clinton winning in the Electoral College would happen would be if it was proven beyond all reasonable doubt - with even the alternative media like Breitbart and Infowars admitting it - that voting machines were hacked to give the win to Trump. It's time to come to terms that we're stuck with Trump for the next four years.

ligerdub · 12-11-2016 07:48PM

PopePalpatine wrote: »

The only way Clinton winning in the Electoral College would happen would be if it was proven beyond all reasonable doubt - with even the alternative media like Breitbart and Infowars admitting it - that voting machines were hacked to give the win to Trump. It's time to come to terms that we're stuck with Trump for the next four years.

Yeah, because a Trump win is really what the power brokers wanted. Give me a break pal!

Jayop · 12-11-2016 07:50PM

I hate Trump but the people voted for him and something like this would cause anarchy.

sellasheep · 12-11-2016 08:41PM

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

I agree the system isn't perfect, but he won fair and square.

.

No he did not win fair and square. Hillary got 2 million more votes than him.

Jayop · 12-11-2016 08:44PM

sellasheep wrote: »

No he did not win fair and square. Hillary got 2 million more votes than him.

Because of the electoral college being there. You could have a couple of million Republicans in California and New York that didn't bother voting because it would have been pointless. The popular vote is meaningless while the electoral college exists.

PopePalpatine · 12-11-2016 08:53PM

ligerdub wrote: »

Yeah, because a Trump win is really what the power brokers wanted. Give me a break pal!

I merely raised the suggested the possibility that the voting machines may have been tampered with. As of typing this post, I've seen no evidence to suggest that's the case.

ted1 · 12-11-2016 09:00PM

martingriff wrote: »

The Electoral College will vote as they have been told to by the people. There would be a crap storm (and rightfully so) if they did not. Trump is president he wanted to be elected so said what would get him elected. The only thing that could (and probably is happening) is those who are idiots will not think its acceptable to be racist etc because they saw he was. This will be something that has to be tackled quick by the Republican Party (as they were his nomination) and Trump himself

The people voted for Hillary. Mad system all together.

ZeitgeistGlee · 12-11-2016 09:34PM

sellasheep wrote: »

No he did not win fair and square. Hillary got 2 million more votes than him.

You not knowing how the American presidential election system works doesn't make it unfair. It's not, nor has it ever been a pure popularity contest.

Certainly you can believe it's unfair, hell I don't think it's particularly fair but it's the system everyone signed up to.

ted1 wrote: »

The people voted for Hillary. Mad system all together.

Same basic idea here would be if every Irish election was decided purely by Dublin, Cork and Limerick (cities).

Manic Moran · 12-11-2016 09:40PM

ted1 wrote: »

martingriff wrote: »

The Electoral College will vote as they have been told to by the people. There would be a crap storm (and rightfully so) if they did not. Trump is president he wanted to be elected so said what would get him elected. The only thing that could (and probably is happening) is those who are idiots will not think its acceptable to be racist etc because they saw he was. This will be something that has to be tackled quick by the Republican Party (as they were his nomination) and Trump himself

The people voted for Hillary. Mad system all together.

It's only mad if you forget that the President is the president of the fifty "free, independent and sovereign States" (to quote from 1776).

Every voter voted to indicate their preference for who their State wanted to lead them. Each State then votes for the President of that state's choice. If one, and only one vote were cast in California, and it was cast for a Democrat, then the position of the State of California is that it throws it's weight of 55 electors in behind the Democrat presidential candidate. If all 300,000 registered voters in South Dakota voted for the same a Republican candidate, then the position of that State is that it will throw its weight of 3 electors behind the a Republican presidential candidate. Folks who complain about the smaller states having more weight are similarly missing the issue of California having more than its own weight: The reason being that the internal voter makeup of the State compared to other Ststes was such that the end result was that California's EC worth to Clinton was over twice the worth of the individual Clinton voter in California. (10% of the votes, 25% of the EC total)

The citizens of the States and DC were voting in fiftyone individual, independent referenda which happened to take place on the same day. Understanding this principle is the key to understanding why the EC works the way it does.

ligerdub · 12-11-2016 09:46PM

PopePalpatine wrote: »

I merely raised the suggested the possibility that the voting machines may have been tampered with. As of typing this post, I've seen no evidence to suggest that's the case.

To me it read like it is being suggested as something that happened and is seen as credible. Fair enough if not.

ligerdub · 12-11-2016 09:47PM

sellasheep wrote: »

No he did not win fair and square. Hillary got 2 million more votes than him.

200,000 difference. They aren't finished counting in some states. He may yet edge her out on that.

ted1 · 12-11-2016 10:32PM

ZeitgeistGlee wrote: »

You not knowing how the American presidential election system works doesn't make it unfair. It's not, nor has it ever been a pure popularity contest.

Certainly you can believe it's unfair, hell I don't think it's particularly fair but it's the system everyone signed up to.

Same basic idea here would be if every Irish election was decided purely by Dublin, Cork and Limerick (cities).

So because someone lives in Hicksville their vote carrys a higher weight than someone living in a city. In democracy are all people not equal?

Who has signed up for it?

FatherTed · 12-11-2016 10:52PM

ligerdub wrote: »

200,000 difference. They aren't finished counting in some states. He may yet edge her out on that.

Actually it's over 400,000 now.

ZeitgeistGlee · 12-11-2016 11:23PM

ted1 wrote: »

So because someone lives in Hicksville their vote carrys a higher weight than someone living in a city. In democracy are all people not equal?

The US wasn't founded as a plurality-based democracy though (in fact quite the contrary).

ted1 wrote: »

Who has signed up for it?

Everyone who registers to vote. You implicitly agree to abide by the system by voting.

If people disagree with the EC (and I can perfectly see why they would), then they need to campaign to change it rather than waffling about an irrelevant PV winner. '08 would've been IMO a great time to have a national debate on it give given Obama won the EC and the PV I guess there was no appetite for it.

alastair · 12-11-2016 11:26PM

FatherTed wrote: »

Actually it's over 400,000 now.

It's well beyond that, and only set to grow:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/u/1/d/133Eb4qQmOxNvtesw2hdVns073R68EZx4SfCnP4IGQf8/htmlview?sle=true#gid=19

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/11/clintons-popular-vote-lead-will-grow-and-grow/507455/

BorneTobyWilde · 12-11-2016 11:41PM

Hillary lost key states by just a few thousand votes, had the won 3 of them Trump would not have made 270. It looks a landslide but Michican, PA and NH is all she needed. She lost those states by only a few votes.

alastair · 12-11-2016 11:55PM

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Hillary lost key states by just a few thousand votes, had the won 3 of them Trump would not have made 270. It looks a landslide but Michican, PA and NH is all she needed. She lost those states by only a few votes.

Hillary has won in New Hampshire. It's not been called yet, but she's got the most votes.

ligerdub · 12-11-2016 11:57PM

FatherTed wrote: »

Actually it's over 400,000 now.

Great, fair play to her.

ligerdub · 12-11-2016 11:58PM

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Hillary lost key states by just a few thousand votes, had the won 3 of them Trump would not have made 270. It looks a landslide but Michican, PA and NH is all she needed. She lost those states by only a few votes.

Yeah? She didn't.

Get over it.

alastair · 12-11-2016 11:59PM

ligerdub wrote: »

Yeah? She didn't.

Get over it.

In the case of NH, she did.

alastair · 13-11-2016 12:02AM

ligerdub wrote: »

Great, fair play to her.

Yeah, not a hope of Trump 'edging out her lead'. She'll end up millions of votes above Trump.

paleoperson · 13-11-2016 12:03AM

ted1 wrote: »

So because someone lives in Hicksville their vote carrys a higher weight than someone living in a city. In democracy are all people not equal?

"hicksville"... what a racist and despicable thing to say.

You're showing your colours as a narrow-minded bigot.

ted1 wrote: »

Who has signed up for it?

Are you actually a thinking person?

It's called democracy.

BorneTobyWilde · 13-11-2016 12:04AM

alastair wrote: »

Hillary has won in New Hampshire. It's not been called yet, but she's got the most votes.

yEA?
So all she needed was a few more vote in Michigan and PA to win.
Very slim victory by all accounts for Trump

Technically Hillary Clinton could still be elected President.

Comments