• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump Logic

katzgar said:
incorrect. electors are not elected by popular vote. https://www.usa.gov/election
Click to expand...

Oh FFS you enjoy playing games.

In all 50 states, it's decided by the popular vote of that sate. In FOURTY EIGHT states, the electors are chosen by the majority popular vote of the state, and in two states it's done proportionally based on the popular vote. In all 50 cases however, which sides electors are elected to cast their votes is determined in some fashion by the popular vote of that state.

No where, however, does the national popular vote have any impact on the selection of electors, because the national popular vote is irrelevant to the actual election process.

All of this game playing on your part, all based on your inability to accept the fact that Hillary Clinton lost the election. It's quite staggering the level of denial and refusal of acceptance for reality that you are demonstrating here.
 
Zyphlin said:
Oh FFS you enjoy playing games.

In all 50 states, it's decided by the popular vote of that sate. In FOURTY EIGHT states, the electors are chosen by the majority popular vote of the state, and in two states it's done proportionally based on the popular vote. In all 50 cases however, which sides electors are elected to cast their votes is determined in some fashion by the popular vote of that state.

No where, however, does the national popular vote have any impact on the selection of electors, because the national popular vote is irrelevant to the actual election process.

All of this game playing on your part, all based on your inability to accept the fact that Hillary Clinton lost the election. It's quite staggering the level of denial and refusal of acceptance for reality that you are demonstrating here.
Click to expand...


not true and yet I provided you a link explaining it.

I never said this "No where, however, does the national popular vote have any impact on the selection of electors, because the national popular vote is irrelevant to the actual election process." did I . what I did say is the popular vote shows trump is a loser by 2.8 million votes.
 
katzgar said:
not true and yet I provided you a link explaining it.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the link you provided showed no such thing. The information I provided came from a link within your source. And you've still not dealt with the fact that your own source indicated that the "general election" as you're using it doesn't actually have people voting for Trump or Clinton and thus making your claim that either Trump "lost" or Clinton "beat" him still faulty. I guess your use of your "source" only is when you think, erroneously, it suits you?

After you cast your ballot for President, your vote goes to a statewide tally [I.E. the popular vote]. In 48 states and Washington, D.C., the winner [of the statewide tally, i.e. the popular vote] gets all of the electoral votes for that state. This means his or her party’s electors in that state will vote in the Electoral College. Maine and Nebraska assign their electors using a proportional system called the Congressional District Method [which is still based off the proportional totals of the statewide tally, i.e. the popular vote]
Click to expand...

Oh, by the way....care to point out anywhere in your continued to be referenced source where it suggests that the National Popular vote has any impact, what so ever, on the actual election?

Oh, speaking of that language, "losing the election". From YOUR SOURCE:

Winning the Popular Vote but Losing the Election

Though uncommon, it is possible to win the Electoral College, but lose the popular vote. That means that a candidate can win a combination of states and reach the 270 electors mark without winning the majority of votes across the country. This has happened five times in American elections, most recently in 2016.
Click to expand...

Look at that. Winning the popular vote, but losing the ELECTION. You know, the thing I've been saying this whole time.

The level of dishonesty as a means of denying reality here all in the name of attacking Trump and giving no credence of any degree to him is just staggering. Face facts. The national popular vote is irrelevant as it relates to the winner of the election, the 2.8 million votes you keep pointing to are no more relevant than passing yardage in a football game. I have zero issue acknowledging that Trump received less votes than Hillary Clinton. It's amazing you can't seem to acknowledge that such a thing is irrelevant, and that Trump won the election.
 
Zyphlin said:
Yeah, the link you provided showed no such thing. The information I provided came from a link within your source. And you've still not dealt with the fact that your own source indicated that the "general election" as you're using it doesn't actually have people voting for Trump or Clinton and thus making your claim that either Trump "lost" or Clinton "beat" him still faulty. I guess your use of your "source" only is when you think, erroneously, it suits you?



Oh, by the way....care to point out anywhere in your continued to be referenced source where it suggests that the National Popular vote has any impact, what so ever, on the actual election?

Oh, speaking of that language, "losing the election". From YOUR SOURCE:



Look at that. Winning the popular vote, but losing the ELECTION. You know, the thing I've been saying this whole time.

The level of dishonesty as a means of denying reality here all in the name of attacking Trump and giving no credence of any degree to him is just staggering. Face facts. The national popular vote is irrelevant as it relates to the winner of the election, the 2.8 million votes you keep pointing to are no more relevant than passing yardage in a football game. I have zero issue acknowledging that Trump received less votes than Hillary Clinton. It's amazing you can't seem to acknowledge that such a thing is irrelevant, and that Trump won the election.
Click to expand...


Trump winning the election isn't the point here you are playing a shell game with reality. The only point that interest me is Trump is a loser to the American people. You can play your semantics shell game all day long but the fact is Trump is a loser given the popular vote. I will also point out the link I provided you explains the process of selecting electors that has nothing to do with either the general election or the popular vote whatever you want to call it
 
katzgar said:
Trump winning the election isn't the point here you are playing a shell game with reality.
Click to expand...

No, it's absolutely central to our back and forth, since that was your initial claim. If you want to backtrack and admit he didn't lose the election, but got less of the popular vote...awesome, I'll agree with you there and would acknowledge that's an actual factual statement. As to the "Trump is a loser to the American People comment", that gets a big shoulder shrug and "meh" to me as it relates to this conversation because that's neither factual or not factual, that's a subjective opinion. One that I don't think it entirely unreasonable, but not really relevant to the discussion of the factualness of statements.

As to the second part of your post...you're just wrong, and you apparently didn't bother looking at your own link.

Election Cycle.jpg

Note, under General Election: "When people cast their vote, they are actually voting for a group of people called electors". The very source you're relying on to claim that the "General election" is singularly just election day is flat out stating that people aren't actually voting for Trump or Clinton, but rather they are voting for electors. If Clinton or Trump aren't actually being voted on.

And, I already quoted you the part of YOUR SOURCE that clearly indicates that the popular vote of individual states, i.e. the statewide tally of votes, absolutely IS what decides which electors are selected.

I'm beginning to question if you've actually read or looked at your own source you keep incorrectly quoting. Note that unlike you, I'm not simply putting the link and CLAIMING it says this or that...I've actually quoted or inserted the actual portions of the source that I'm stating back up my claims.
 
katzgar said:
Trump winning the election isn't the point here you are playing a shell game with reality. The only point that interest me is Trump is a loser to the American people. You can play your semantics shell game all day long but the fact is Trump is a loser given the popular vote. I will also point out the link I provided you explains the process of selecting electors that has nothing to do with either the general election or the popular vote whatever you want to call it
Click to expand...
3 million is less than 1% of the population.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom