Russian ambassador told Moscow that Kushner wanted secret comm. channel with Kremlin

[OpportunityCost]

Re: Russian ambassador told Moscow that Kushner wanted secret comm. channel with Krem

This is what happens when you press people who refuse to accept facts, be they liberal, conservative or whatever. They don't bother looking it up for themselves:

"Definition of people's choice in English:

people's choice
NOUN

A person or thing chosen by the majority of people, a popular favorite."

Your use of the term is, indeed, a misnomer. It is a wrong or inaccurate use of the term. If you admit that Clinton won the popular vote, then you are also admitting she was the people's choice. The choice of the people. So, you not only disagree with me, but with the English definition and the logic of our language.

Yes, of course, that's why she lost. Get over it.

 

[bluesmoke]

Re: Russian ambassador told Moscow that Kushner wanted secret comm. channel with Krem

Yes, of course, that's why she lost. Get over it.

Yes, the fact is Hillary lost. But that's not the point what you fail to recognize as you continue to evade the fact of definition and understanding of the English language. I will let it go at your purposefully ignoring that fact, though I acknowledge the fact of what you pretend I don't. You cannot refute the facts of what I say, so you keep saying I don't accept the fact of what I have already stated I do accept. What supporting facts have you to say otherwise?

 

[Mustachio]

Re: Russian ambassador told Moscow that Kushner wanted secret comm. channel with Krem

This is what happens when you press a liberal, they forget what civil discourse looks like.

I have no problem saying Clinton won the popular vote. I find the term "people's choice" to be a misnomer, as that's the person that wins the election. That's my opinion and you will just have to live with us disagreeing with that.

To clarify, your definition of "people's choice" is something other than what the majority of people choose.

Fascinating. Trump won the election. That's not good enough though, in the age of Trump, he has to win everything plus outscore Kevin Durant or else it's fake and lies.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Re: Russian ambassador told Moscow that Kushner wanted secret comm. channel with Krem

Yes, the fact is Hillary lost. But that's not the point what you fail to recognize as you continue to evade the fact of definition and understanding of the English language. I will let it go at your purposefully ignoring that fact, though I acknowledge the fact of what you pretend I don't. You cannot refute the facts of what I say, so you keep saying I don't accept the fact of what I have already stated I do accept. What supporting facts have you to say otherwise?

Who the POTUS is.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Re: Russian ambassador told Moscow that Kushner wanted secret comm. channel with Krem

To clarify, your definition of "people's choice" is something other than what the majority of people choose.

Fascinating. Trump won the election. That's not good enough though, in the age of Trump, he has to win everything plus outscore Kevin Durant or else it's fake and lies.

You could go with the people's choice of California. Or New York. But under the Constitution, Trump is the people's choice, because he is the President.

 

[ThoughtEx.]

Re: Russian ambassador told Moscow that Kushner wanted secret comm. channel with Krem

You could go with the people's choice of California. Or New York. But under the Constitution, Trump is the people's choice, because he is the President.

And if a few states changed from winner take all to proportional, she would have ended up with 265 electoral votes to his 260. So no, he wasn't the people's choice. He's the choice of an obsolete system designed to rob people of their votes. A retiree in Florida's vote shouldn't be worth the same as 1,000 people from California.

Heck, even under our current system, California should have more electors than it does based purely on population. Twice now in my lifetime, the people have been screwed.

 

[Parrish]

Re: Russian ambassador told Moscow that Kushner wanted secret comm. channel with Krem

And if a few states changed from winner take all to proportional, she would have ended up with 265 electoral votes to his 260. So no, he wasn't the people's choice. He's the choice of an obsolete system designed to rob people of their votes. A retiree in Florida's vote shouldn't be worth the same as 1,000 people from California.

Heck, even under our current system, California should have more electors than it does based purely on population. Twice now in my lifetime, the people have been screwed.

Hell, even those who voted for 45 are screwed and those who know it must enjoy it.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Re: Russian ambassador told Moscow that Kushner wanted secret comm. channel with Krem

And if a few states changed from winner take all to proportional, she would have ended up with 265 electoral votes to his 260. So no, he wasn't the people's choice. He's the choice of an obsolete system designed to rob people of their votes. A retiree in Florida's vote shouldn't be worth the same as 1,000 people from California.

Heck, even under our current system, California should have more electors than it does based purely on population. Twice now in my lifetime, the people have been screwed.

Our electoral votes match our legislative votes exactly. I don't think its obsolete, its meant to protect smaller states and lower population states from the problem all full democracies suffer eventually. Which is funny considering Hillary LOST because she didn't seem to think a number of smaller battleground states were important enough to campaign in them very strongly.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Re: Russian ambassador told Moscow that Kushner wanted secret comm. channel with Krem

Hell, even those who voted for 45 are screwed and those who know it must enjoy it.

A thoroughly stupid post of TDS whining.

 

[Mustachio]

Re: Russian ambassador told Moscow that Kushner wanted secret comm. channel with Krem

You could go with the people's choice of California. Or New York. But under the Constitution, Trump is the people's choice, because he is the President.

You sound like Alex from Clockwork Orange after he's been brainwashed.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Re: Russian ambassador told Moscow that Kushner wanted secret comm. channel with Krem

You sound like Alex from Clockwork Orange after he's been brainwashed.

You sound like a fisherman.


But you need better bait.

 

[bluesmoke]

Re: Russian ambassador told Moscow that Kushner wanted secret comm. channel with Krem

Who the POTUS is.

This is a debate forum. You've not been able to refute the point of what I've attempted to fairly debate with you. You're being childishly silly is simply not within bounds of a mindful debate. I look forward to the opportunity when we might be able to engage in a debate without the cost of wasting honest input.

 

[bluesmoke]

Re: Russian ambassador told Moscow that Kushner wanted secret comm. channel with Krem

Our electoral votes match our legislative votes exactly. I don't think its obsolete, its meant to protect smaller states and lower population states from the problem all full democracies suffer eventually. Which is funny considering Hillary LOST because she didn't seem to think a number of smaller battleground states were important enough to campaign in them very strongly.

Just to be clear, each State is allocated a number of Electors equal to the number of its U.S. Senators plus the number of its U.S. Representatives in the House.

I agree with all you say. The electoral system was made the way it is to get buy-in from all the States during the Constitutional Convention. As James Madison put it:

“The Constitution was designed to be a mixture of state-based and population-based government. Congress would have two houses: the state-based Senate and the population-based House of Representatives. Meanwhile, the president would be elected by a mixture of the two modes.”

Therefore, California’s power by large population is compromised by much smaller states having the same number of Senators. However, increased in the House for having such a large population. In the last six Presidential elections, California has had either 54 of 55 electorates, the most of any state, and will have 55 electorates in the 2020 election based on the 2010 Census. The once every ten years Census being what most largely determines the number of Electorates. Popularly elected State and Local officials also gives the populace more power of the majority.

There have been four Presidents choses by the Electoral College over the popular vote. In each of those elections, it was the Democrat that won the popular vote. That is, Democrats were the “people’s choice”.

Obama said as much as you did about her losing when he said, in so many words, that to win the Presidency you have to go to as many fairs in as many states as possible. BTW, Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania, states where Hillary should have had more presence, are not “smaller” states, but are ‘larger’ states.

Too bad you refuse to accept what are facts presented by others while others openly accept what you present as fact. That fact being, in this case, that Clinton was "the people's choice." You stubbornly refuse to accept that point while misdirecting the debate in another direction that distorts the definition of "people's choice" and how in the English language is synonymous to "winning the popular vote". Debate involves the compromise of accepting facts you cannot refute. Otherwise you are not debating, but engaging in irrational argument.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Re: Russian ambassador told Moscow that Kushner wanted secret comm. channel with Krem

Just to be clear, each State is allocated a number of Electors equal to the number of its U.S. Senators plus the number of its U.S. Representatives in the House.

I agree with all you say. The electoral system was made the way it is to get buy-in from all the States during the Constitutional Convention. As James Madison put it:

“The Constitution was designed to be a mixture of state-based and population-based government. Congress would have two houses: the state-based Senate and the population-based House of Representatives. Meanwhile, the president would be elected by a mixture of the two modes.”

Therefore, California’s power by large population is compromised by much smaller states having the same number of Senators. However, increased in the House for having such a large population. In the last six Presidential elections, California has had either 54 of 55 electorates, the most of any state, and will have 55 electorates in the 2020 election based on the 2010 Census. The once every ten years Census being what most largely determines the number of Electorates. Popularly elected State and Local officials also gives the populace more power of the majority.

There have been four Presidents choses by the Electoral College over the popular vote. In each of those elections, it was the Democrat that won the popular vote. That is, Democrats were the “people’s choice”.

Obama said as much as you did about her losing when he said, in so many words, that to win the Presidency you have to go to as many fairs in as many states as possible. BTW, Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania, states where Hillary should have had more presence, are not “smaller” states, but are ‘larger’ states.

Too bad you refuse to accept what are facts presented by others while others openly accept what you present as fact. That fact being, in this case, that Clinton was "the people's choice." You stubbornly refuse to accept that point while misdirecting the debate in another direction that distorts the definition of "people's choice" and how in the English language is synonymous to "winning the popular vote". Debate involves the compromise of accepting facts you cannot refute. Otherwise you are not debating, but engaging in irrational argument.

Just to be clear, your entire argument is in lieu of an honest assessment of who won the election. Your argument is akin to "Hillary really won". While admitting Trump won, you do so grudgingly followed with a "but...", in which you undercut the legitimacy of his win. Hillary's entire majority won rests in just one state, which is precisely why the electoral college is set up the way it is.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Re: Russian ambassador told Moscow that Kushner wanted secret comm. channel with Krem

This is a debate forum. You've not been able to refute the point of what I've attempted to fairly debate with you. You're being childishly silly is simply not within bounds of a mindful debate. I look forward to the opportunity when we might be able to engage in a debate without the cost of wasting honest input.

Restating your position in general terms with no new input isn't any more convincing than it was when you first stated it. Thanks for the veiled honesty insult, that's really special, is this what passes for higher conversation with you?

 

[bluesmoke]

Re: Russian ambassador told Moscow that Kushner wanted secret comm. channel with Krem

Just to be clear, your entire argument is in lieu of an honest assessment of who won the election. Your argument is akin to "Hillary really won". While admitting Trump won, you do so grudgingly followed with a "but...", in which you undercut the legitimacy of his win. Hillary's entire majority won rests in just one state, which is precisely why the electoral college is set up the way it is.

You can make whatever you wish, in your own mind, of what I said. But, everything I said is correct and you can't produce any facts to refute my post.

 

[bluesmoke]

Re: Russian ambassador told Moscow that Kushner wanted secret comm. channel with Krem

Restating your position in general terms with no new input isn't any more convincing than it was when you first stated it. Thanks for the veiled honesty insult, that's really special, is this what passes for higher conversation with you?

Excuse me. I didn't mean to be veiled. A bit of wit, perhaps. What, to me, is a part of higher conversation you lack is your refusal to recognize accepted definition and language. In this case, the meaning of "the people's choice". Obstinance does not pass for higher conversation, to me.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Re: Russian ambassador told Moscow that Kushner wanted secret comm. channel with Krem

You can make whatever you wish, in your own mind, of what I said. But, everything I said is correct and you can't produce any facts to refute my post.

Euphemisms in place of the facts doesn't make the euphemisms true. You want to pretend Hillary won the election to undermine the current President. He won the election in the way we have elected Presidents the entire time we have been a nation.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Re: Russian ambassador told Moscow that Kushner wanted secret comm. channel with Krem

Excuse me. I didn't mean to be veiled. A bit of wit, perhaps. What, to me, is a part of higher conversation you lack is your refusal to recognize accepted definition and language. In this case, the meaning of "the people's choice". Obstinance does not pass for higher conversation, to me.

Since when is there a people's choice in an election? There is a winner and a loser, using the term is just an attempt to undermine the winner. Its sore loser bull**** to soothe your loss. Playing this semantic game is pathetic.

That veiled enough for you?

 

[bluesmoke]

Re: Russian ambassador told Moscow that Kushner wanted secret comm. channel with Krem

Euphemisms in place of the facts doesn't make the euphemisms true. You want to pretend Hillary won the election to undermine the current President. He won the election in the way we have elected Presidents the entire time we have been a nation.

"Euphemism" is an accurate term to describe my choice of word. You might even use the term "politically correct", if it makes you feel better. Still, that doesn't change the fact that you pretend I am pretending that Hillary won the election when I am on record as having said just the opposite. The only point I've made is that Hillary won the popular vote, a fact you are too obstinant to admit. That does not change the fact that Trump won the election, by Constitutional standard, fair and square, which I've agreed with before. That you fail to cognate or be honest enough to acknowledge my point that addresses both sides of the issue and would rather refuse the plain meaning of my post is your failure.

 

[bluesmoke]

Re: Russian ambassador told Moscow that Kushner wanted secret comm. channel with Krem

You, again, ignore the original context of the reply I made to the post that Trump was "the people's choice". Instead, you make up your own narrative to change that context and paint my posting as something that never was. There are no semantics inconsistent with my point in terms of definition and meaning of the English language. All you can do is go off on a tangent that ignores the fact of what I've posted. Trump was the winner, Hillary the loser. You take my facts as being an assault on the winner. They are simply facts, which your playwriting can't change, then you pretend I mean something I've never said. Give me an example of what I've posted saying that Trump is not legitimate. You can't. I've said just the opposite.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Re: Russian ambassador told Moscow that Kushner wanted secret comm. channel with Krem

"Euphemism" is an accurate term to describe my choice of word. You might even use the term "politically correct", if it makes you feel better. Still, that doesn't change the fact that you pretend I am pretending that Hillary won the election when I am on record as having said just the opposite. The only point I've made is that Hillary won the popular vote, a fact you are too obstinant to admit. That does not change the fact that Trump won the election, by Constitutional standard, fair and square, which I've agreed with before. That you fail to cognate or be honest enough to acknowledge my point that addresses both sides of the issue and would rather refuse the plain meaning of my post is your failure.

Meanwhile you keep calling her the people's choice. Its just sore loser butthurt smoke screen bull****.

 

[bluesmoke]

Re: Russian ambassador told Moscow that Kushner wanted secret comm. channel with Krem

Meanwhile you keep calling her the people's choice. Its just sore loser butthurt smoke screen bull****.

My "keep calling her the people's choice" is nothing more than repeating the same fact in response to your repeated ignorance, by choice. You just don't have the adult mind to acknowledge that fact which you decry me for simply stating so. You have a problem with facts that do not support your narrative. Do you understand that one can accept facts of a differing view without having to concede your position in the matter?

 

[OpportunityCost]

Re: Russian ambassador told Moscow that Kushner wanted secret comm. channel with Krem

My "keep calling her the people's choice" is nothing more than repeating the same fact in response to your repeated ignorance, by choice. You just don't have the adult mind to acknowledge that fact which you decry me for simply stating so. You have a problem with facts that do not support your narrative. Do you understand that one can accept facts of a differing view without having to concede your position in the matter?

Nah, it's just butt hurt sore-loser-ism whine sauce. She lost, you need to get past that. Using the term people's choice is just a way to deny that reality.

 

[bluesmoke]

Re: Russian ambassador told Moscow that Kushner wanted secret comm. channel with Krem

Nah, it's just butt hurt sore-loser-ism whine sauce. She lost, you need to get past that. Using the term people's choice is just a way to deny that reality.

I will leave it at you refusing to accept or acknowledge the facts and my accepting the facts of whom won the Presidency but not accepting your mischaracterization of my position, where you cannot give any example of my wording that is an expression of being a sore loser, or my not getting past the facts I've already accepted without question or any denial on my part of that reality. You can't back-up your own claims against me with any such example, can you?