• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Pelosi: Impeachment Is Moving Forward

Okay, different question: Bonespurs lost the popular vote, right?

Trump lost the popular vote, but that doesn't mean anyone else won it.

If you want someone to agree with you, then yes I think apathy has won every US election in recent history.
Hillary lost it less than Trump. Does that meet your approval?

My point was that even before you add in the non-vote (due to disgust or apathy) nobody got a majority in 2016. Nobody won the popular vote.

Obama managed to receive a majority of votes cast in both his races. Bush Jr. did this in '04, Bush Sr. in '88, Reagan in both his races, Carter in '76, Nixon in '72, Johnson in '64.

Hillary and Trump underperformed all of them. 2016 joins 2000, 1996, 1992, 1968, and 1960 as races where everyone lost the popular vote.
 
Jason, you are technically correct about one thing, but you are making a definitional error over everything else. A non-vote is not a vote:
The "national popular vote" is the sum of all the votes cast in the general election, nationwide.

Emphasis added.

Now, Hillary Clinton only received 48.2% of the vote. Technically, she won the plurality but lost the majority. Trump lost both the plurality and majority but won the electoral college. Therefore, the way we word that is that Clinton won the popular vote and Trump lost, even though she lost the majority:
Losing the popular vote means securing less of the national popular vote than the person who received either a majority or a plurality of the vote.

Now, is it useful to point out that many people are apathetic? Sure. But you don't need to change the definitions of terms in order to make this point:
The psychological factors that influence voter behavior are a voter's perceptions of politics, that is, how the voter sees the parties, the candidates, and the issues in an election.[9] The farther down the ballot an office is, the fewer the number of votes that will be cast for it. This is called ballot fatigue. The expression suggests that many voters exhaust their patience or knowledge as they work their way down the ballot.
Prominent Founding Fathers writing in The Federalist Papers believed it was "essential to liberty that the government in general should have a common interest with the people," and felt that a bond between the people and the representatives was "particularly essential."[10] They wrote "frequent elections are unquestionably the only policy by which this dependence and sympathy can be effectually secured."[10] In 2009, however, few Americans were familiar with leaders of Congress.[11]
Numerous reports suggest voter apathy is widespread and growing.[12][13] The percentage of Americans eligible to vote who did, in fact, vote was 63% in 1960, but has been falling since.[14]
Vanderbilt professor Dana D. Nelson in Bad for Democracy argues that all citizens seem to do, politically, is vote for president every four years, and not much else; they've abandoned politics.[15] Apathy was lower in the 2008 election, which featured a competitive election for president.[16] Voter turnout in 2008 (62%) was the highest since 1968.[17]
On the other hand, Hunter College professor Jamie Chandler claims that voter apathy, or disinterest in the political system, is overstated in regards to socioeconomic factors. Wealth and educational attainment correlate most strongly with voter participation.[18]
 
If you want someone to agree with you, then yes I think apathy has won every US election in recent history.
Hillary lost it less than Trump. Does that meet your approval?

My point was that even before you add in the non-vote (due to disgust or apathy) nobody got a majority in 2016. Nobody won the popular vote.

Obama managed to receive a majority of votes cast in both his races. Bush Jr. did this in '04, Bush Sr. in '88, Reagan in both his races, Carter in '76, Nixon in '72, Johnson in '64.

Hillary and Trump underperformed all of them. 2016 joins 2000, 1996, 1992, 1968, and 1960 as races where everyone lost the popular vote.

I think you're confusing majority with plurality.
 
If you want someone to agree with you, then yes I think apathy has won every US election in recent history.
Hillary lost it less than Trump. Does that meet your approval?

My point was that even before you add in the non-vote (due to disgust or apathy) nobody got a majority in 2016. Nobody won the popular vote.

Obama managed to receive a majority of votes cast in both his races. Bush Jr. did this in '04, Bush Sr. in '88, Reagan in both his races, Carter in '76, Nixon in '72, Johnson in '64.

Hillary and Trump underperformed all of them. 2016 joins 2000, 1996, 1992, 1968, and 1960 as races where everyone lost the popular vote.

I think you're confusing majority with plurality.
Jason feels the need for this derail because... who knows why. Trump received millions fewer votes than Clinton. Clinton received the most popular votes. To squabble about majority of popular votes is a red herring, except for perhaps in the day when a person winning with fewer popular votes work a bit harder to work with the other side because they didn't receive a substantial mandate for the people. But those days are quite gone...

...much like this derail should be.
 
What you guys are failing to understand is that there was a deadline to give Ukraine the aid. Suppose the deadline was the 31st of the month as a hypothetical. Even if Trump thought, "I might withhold aid from Ukraine" and the date was the 17th of the month, there is no crime until the 1st of the next month, considering the money was due on the 31st.

Trump still released it on time. Nothing was delayed. No crime. Nothing illegal.

If I have a mortgage due on the 1st of the month and I decide on the 20th of the previous month that I might not pay it on the 1st, there is nothing wrong unless I ACTUALLY DECIDE TO NOT PAY IT ON THE 1ST! Then I would get a call from the bank on the 2nd asking what's going on.

Can you guys understand this?
 
What you guys are failing to understand is that there was a deadline to give Ukraine the aid. Suppose the deadline was the 31st of the month as a hypothetical. Even if Trump thought, "I might withhold aid from Ukraine" and the date was the 17th of the month, there is no crime until the 1st of the next month, considering the money was due on the 31st.

Trump still released it on time. Nothing was delayed. No crime. Nothing illegal.

If I have a mortgage due on the 1st of the month and I decide on the 20th of the previous month that I might not pay it on the 1st, there is nothing wrong unless I ACTUALLY DECIDE TO NOT PAY IT ON THE 1ST! Then I would get a call from the bank on the 2nd asking what's going on.

Can you guys understand this?

The deadline doesn't matter. The fact that Trump delayed the transfer for his own personal gain is what matters. Can you understand that?

You do realize Ukraine is at war with Russia, don't you? Everyday supplies and armaments don't get to the front means Ukrainians, our allies that we have sworn to help defend, die.
 
And we got this today.
Alan Dershowitz said:
Every public official that I know believes that his election is in the public interest. And mostly you’re right — your election is in the public interest. And if a president did something that he believes will help him get elected, in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment.
:eek:
 
And we got this today.
Alan Dershowitz said:
Every public official that I know believes that his election is in the public interest. And mostly you’re right — your election is in the public interest. And if a president did something that he believes will help him get elected, in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment.
:eek:

That's some wild shit. He'd defend Nazi death camps.
 
And we got this today.
Alan Dershowitz said:
Every public official that I know believes that his election is in the public interest. And mostly you’re right — your election is in the public interest. And if a president did something that he believes will help him get elected, in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment.
:eek:

Yeah, I caught that.

Randi Rhodes did a whole rebuttal on it. Basically if it's okay if it's in the public interest and it's in the public interest to get elected, that would make any crime committed by any candidate unpunishable. It's a stupid argument.

I've suspected for quite some time that Bonespurs has chosen his lawyers because they are famous, not because they are great legal minds. We know he's infatuated with fame. If he were smart, he'd have chosen lawyers with no prior impeachment experience so they cannot have their own words used against them.
 
Netanyahu has been charged with Bribery, Fraud, and Breach Of Trust. I guess Trump will be suspending aid to Israel until they straighten out their corruption problem.
 
" and the date was the 17th of the month, there is no crime until the 1st of the next month, considering the money was due on the 31st.
nope. That's not how the accusation works. He literally halted the payment, and tied it to some tgat would benefit him.
Releasing it a day after he got caught does not change what he tried to do.
Trump still released it on time. Nothing was delayed. No crime. Nothing illegal.
didn't we say you should shut up when yourein over your head?
If I have a mortgage due on the 1st of the month and I decide on the 20th of the previous month that I might not pay it on the 1st, there is nothing wrong unless I ACTUALLY DECIDE TO NOT PAY IT ON THE 1ST! Then I would get a call from the bank on the 2nd asking what's going on.

Can you guys understand this?
i dunno, can you make your mortgage story violate campaign finance laws?
 
nope. That's not how the accusation works. He literally halted the payment, and tied it to some tgat would benefit him.
Releasing it a day after he got caught does not change what he tried to do.didn't we say you should shut up when yourein over your head?
If I have a mortgage due on the 1st of the month and I decide on the 20th of the previous month that I might not pay it on the 1st, there is nothing wrong unless I ACTUALLY DECIDE TO NOT PAY IT ON THE 1ST! Then I would get a call from the bank on the 2nd asking what's going on.

Can you guys understand this?
i dunno, can you make your mortgage story violate campaign finance laws?

Trump withheld the money AFTER the deadline?
 
What you guys are failing to understand is that there was a deadline to give Ukraine the aid. Suppose the deadline was the 31st of the month as a hypothetical. Even if Trump thought, "I might withhold aid from Ukraine" and the date was the 17th of the month, there is no crime until the 1st of the next month, considering the money was due on the 31st.

Trump still released it on time. Nothing was delayed. No crime. Nothing illegal.

If I have a mortgage due on the 1st of the month and I decide on the 20th of the previous month that I might not pay it on the 1st, there is nothing wrong unless I ACTUALLY DECIDE TO NOT PAY IT ON THE 1ST! Then I would get a call from the bank on the 2nd asking what's going on.

Can you guys understand this?

The deadline doesn't matter. The fact that Trump delayed the transfer for his own personal gain is what matters. Can you understand that?

You do realize Ukraine is at war with Russia, don't you? Everyday supplies and armaments don't get to the front means Ukrainians, our allies that we have sworn to help defend, die.


Wait, now you guys are pro-war?

Did you sign up to go fight?

This is so confusing!
 
The SEAL that Trump pardoned?
Got his rank and SEAL pin back, feels fully exonerated? He just released a youtube video, naming the guys who testified against him. No biggie, he just put some of his former shipmates, and their families, at risk from a variety of terrorist groups.
Intentionally.

I fear this is a preview of hoe Bonespurs will react to his own acquittal. Feeling vindicated and untouchable, he's going to take it out on any who have displeased him, both sides of the aisle, for vindictive pleasure, not the 'interests of the nation.'
 
nope. That's not how the accusation works. He literally halted the payment, and tied it to some tgat would benefit him.
Releasing it a day after he got caught does not change what he tried to do.didn't we say you should shut up when yourein over your head?
If I have a mortgage due on the 1st of the month and I decide on the 20th of the previous month that I might not pay it on the 1st, there is nothing wrong unless I ACTUALLY DECIDE TO NOT PAY IT ON THE 1ST! Then I would get a call from the bank on the 2nd asking what's going on.

Can you guys understand this?
i dunno, can you make your mortgage story violate campaign finance laws?

Trump withheld the money AFTER the deadline?

Campaign finance. He broke the law. Can you keep up?
 
And we got this today.
Alan Dershowitz said:
Every public official that I know believes that his election is in the public interest. And mostly you’re right — your election is in the public interest. And if a president did something that he believes will help him get elected, in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment.
:eek:

Dershowitz became the youngest professor in Harvad's history at age 28. Why Harvard would have this guy teach law when some people on an internet forum think he's dumb is beyond me. Why would Harvard hire such a quack? Guess all the current lawyers who had him as teacher learned nothing from the guy, right? All you guys know better than him.
 
And we got this today.
Alan Dershowitz said:
Every public official that I know believes that his election is in the public interest. And mostly you’re right — your election is in the public interest. And if a president did something that he believes will help him get elected, in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment.
:eek:
So, that means 'HER EMAILS' is no longer a relevant bitch, right? Anything done to get elected?

Or, if it HAS to be the acting pres, then shut up about Obama 'wiretapping' Trump's phone inbthe public interest.
 
And we got this today.
Alan Dershowitz said:
Every public official that I know believes that his election is in the public interest. And mostly you’re right — your election is in the public interest. And if a president did something that he believes will help him get elected, in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment.
:eek:

Dershowitz became the youngest professor in Harvad's history at age 28. Why Harvard would have this guy teach law when some people on an internet forum think he's dumb is beyond me. Why would Harvard hire such a quack? Guess all the current lawyers who had him as teacher learned nothing from the guy, right? All you guys know better than him.

Now who's throwing up an argument from authority? I thought those made you laugh?
 
Trump withheld the money AFTER the deadline?

Campaign finance. He broke the law. Can you keep up?

But if Biden is going to be the Democratic nomination, the American people have a right to know if Biden was being corrupt. This would majorly help the public have a more informed opinion on Biden. By saying, "Trump can't do that!," you guys are essentially saying that the American people are better off voting for Biden without knowing how corrupt the guy is. This sounds like election tampering to me: suppressing the full story about a candidate can result in millions of votes based on false pretenses.
 
Back
Top Bottom