Clinton appears to have carried the popular vote, but Trump has won the all-important electoral college. How did this happen? I have heard various reasons:
- Trump connected to deep anger and frustration in the white working-class electorate - Clinton failed to maintain support from the Obama coalition - In the post-primary season, Clinton neglected the "blue firewall" in the rust belt, particularly Wisconsin - Many people were fed up with the status quo and wanted change, even if it meant Trump in the WhiteHouse
Both candidates had their flaws. IMHO, Trump's were far deeper than Clinton's. But his campaign carried the day because of the above.
Right. Because Donald Trump has never expressed contradictory positions before.
On the media? Not so much. He made a sport of vilifying them throughout his entire campaign. He called them the worst scum of the earth, threatened to pass laws to make it easier to sue them, mocked and insulted numerous reporters, and so on.
In a nutshell, he told everyone to listen to him, not them. And if we put our fingers in our ears and go "la la la la la" whenever the media tries to point out his "contradictory positions" he effectively makes himself immune to criticism and accountability.
If you're citing a reddit post to back up your claim, then you have already lost the argument.
Anyway, the reality is that both the dems and the repubs have both praised and scorned politifact. That would indicate politifact is not playing favourites.
The media wholesale abandoned any last shreds of credibility this election favor of (fairly openly and overtly) doing whatever they could to make Trump lose.
Because they called Trump on his lies more often than they called Clinton on hers? That's just because he told far more of them:
On average, 1-3 percent of mail ballots cast by California voters do not get counted. The top reasons why mail ballots are rejected are because they arrive too late, or the voter forgot to sign the mail ballot envelope, or the signature on the envelope did not sufficiently match the voter's signature on file. If you vote by mail be sure to return your ballot on time, and to sign the envelope the same way you registered to vote. If you registered online, check your driver's license signature as this is the one that will be used for verification.
All votes legally cast in California are counted, regardless of whether they were cast at the polling place or submitted through the vote by mail process. It may take a little longer to incorporate all of the vote-by-mail votes into the final election results, but they are all counted.
FBI launches investigation into FBI investigation-launches. Investigators are investigating where to investigate investigators for the investigation. They're thinking Buffalo.
If you're facing non-citizen voters in states that are already pro-Left, then why bother?
"Non-citizen voters" is an oxymoron. And please, no snarks about undocumented immigrants going to the polls. The last thing they want to do is something that could reveal their lack of status. Besides, voter fraud is nowhere near the problem some claim it to be.
I rely on non-mainstream media for some of my news, so I miss a lot of propaganda.
From the rest of your post, it sounds like you have marinated in propaganda, just from an alt source.
Slashdot Mirror
Meanwhile, there were 7M fewer democrat votes for Pres than in 2012. But about the same for republicans.
Maaaaaabye, it was something else.
Indeed it was. Majorities of voters intensely disliked both candidates. No need to provide details here -- that has already been done ad nauseum.
Clinton appears to have carried the popular vote, but Trump has won the all-important electoral college. How did this happen? I have heard various reasons:
- Trump connected to deep anger and frustration in the white working-class electorate
- Clinton failed to maintain support from the Obama coalition
- In the post-primary season, Clinton neglected the "blue firewall" in the rust belt, particularly Wisconsin
- Many people were fed up with the status quo and wanted change, even if it meant Trump in the WhiteHouse
Both candidates had their flaws. IMHO, Trump's were far deeper than Clinton's. But his campaign carried the day because of the above.
Right. Because Donald Trump has never expressed contradictory positions before.
On the media? Not so much. He made a sport of vilifying them throughout his entire campaign. He called them the worst scum of the earth, threatened to pass laws to make it easier to sue them, mocked and insulted numerous reporters, and so on.
In a nutshell, he told everyone to listen to him, not them. And if we put our fingers in our ears and go "la la la la la" whenever the media tries to point out his "contradictory positions" he effectively makes himself immune to criticism and accountability.
I already knew it from before. And shared the link, because Mythbusters.
If you're citing a reddit post to back up your claim, then you have already lost the argument.
Anyway, the reality is that both the dems and the repubs have both praised and scorned politifact. That would indicate politifact is not playing favourites.
The media wholesale abandoned any last shreds of credibility this election favor of (fairly openly and overtly) doing whatever they could to make Trump lose.
Because they called Trump on his lies more often than they called Clinton on hers? That's just because he told far more of them:
http://www.politifact.com/pers...
http://www.politifact.com/pers...
[The media] lost both all credibility and the election, and so no longer serve any useful purpose to anyone.
The media was not running in this election, but anyway -- who would you suggest take their place? Oh, wait...
There doesn't seem to be anyone any more who will put fact-checking before politics.
However imperfect the media may be sometimes, it's vital to have it around if democracy is to function.
Fingerprint locks can be foiled.
Cynical much? Who is going to hold politicians accountable for lying, if not the media?
Voters may understand that politicians lie, but they don't have the time or resources to investigate everything that politicians say.
...that Trump won because the media could not fact-check the narrative despite their best efforts.
FTFY
About 1-3% of all votes aren't counted. Given this election is around 0.15% different in the absolute vote totals - how can you say who got more votes?
From the link you supplied:
On average, 1-3 percent of mail ballots cast by California voters do not get counted. The top reasons why mail ballots are rejected are because they arrive too late, or the voter forgot to sign the mail ballot envelope, or the signature on the envelope did not sufficiently match the voter's signature on file. If you vote by mail be sure to return your ballot on time, and to sign the envelope the same way you registered to vote. If you registered online, check your driver's license signature as this is the one that will be used for verification.
All votes legally cast in California are counted, regardless of whether they were cast at the polling place or submitted through the vote by mail process. It may take a little longer to incorporate all of the vote-by-mail votes into the final election results, but they are all counted.
In case you missed it, the electorate suppressed a load of republican or republican-leaning voter areas.
Well, I for one confess I did miss that. Kindly enlighten us with some citations that show how the electorate did that.
I think by "experts" in that case he meant "Clinton / Democrat / Establishment".
No, he didn't. Some examples:
I know more about ISIS than the generals do, believe me.
The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.
I’m speaking with myself, number one, because I have a very good brain and I’ve said a lot of things...my primary consultant is myself.
Ballmer Smash
FTFY
Mr.Steve Ballmer. Would you like a chair to throw with that?
I think Steve Ballmer is responsible for the widespread adoption of "stand-up" meetings.
...but sheep work too.
Imagine a Beowulf cluster of these in Natalie Portman's pants!
Hmm... Front or back pocket?
Try telling a Green that Nuclear Power is a vastly superior and cleaner alternative.
Actually, the "Greens" have been telling us that very thing:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/en...
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06...
According to this study, smoking enhances evolution by increasing random mutation!
It also helps to combat climate-change.
Actually, every phone is fold-able. Whether it's still useful afterwards is another matter.
Indeed.
FBI launches investigation into FBI investigation-launches. Investigators are investigating where to investigate investigators for the investigation. They're thinking Buffalo.
That's a hillbully tell: hallucinate something outrageous, then ridicule the hallucination.
I think you misspelled "strawman."
If you're facing non-citizen voters in states that are already pro-Left, then why bother?
"Non-citizen voters" is an oxymoron. And please, no snarks about undocumented immigrants going to the polls. The last thing they want to do is something that could reveal their lack of status. Besides, voter fraud is nowhere near the problem some claim it to be.
I rely on non-mainstream media for some of my news, so I miss a lot of propaganda.
From the rest of your post, it sounds like you have marinated in propaganda, just from an alt source.
/thread
Removing the oil from the ground should minimize tectonic shifts when the lubricant goes missing?
Only when the cavity the oil occupied settles to take up the space the oil left behind. There's a word for that event.
Correlation is not causation but it sure is a hint. -- Edward Tufte
I did use Google, and it did not yield any links with the GGP's alleged quote.
I looked at your link. It does not contain the quote either. An indirect remark that Romney's view is "dated" does not cut it.
So, Clinton did not say that Romney was an "out-of-touch idiot." Thanks for debunking GGP's claim.