薔薇語

What? I am completely and utterly lost in your last post. Please expand upon it. Soar.

Because you are trying to red-herring the conversation with dismissness towards thirds. Thirds didn't cost Sec. Clinton the race. Soar.

Maybe, just maybe do not spread such obviously fake stories. Nor stories that mean nothing. The US gets larger every year. If you aren't winning with larger raw numbers each time, then that is telling of a whole diff problem. Soar.

Maybe. Maybe not. We have to try our best. That doesn't make the Clinton campaign a success. Soar.

Finally you look at demos. So, what do they say? Every demo fled to 3rds. But they fled far faster from the dems (3:1 to 5:1). Soar

So, you quoted an utterly BS story and are just hoping it becomes less BS? Okay. Everyone has their fake news of choice. Soar.

There is some stupid fake news story going around that secretary Clinton has managed to get more votes than anyone else in history. This is not true. President Obama 4 years ago managed to pull in 66 million votes. That was with a smaller population total. Before that, he pulled in almost 70 million votes. And that was with an even smaller population total. Secretary Clinton has only pulled in around 6５ million votes with a greater pool. Soar

Sec. Clinton failed to clinch the EC (the only race that matters despite your protests) and her popular vote total just makes her the least disliked - not favored. Thats like claiming the scimbag with the lowest bounty on his head at mos isle is the best. The Rep can at least look at this cycle and see that they didn't lose ground from last time. The dems despite their faux win, lost ground in almost every demo. The Dems lost and lost hard in a cycle that they should have won. Tilting at windmills and making up moot arguments doesn't help. At least you have stopped calling everyone racist and sexist. So I guess that is step forward. Soar.

Get out of here with that BS. The principal difference between you and I, Mega, is that I can recognize that the Libertarians have a lot of ground to make up in order to win. And to do that we actually have to find a good candidate and a good message to stand behind. I don't have to blame racist Republicans or Democrats. I don't have to blame unfair media treatment or what ever BS to excuse away why we lost - Stepping up and taking responsibility for the fact but there are things that were in our control and we failed on is enough. Integrity and Responsibility are virtues - not whining over a race that didn't happen or comparing dissimilar events (04 to now). Soar.

Because I'm not talking about 2000. Mega mentioned 2004. I responded to mega's comment about 2004. Soar.

Yeah, people are always going to feel sour when they lose. Doesnt change or add facts to consideration. Soar.

Good analogy. Another one I love is: In the world series, you can score the most runs and still lose. It doesn't matter if you won 100 to 1 in game 1, if you lose 0 to 1 in the next six, you are still the loser. Dems da rulz. Soar.

They don't. The majority don't want either (PE Trump - Sec. Clinton). But certain posters cant seem to reconcile that one can win the popular and still be disliked by a majority of people. This cycle saw a rejection of both major candidates. Soar.

on my phone so I can't cut up the post and respond. Voter turnout - not true. We are less than 1% from last time. That does mean we have more than 2000 but less than subsequent. 2016-2004 is 12. Not twenty. Vote margin is pointless since A) not the race B.) a strong majority still rejected her. If you can't win even a simple majority, GTFO with this mandate BS. That includes President Elect Trump. The EC is a compromise between the two legislative philosophies. It does grant more voice to minority states. Is it perfect? Disenfranchisement only seems to be an issue when Rep due it and dems lose. Soar.

I like how you conveniently forgot that majority of the people in the nation actually wanted President Bush to be president where as the majority of people do not want secretary Clinton to be president. Indeed the people who didn't vote for secretary Clinton are greater than the people who didn't vote for President Bush. Soar.

That is a bit of odd information. We have far more people in this election than any other in our history. Of course we would expect that margin to be bigger in raw numbers. And the fact that this event is so rare in our history (only four times in our history if memory serves me) any percent spread is hardly out of the normal since no 'normal' can exist. It is of note that while Sec. Clinton has more vote than President Elect Trump, she still can't even break into a simple majority. Even with the increase in total numbers coming in, more people still didn't want her to be president than people wanted her to. So, she won the race no one was running. Congrats. That is like being the fastest breast-stroke swimmer in the butterfly competition. It doesn't matter. It is also of note that even if we got rid of the senatorial portion of the EC, thus bring the vote power of each citizen into far closer alignment, President Elect Trump would still win 190-246. The system we have isn't going to be changing anytime soon. Perhaps states adjusting their winner-take-all status could have some effect and actually be feasible but no one is going to actually push that view in any of the power-house states (Cal, Tex, NY). The California Dems are not going to give up 15+ electors in a cycle. Nor would the Texas Repubs. And of course if they do do proportional representation, the California Dems risk exciting a few million Republicans in their state and god only knows how many stay home just because of our system. Indeed, Given the big states (minus Texas) tend to swing Dem and have some of the lowest turnouts - the Democratic party has far more to fear from such a re-gearing towards 'democracy' than the Republicans do. But perhaps I am wrong and there are not millions of disenfranchised Republicans in NY and Cali. Soar.

Over 7mil. Thats perfect for retiring campaign debt. ^^ Soar.

I know people have been biting their nails in anticipation and finally we know: Comedian (?) Lena Dunham will not be moving to Canada despite her campaign promise. Well, I don't quite know how to feel about this but at least all this worrisome speculation can finally come to a close. Soar.

Please feel free to reread my actual post and the post it quoted. Soar.

Well, obviously I am biased but I think our guy had that. Successful 2 term governor. Alas he was pretty terrible at really representing the party on the center stage of this election cycle. Always next year. Soar.

Indeed. President Elect Trump looks to be using his office in a corrupt manner. But wagging one's finger with a "buy hey! That guy's worse!" isn't a solution. Finding someone who doesn't have that stench of corruption is. Soar.

But isn't that poor commentary on both the Clintons and our system as a whole. We have just accepted as a foregone conclusion that our leaders will and really must be corrupt. Well, there is always a third party vote. And just imagine the world we could be moving into if 63 million people didn't throw away their vote on a losing candidate. Soar.

Fair enough. I haven't found any sources that aren't right leaning. I did message the University and the police on twitter to get a response. This kind of reaction seems all to indicative of a trend by college admins and students. But that doesn't mean it should be taken at face value. Soar. Edit / Follow-up: While the College nor the Police have responded yet - one of the students there sent me a copy of e-mail. A quick comb over of the student's twitter profile suggest that he dislikes the alt-right, dislikes President Elect Trump, and is on the Libertarian side of life.

So, of course the above raises the question: "What was in that message?" Well, the message was on a post-it-note and is as follows: "Suck it up, pussies. :p" Yep. College educated people think that is a hate crime. Remember how I pointed out that the image that springs to my mind when I hear hate crime and what people are actually using it for are drastically different? This is that. Also, remember how people who were against hate-crime legislation were worried about "thought police" telling people how to think and feel? Such silly folks they were... oh, well, maybe not as silly anymore. It is this kind of BS that I find infuriating. People hyping up every unpleasant interaction as a hate crime. Now, let's not throw out the baby with the bath water, but perhaps it is time to start draining the tub. http://reason.com/blog/2016/11/23/students-reaction-to-trump-win-suck-it-u Soar.

The following has absolutely no connection to the other conversation at hand. It is also not done in an angry, ironic, or otherwise undesired tone. Why the scare quotes around my tag? Perhaps I haven't seen enough of your posts where you reference other users and the quotation marks are your standard. If so, I apologize. But I just don't quite get it. I am going to assume that it is because my actual user name is in Japanese 薔薇語. But I do go by Soar so feel free to use that as it is. Likewise, Foreign Orchid and Rose are ones I have gone / do go by. Anyway, back to the business at hand. ^^ "Soar"