- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: So what happens when Trump loses Again?
Posted on 9/11/23 at 2:33 pm to RollTide4Ever
Posted on 9/11/23 at 2:33 pm to RollTide4Ever
What happens if he wins?
Just curious
Does it mean that we are going to riot and destroy cities for the next 4 years?
Just curious
Does it mean that we are going to riot and destroy cities for the next 4 years?
This post was edited on 9/11/23 at 2:34 pm
1
Posted on 9/11/23 at 2:40 pm to Indefatigable
You want me to link instances of various people, either known or unknown, who have utilized the term majority as I’ve referenced it herein? I think not. Are you suggesting that your version is used in connection with this specific topic all the time, or a majority of the time or what?
Posted on 9/11/23 at 2:42 pm to davyjones
quote:
Majority doesn’t necessarily mean “50% + 1,”
But it does. "Most" is the word your looking for if you want a different term than plurality.
quote:
But in any case it would seem a bit asinine to dismiss the overall winner of the national primary process as an irrelevant “minority.”
I don't think anybody's done that. People have pointed out, correctly, the definition of "popular".
This post was edited on 9/11/23 at 2:44 pm
Posted on 9/11/23 at 2:43 pm to davyjones
quote:
You want me to link instances of various people, either known or unknown, who have utilized the term majority as I’ve referenced it herein?
Yes. I want you to show me where one person other than you has used the definition of majority that you are putting forward in this thread (i.e., actually the definition of a plurality) as it relates to elections.
Just point me to one instance of a single person calling a plurality winner a majority winner in an election, or describing a person receiving less than half of total votes as having received a majority of total votes. Just one.
This post was edited on 9/11/23 at 2:46 pm
Posted on 9/11/23 at 2:51 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
Just point me to one instance of a single person calling a plurality winner a majority winner in an election, or describing a person receiving less than half of total votes as having received a majority of total votes. Just one.
This is the text from Oklahoma's law:
quote:
If at any Primary Election no candidate for the nomination for office of any political party receives a majority of all votes cast for all candidates of such party for the office, no candidate shall be nominated by such party for the office, but the two candidates receiving the highest number of votes at such election shall be placed on the official ballot as candidates for such nomination at a Runoff Primary Election to be held on the fourth Tuesday of August in the same year.
Posted on 9/11/23 at 3:00 pm to Flats
That quote falls squarely within my point...
If no one gets a majority, the top two vote getters advance to a runoff. Someone will obviously get a majority out of the two person runoff.
quote:
If at any Primary Election no candidate ... receives a majority of all votes cast for all candidates of such party for the office ... the two candidates receiving the highest number of votes at such election shall be placed on the official ballot as candidates for such nomination at a Runoff Primary Election
If no one gets a majority, the top two vote getters advance to a runoff. Someone will obviously get a majority out of the two person runoff.
Posted on 9/11/23 at 3:05 pm to jlnoles79
quote:
Trump again in '28
If he's not around, then they'll turn to Lake, Lindell or Don Jr
The fact that this is not said in jest is just :chef's kiss:
Posted on 9/11/23 at 3:30 pm to RollTide4Ever
Cuck45 blames the Ron supporters.
Wait and see…..
Wait and see…..
Posted on 9/11/23 at 3:32 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
Just point me to one instance of a single person calling a plurality winner a majority winner in an election, or describing a person receiving less than half of total votes as having received a majority of total votes. Just one.
quote:
Trump lost the popular vote in the 2016 campaign, attaining the presidency only by winning a majority in the Electoral College.
LINK
Here’s one example ostensibly referencing both of our angles. Of course popular vote nationally is ultimately irrelevant to the official outcome. But what’s to be made of the ever-venerable PBS’ reference to Trump’s electoral victory? Is “50+1” terminology used? Is the specifically prescribed number of electoral votes used? Or do they use accepted parlance that “normal” people understand to mean in place of the technical jargon? We’re getting off into the weeds now it seems, but you asked.
Posted on 9/11/23 at 3:37 pm to davyjones
quote:
But what’s to be made of the ever-venerable PBS’ reference to Trump’s electoral victory?
That Trump won over 50% of the available electoral votes. That's how you win the presidential election; by winning a majority of the electoral college.
Posted on 9/11/23 at 3:56 pm to Flats
But does a candidate being first to the 270 number equate to 50% + 1 of all votes cast?
Don’t take that as a gotcha attempt. It’s a tribute to the fact that it’s becoming harder and harder to pinpoint exactly what the precise original point of contention even was. It may have not even been the exact same thing for each of us to begin with.
Don’t take that as a gotcha attempt. It’s a tribute to the fact that it’s becoming harder and harder to pinpoint exactly what the precise original point of contention even was. It may have not even been the exact same thing for each of us to begin with.
This post was edited on 9/11/23 at 3:57 pm
Posted on 9/11/23 at 4:01 pm to davyjones
quote:
It’s a tribute to the fact that it’s becoming harder and harder to pinpoint exactly what the precise original point of contention even was.
It’s really not. The original point of contention is you not understanding what “majority” means. I think now maybe you do.
Posted on 9/11/23 at 4:06 pm to Flats
That’s my thanks for trying to lighten the mood a little? You’ve enlightened me, for sure. Just not exactly the way in which you think. Posted on 9/11/23 at 4:11 pm to RollTide4Ever
Are you allowed to live in AL?
Posted on 9/11/23 at 4:12 pm to Motownsix
quote:
The number of people who think any of that is remotely true is dwindling.
No it multiples with time. Lets look and see what people believe now vs state narratives before; just gotta stop those dominoes in asia, just trying to give Africans and central Americans freedom, the government isn't in the business of assassinating leaders, just going in to get weapons of mass destruction, just trying to stop terrorism via invasions and patriot bills, if you want to keep your insurance you can, just a couple of weeks to stop the spread.
No one trusts the government because the government isn't trustworthy.
This post was edited on 9/11/23 at 4:13 pm
Posted on 9/11/23 at 4:18 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
Simply an asinine position to hold, regardless of office, candidate, or election you are referring to.
If you truly think that there is simply no possible way that Donald Trump can lose a general presidential election, you have lost all objectivity.
ding ding
Posted on 9/11/23 at 4:22 pm to FLTech
quote:
What happens if he wins?
Just curious
Wouldn't change appreciably anything with the DeSantis-ites.
Maximum certitude that it would merely necessitate a considerable self-serving rationalization among them to compensate for the disappointment by changing the repetitive, hackneyed slogan from "he can't win" to "our guy would've won by more - especially in those rust-belt states."
Posted on 9/11/23 at 4:23 pm to davyjones
quote:
But what’s to be made of the ever-venerable PBS’ reference to Trump’s electoral victory? Is “50+1” terminology used?
He received a majority of EC votes. Very simple and plainly stated by PBS using the correct definition of majority.
Posted on 9/11/23 at 4:25 pm to davyjones
quote:
But does a candidate being first to the 270 number equate to 50% + 1 of all votes cast?
No, and no one in this thread or anything quoted in this thread has said that.
quote:
it’s becoming harder and harder to pinpoint exactly what the precise original point of contention even was.
No it isn’t.
You have tried for multiple pages now to insist that “majority” means “plurality” when it doesn’t and never has.
Posted on 9/11/23 at 4:27 pm to RollTide4Ever
I think we should party like its 1776 again.
Page 5 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News