Trumpists begin their attack on America's EV policies.

My Nissan Leaf Forum

Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Wet, I did notice the ass kicking comment. Polling could not know the effect on the election from Russian interference. I think that if the drip, drip, drip of negative news had a huge impact on polling and who pollsters were polling. When they find out that collusion really did happen the whole election would be a sham. Where we go from here would be Constitutionally unheard of.
 
On the off chance that anyone's interested in what is and is not likely to occur, and what it will take to make major changes:
Trump's climate-change order: now what happens?
http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1109634_trumps-climate-change-order-now-what-happens
 
downeykp said:
Polling could not know the effect on the election from Russian interference. I think that if the drip, drip, drip of negative news had a huge impact on polling and who pollsters were polling. When they find out that collusion really did happen the whole election would be a sham. Where we go from here would be Constitutionally unheard of.
If the Trump team knowingly and deliberately colluded with a foreign entity to influence the outcome of the election, then it seems right that a new election should be held and those responsible should be prosecuted. Yes, this is uncharted territory! While it does appear that criminal collusion likely took place, I am reserving judgment, as I certainly hope for the sake of the Republic that this was not the case. Don't get me wrong, though, as I'd personally like to see Trump leave office sooner than later. Smart GOP politicians should be distancing themselves from Trump to the greatest extent possible.

On the positive side, I am gratified to see a growing trickle of Republican politicians coming to recognize that climate change needs to be addressed. This includes Rep. Darrell Issa (R), of Orange County, California, who recently joined the Climate Solutions Caucus. Republicans from climate-vulnerable areas such as South Florida seem to be more inclined to accept the scientific consensus.

Anyone who is represented by Republicans, as am I, should be calling their representatives, thanking them for their efforts to serve their constituents, and asking them to support climate-friendly policies that will help the US economy and local economies. Because continuing to tie our economy to fossil fuels is only going to make us less secure and less healthy.
 
golfcart said:
WetEV said:
An alternate definition of an ass kicking. 0.03% win.

Moving the goalposts

Exactly how how is this "moving the goalposts?" Do explain.


golfcart said:
and responding to your own questions rather than responding to my posts is not the sign of someone making a strong point.

You stated that this discussion was a waste of electrons. Perhaps you didn't mean that you were not going to answer, but that is the meaning I took. If you are not going to answer my question, I might as well answer it. So we can see that 0.03% margin of victory is an "ass kicking".


golfcart said:
What use is the minimum X?

It is the number of people that could have changed the outcome of the election if they changed their vote.


golfcart said:
The question to ask is what is the "X" in each state he won but she was favored between predicted and actual and what are the odds that every single X was biased in the same direction?

The states are not independent samples in the statistical sense. If Trump does 2% better than expected nationally, which he did, he is also likely to do better in most states. Unless, of course, it is some local issue or event pushing one state in a different direction. If 2% of voters both supported Trump, and were not past voters or likely voters, then the polls would miss them everywhere.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_(statistics)


golfcart said:
Are you familiar with the concept of a straw man, you have provided a nice example?

Your argument was the election was an "ask kicking". The fact that 0.03% of the voters was the margin of victory is a pretty accurate refutation of that.
 
abasile said:
If the Trump team knowingly and deliberately colluded with a foreign entity to influence the outcome of the election, then it seems right that a new election should be held and those responsible should be prosecuted. Yes, this is uncharted territory!

I disagree.

We should follow the Constitution, and Impeach and Convict Trump to remove him from office. If Pence was involved, Impeach and Convict him too. If Pence as not involved, then we should give him as much our support as we can. He might really need it, and so might the Republic. Yes, this requires a large fraction of the Republicans to have a primary loyalty to the Republic, and not to their party.

What will happen, of course, isn't clear yet.
 
WetEV said:
abasile said:
If the Trump team knowingly and deliberately colluded with a foreign entity to influence the outcome of the election, then it seems right that a new election should be held and those responsible should be prosecuted. Yes, this is uncharted territory!
I disagree.

We should follow the Constitution, and Impeach and Convict Trump to remove him from office. If Pence was involved, Impeach and Convict him too. If Pence as not involved, then we should give him as much our support as we can. He might really need it, and so might the Republic.
This seems like a gray area because it's not simply a matter of possible Presidential wrongdoing; it's a matter of a potentially invalid election outcome. Given that, the Supreme Court could possibly rule that Hillary Clinton was the "true" winner. Recall, of course, that the Supreme Court had to step in and rule in favor of Bush for the election in 2000. My opinion remains that holding a new election would be the most fair way of rectifying a seriously flawed election, should that prove to have been the case. However, I admit that I'm not sure how this could work Constitutionally and I'd be concerned about the gap in continuity. Definitely not ideal.
 
WetEV said:
golfcart said:
WetEV said:
An alternate definition of an ass kicking. 0.03% win.

Moving the goalposts

Exactly how how is this "moving the goalposts?" Do explain.

Context is your friend. I was, and have been the entire time, talking about how poorly the forecasts were compared to the outcome. I was at no point talking about him winning or losing and by how much, hence why showing the margin of victory is of no relevance to my argument and in my opinion "moving the goalposts".

I will give you credit, you are quite the nitpicker and that is an admirable trait, people (myself included) need to be specific when making a point... had I known you were hung up on the term "ass kicking" and not the meat of my actual argument we could have saved a lot of wasted time. The "ass kicking" comment was in the context of almost every major pollster putting Trump at about 216 and Clinton over 300. I guess I should have inserted " he didn't just manage to win the election, he kicked her ass (relative to what the pollsters forecasted)" to be more specific... I assumed it was understood given that I had been consistently talking about the systematic across the board failures of the "expert predictions". If it was not clear then my bad.

Just a reminder of the context of that statement.

golfcart said:
This is not what happened, essentially every single state that they were wrong about went to Trump. I don't recall them projecting any states for Trump that went for Clinton. He didn't just win, he kicked her ass. What are the odds of that happening? Daily Kos had it 323 Clinton and 215 Trump. Every single forecast referenced on 270 to win had Trump at 216 or less.

http://www.270towin.com/2016-election-forecast-predictions/


WetEV said:
The states are not independent samples in the statistical sense. If Trump does 2% better than expected nationally, which he did, he is also likely to do better in most states. Unless, of course, it is some local issue or event pushing one state in a different direction. If 2% of voters both supported Trump, and were not past voters or likely voters, then the polls would miss them everywhere.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_(statistics)

Great!! So we agree, there was a bias which caused a systematic error! It is nice that 2 pages later we could get that settled and I'm glad you came around. It is highly unlikely that they were wrong so uniformly in one direction unless there was some sort of systematic failure in their method. I think the bias was that people lied because they don't trust the system and you think it might have been a multitude of other possibilities... that's fine. Either way, I think we agree that this election was different and the pollsters need to figure out why if they want to do better in the future with unconventional candidates.
 
WetEV said:
I disagree.

We should follow the Constitution, and Impeach and Convict Trump to remove him from office. If Pence was involved, Impeach and Convict him too. If Pence as not involved, then we should give him as much our support as we can. He might really need it, and so might the Republic. Yes, this requires a large fraction of the Republicans to have a primary loyalty to the Republic, and not to their party.

What will happen, of course, isn't clear yet.

Absolutely, If it is shown that he colluded with a foreign government to rig an election then impeach his ass and throw him in jail for treason and whatever other charge is relevant.

I feel like the odds of anything like that actually being traceable directly back to him are pretty small, but you never know he has shown himself to impulsively do dumb stuff before.
 
The noose is getting closer to the Orange one. Hopefully this clown show administration will not be around for a full term.
 
abasile said:
it's a matter of a potentially invalid election outcome. Given that, the Supreme Court could possibly rule that Hillary Clinton was the "true" winner.

Not under the Constitution, and a very bad idea as well.

abasile said:
Recall, of course, that the Supreme Court had to step in and rule in favor of Bush for the election in 2000.

I have not problem with the Court stepping in to decide on an election closer than the margin of error, which Bush vs Gore was. Final recount, done by a list of newspapers show that Bush would have won, using Gore's suggested counting standards, and Gore would have won, with Bush's suggested counting standards. Someone has to decide, and I'm ok with that being a court ruling or for that matter, a coin flip.

It is a very bad idea for the Court to overturn decided elections. Look at Venezuela for a current example. That power is for Congress, and not for the Courts.

Impeach and Convict. Sure, requires a majority of both sides of Congress. Sure, is an even bigger real problem if the Vice President is part of the plot. Frankly, I doubt if there is anything there about Pence. Not his style. Not that I agree with Pence, but I'd trust him. Sure, Impeach and Convict is a big mess at best. But if Trump was plotting with a foreign government... It may well come to that.
 
Wet, if he gamed the system to become president wouldn't the outcome be invalid? You said "decided elections", sure if they were decided fairly, impeach and convict. But the evidence could point to collusion with the Russians which again, should invalidate the whole process.
 
golfcart said:
Great!! So we agree, there was a bias which caused a systematic error! It is nice that 2 pages later we could get that settled and I'm glad you came around. It is highly unlikely that they were wrong so uniformly in one direction unless there was some sort of systematic failure in their method. I think the bias was that people lied because they don't trust the system and you think it might have been a multitude of other possibilities... that's fine. Either way, I think we agree that this election was different and the pollsters need to figure out why if they want to do better in the future with unconventional candidates.

Every election is different. The polls were within the margin of error. Can't ask for more.
 
downeykp said:
Wet, if he gamed the system to become president wouldn't the outcome be invalid? You said "decided elections", sure if they were decided fairly, impeach and convict. But the evidence could point to collusion with the Russians which again, should invalidate the whole process.

Remember that people, in general, are fallible. Even the best of people, and more so the worst. We can't ask for perfect outcomes, only "good enough" outcomes.

So to keep a government reasonable honest, we need to minimize and separate powers. The power to invalidate an election after the fact is a huge power. I see no reason to grant that power to anyone: not the Supreme Court, not the President, not Congress. Sure, such a power might be used for good. I'm more concerned about misuse. We don't need a "One Ring".

As for calling new elections, under the British system, that is a power of the Monarch. In the usual course, the Prime Minister asks the Monarch to call new elections and the Monarch does so. Exactly once in modern times, the King said no. In the case of an election that appeared invalid, the King or Queen might just order new elections, without waiting for the PM's request. In a Republic, we have no one with the authority and disconnection from party politics that could serve such a function. So we have elections on fixed schedules. Once the election is complete, next election...baring death and removal from office. See Impeach and Convict.

The power to Impeach and Convict is also a huge power, and the history of use of that power should be sobering. Only one of the three uses of that power, the Impeachment of Nixon, was clearly in the best interest of the Republic.
 
WetEV said:
downeykp said:
Wet, if he gamed the system to become president wouldn't the outcome be invalid? You said "decided elections", sure if they were decided fairly, impeach and convict. But the evidence could point to collusion with the Russians which again, should invalidate the whole process.

Remember that people, in general, are fallible. Even the best of people, and more so the worst. We can't ask for perfect outcomes, only "good enough" outcomes.

So to keep a government reasonable honest, we need to minimize and separate powers. The power to invalidate an election after the fact is a huge power. I see no reason to grant that power to anyone: not the Supreme Court, not the President, not Congress. Sure, such a power might be used for good. I'm more concerned about misuse. We don't need a "One Ring".

As for calling new elections, under the British system, that is a power of the Monarch. In the usual course, the Prime Minister asks the Monarch to call new elections and the Monarch does so. Exactly once in modern times, the King said no. In the case of an election that appeared invalid, the King or Queen might just order new elections, without waiting for the PM's request. In a Republic, we have no one with the authority and disconnection from party politics that could serve such a function. So we have elections on fixed schedules. Once the election is complete, next election...baring death and removal from office. See Impeach and Convict.

The power to Impeach and Convict is also a huge power, and the history of use of that power should be sobering. Only one of the three uses of that power, the Impeachment of Nixon, was clearly in the best interest of the Republic.
I appreciate your thoughtful reasoning. Yes, I agree that we wouldn't want our courts overturning elections willy-nilly, and I don't like the idea of depending on a monarch! There certainly is a great deal of genius in our system of government. Even though it doesn't always yield what seem to be the most fair outcomes, it does a good job of achieving long term stability.

So that leaves us with the established presidential line of succession: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_line_of_succession

Should Trump be impeached and convicted, just about anyone on that list would make a better president, in my opinion. Either way, we have to make the best of things for now, and I'm grateful for some of the more moderate advisors that the President has - hopefully he'll listen to them.
 
Sure, all without a shred of evidence, just deep state Obama holdover operatives tossing out innuendo amplified by uber left biased media... all to obviate the will of the voters.
 
LTLFTcomposite said:
Sure, all without a shred of evidence, just deep state Obama holdover operatives tossing out innuendo amplified by uber left biased media... all to obviate the will of the voters.

Flynn isn't asking for immunity because he is innocent.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-flynn-idUSKBN16H2OR

Trump has claimed that Trump could murder a random child in cold blood witnessed by hundreds of people, and still keep his followers. All the witnesses would be snowflakes, or deep state Obama holdover operatives, or the lying uber left biased enemies of the people media.

Is Trump wrong on this?

I fear for the Republic.
 
Back
Top