This sounds like a response to Putin's statement earlier in the week about massively increasing Russian nukes.
Trump: US to vastly increase nuclear armaments
3 of 5
Originally Posted by Hoffmister:
“all he is doing right now is playing into Putins hands”
“all he is doing right now is playing into Putins hands”
Originally Posted by James_Orton:
“This sounds like a response to Putin's statement earlier in the week about massively increasing Russian nukes.”
“This sounds like a response to Putin's statement earlier in the week about massively increasing Russian nukes.”
Merry Christmas all:
"Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin agree: Let’s revive the nuclear arms race"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.6ae42c4c77f5
Originally Posted by mungobrush:
“Merry Christmas all:
"Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin agree: Let’s revive the nuclear arms race"
”
“Merry Christmas all:
"Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin agree: Let’s revive the nuclear arms race"
”
All we need now is Xi Jinping to join in on Weibo and Kim Jong-Un to test fire ano.
Originally Posted by batdude_uk1:
“No they didn't, as the only numbers that are important, are those of the electoral college.”
“No they didn't, as the only numbers that are important, are those of the electoral college.”
Once you've moved the goalposts like you've just done, you can't then say "more people voted for Trump". They didn't, most of those who voted actually voted for Clinton.
Trump may have won the election using the hilariously awful college system (it makes the UK system look representative), but he did not win the popular vote and it is clear that he doesn't have a democratic mandate.
Originally Posted by jmclaugh:
“All we need now is Xi Jinping to join in on Weibo and Kim Jong-Un to test fire ano.”
“All we need now is Xi Jinping to join in on Weibo and Kim Jong-Un to test fire ano.”
This is not a joke
I well remember the cold war era
I remember coming home from school and my mum in tears at the height of the Cuban missile crisis
Why would anyone want to go back to those times?
And how are nuclear weapons going to help defend us against our enemies who now use trucks?
Originally Posted by moox:
“Once you've moved the goalposts like you've just done, you can't then say "more people voted for Trump". They didn't, most of those who voted actually voted for Clinton.
Trump may have won the election using the hilariously awful college system (it makes the UK system look representative), but he did not win the popular vote and it is clear that he doesn't have a democratic mandate.”
“Once you've moved the goalposts like you've just done, you can't then say "more people voted for Trump". They didn't, most of those who voted actually voted for Clinton.
Trump may have won the election using the hilariously awful college system (it makes the UK system look representative), but he did not win the popular vote and it is clear that he doesn't have a democratic mandate.”
And this is the downside of the proportional representation system
You get someone like Trump.
Originally Posted by mungobrush:
“This is not a joke
I well remember the cold war era
I remember coming home from school and my mum in tears at the height of the Cuban missile crisis
Why would anyone want to go back to those times?
And how are nuclear weapons going to help defend us against our enemies who now use trucks?”
“This is not a joke
I well remember the cold war era
I remember coming home from school and my mum in tears at the height of the Cuban missile crisis
Why would anyone want to go back to those times?
And how are nuclear weapons going to help defend us against our enemies who now use trucks?”
Apologies, I've added a
.
Originally Posted by moox:
“Once you've moved the goalposts like you've just done, you can't then say "more people voted for Trump". They didn't, most of those who voted actually voted for Clinton.
Trump may have won the election using the hilariously awful college system (it makes the UK system look representative), but he did not win the popular vote and it is clear that he doesn't have a democratic mandate.”
“Once you've moved the goalposts like you've just done, you can't then say "more people voted for Trump". They didn't, most of those who voted actually voted for Clinton.
Trump may have won the election using the hilariously awful college system (it makes the UK system look representative), but he did not win the popular vote and it is clear that he doesn't have a democratic mandate.”
I am not moving the goalposts, far from it, all I am doing is using the same numbers that have always decided who is the President of the USA, if you could point e to where and when the electoral college votes did not decide who became President, then I would be much obliged.
The popular vote is just a way of analysing the numbers, same as looking at other numbers, they don't actually mean anything in the grand scheme of things.
Unfortunately, or fortunately, depending on how a person voted, Trump does have a democratic mandate, as he quite clearly won the election by a big enough margin to get one.
If you or anyone else does not like the way that the President is decided, write or talk to those people that have a say in changing it, as until it does change, then this will be how future Presidents are decided.
Originally Posted by batdude_uk1:
“I am not moving the goalposts, far from it, all I am doing is using the same numbers that have always decided who is the President of the USA, if you could point e to where and when the electoral college votes did not decide who became President, then I would be much obliged.”
“I am not moving the goalposts, far from it, all I am doing is using the same numbers that have always decided who is the President of the USA, if you could point e to where and when the electoral college votes did not decide who became President, then I would be much obliged.”
The electoral college has not yet voted.
So
Originally Posted by D_Mcd4:
“Tough. They voted for him.
”
“Tough. They voted for him.
”
Must have been referring to the public vote.
Making
Originally Posted by oncemore:
“Technically, more of them voted for her
”
“Technically, more of them voted for her
”
Correct
And
Originally Posted by batdude_uk1:
“No they didn't, as the only numbers that are important, are those of the electoral college.”
“No they didn't, as the only numbers that are important, are those of the electoral college.”
Talking cross terms due to changing the goal posts.
I could have sworn that the electoral college votes were already counted and known, heck in some states they were done twice, and in the end more people voted for Trump than he originally got the first time around!
All that is left is for them to be ratified on I think it is the 6th of January, before Trump goes into office on the 20th of January.
But then again I guess it could all have been a dream/nightmare!
All that is left is for them to be ratified on I think it is the 6th of January, before Trump goes into office on the 20th of January.
But then again I guess it could all have been a dream/nightmare!
Originally Posted by batdude_uk1:
“I am not moving the goalposts, far from it, all I am doing is using the same numbers that have always decided who is the President of the USA, if you could point e to where and when the electoral college votes did not decide who became President, then I would be much obliged.
”
“I am not moving the goalposts, far from it, all I am doing is using the same numbers that have always decided who is the President of the USA, if you could point e to where and when the electoral college votes did not decide who became President, then I would be much obliged.
”
but you are moving the goalposts when the discussion was about whether the majority of americans voted for him, and whether that majority would be happy to see him increase spending on nukes
the discussion was not about whether he won the election fairly under the system used
once again you fail to see the context of the discussion and make irrelevant comments
Originally Posted by mimik1uk:
“but you are moving the goalposts when the discussion was about whether the majority of americans voted for him, and whether that majority would be happy to see him increase spending on nukes
the discussion was not about whether he won the election fairly under the system used
once again you fail to see the context of the discussion and make irrelevant comments”
“but you are moving the goalposts when the discussion was about whether the majority of americans voted for him, and whether that majority would be happy to see him increase spending on nukes
the discussion was not about whether he won the election fairly under the system used
once again you fail to see the context of the discussion and make irrelevant comments”
The majority of Americans did vote for him, hence why he won so convincingly (unfortunately for those that didn't vote for him, or like him in general).
As for if people in general would like to see him spending more on nukes, well I don't know for sure, and I would not at all presume to speak on behalf of the American people, but it doesn't sound like a good thing in the long run personally speaking.
Originally Posted by batdude_uk1:
“The majority of Americans did vote for him, hence why he won so convincingly (unfortunately for those that didn't vote for him, or like him in general).
As for if people in general would like to see him spending more on nukes, well I don't know for sure, and I would not at all presume to speak on behalf of the American people, but it doesn't sound like a good thing in the long run personally speaking.”
“The majority of Americans did vote for him, hence why he won so convincingly (unfortunately for those that didn't vote for him, or like him in general).
As for if people in general would like to see him spending more on nukes, well I don't know for sure, and I would not at all presume to speak on behalf of the American people, but it doesn't sound like a good thing in the long run personally speaking.”
no they did not
he won fairly and squarely under the system used but in no way can you say that the majority voted for him when they quite clearly didn't
Originally Posted by Betty Middling:
“Except they didn't.”
“Except they didn't.”
"There have been five United States presidential elections in which the winner lost the popular vote since the 1824 election, the first U.S. presidential election where the popular vote was counted.[1]
1824: John Quincy Adams
1876: Rutherford B. Hayes
1888: Benjamin Harrison
2000: George W. Bush
2016: Donald Trump"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...e_popular_vote
Originally Posted by batdude_uk1:
“The majority of Americans did vote for him”
“The majority of Americans did vote for him”
You've really embraced the whole post-truth vibe, haven't you?
Originally Posted by batdude_uk1:
“I could have sworn that the electoral college votes were already counted and known, heck in some states they were done twice, and in the end more people voted for Trump than he originally got the first time around!
All that is left is for them to be ratified on I think it is the 6th of January, before Trump goes into office on the 20th of January.
But then again I guess it could all have been a dream/nightmare!”
“I could have sworn that the electoral college votes were already counted and known, heck in some states they were done twice, and in the end more people voted for Trump than he originally got the first time around!
All that is left is for them to be ratified on I think it is the 6th of January, before Trump goes into office on the 20th of January.
But then again I guess it could all have been a dream/nightmare!”
I thought that they had been counted the other day, and Trump lost two votes. Clinton lost five.
Originally Posted by Alrightmate:
“I thought that they had been counted the other day, and Trump lost two votes. Clinton lost five.”
“I thought that they had been counted the other day, and Trump lost two votes. Clinton lost five.”
they did
batdude seems to be confusing the recounts that took place with the electoral college vote
Originally Posted by Alrightmate:
“I thought that they had been counted the other day, and Trump lost two votes. Clinton lost five.”
“I thought that they had been counted the other day, and Trump lost two votes. Clinton lost five.”
Apparently according to a poster further up the page, they haven't been counted once yet!
Boy is that person in for a shock when they find out the results!
Originally Posted by Alrightmate:
“I thought that they had been counted the other day, and Trump lost two votes. Clinton lost five.”
“I thought that they had been counted the other day, and Trump lost two votes. Clinton lost five.”
The states have counted the votes but the official counting is on the 6th January when Congress meets to formally count.
Originally Posted by batdude_uk1:
“Apparently according to a poster further up the page, they haven't been counted once yet!
Boy is that person in for a shock when they find out the results!”
“Apparently according to a poster further up the page, they haven't been counted once yet!
Boy is that person in for a shock when they find out the results!
”
Given you just claimed the majority of Americans voted for Trump, I'd maybe lay off the condescension if I were you.
Originally Posted by James_Orton:
“This sounds like a response to Putin's statement earlier in the week about massively increasing Russian nukes.”
“This sounds like a response to Putin's statement earlier in the week about massively increasing Russian nukes.”
Yes but in Putin , Russia strong, speak , and strategic analyst speak, Putin meant I am continuing to relace my missile force, and they are super dooper weapons that can deal with, a non existant, US ballistic missile defence against them. The BMD bit is either Russian paranoia, or designed to build it, or to give him an argument against Russia's neighbours. Russia of course has its own ballistic missile defence system already.
In short it means - me strong leader , I am doing what I was doing , and what everyone knows about.
It only means anything significant, if Putin fields more missiles than allowed under the agreements, adds more warheads than allowed, or fields the illegal long range Iskanders and cruise missiles he has been developing , which would break the INF treaty, and would require a new US counter. He hasn't done that yet.
Anyway I thought Trumpy and Puty wanted to improve relations so both wanting to increase their nuclear thingies is odd, but then they both are odd.
3 of 5
