if you mean 52-53% of the country is very happy then I would agree with you, however, I would call that the slight majority is happy with the rest of the country resigned!

Now wwe know who that tiny spot of blue is... in SW Montana

quote:

Originally posted by MtElkHunter:
if you mean 52-53% of the country is very happy then I would agree with you, however, I would call that the slight majority is happy with the rest of the country resigned!

The 45% that are unhappy are sequestered in tiny little land masses in various places mostly on the coasts. The vast majority of communities across our nation are ecstatic. I see the public all day long in TX and OK and have yet to speak to anyone not giddy.

Weird.. I thought naki would be here to hector us on what this meant.

It's a joke to pretend that they represent the country when the democrats got the majority of the votes from only two states CA and NY, in my books that makes them a very regional in their support.

quote:

Originally posted by Duane Wiebe (CG&R):
Now wwe know who that tiny spot of blue is... in SW Montana

Missoula and part of Bitterroot valley looks like
Lots Calis moved there so makes sense
CA conservative is not like conservatives

quote:

Originally posted by Duane Wiebe (CG&R):
Now wwe know who that tiny spot of blue is... in SW Montana

Just the opposite, I am not a Dem or a Rep, I am independent. I vote for the person and not the party. Looking back at my voting history, I probably vote 75% of the time for the republicans because more times than not I agree with that candidate so I would classify myself as more conservative than liberal although I hate both those terms. I just took exception to Lane's comment about MOST of the people are happy. MOST is not 52-53% most is 80+%. I really do not care who won or who lost, both are not good candidates and it really does not matter if Harris or Trump is in the white house its going to be a shit show for a few years.

Nah, man
Most, in terms of people, is 50%+1
Webster defines it as
"Largest in amount, quantity, or degree"

But, if you don't like, you likely should accept majority.. as in the majority of voters are happy.

In terms of voter, my guy received less than 1%, but I am happy with my choice

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
Nah, man
Most, in terms of people, is 50%+1
Webster defines it as
"Largest in amount, quantity, or degree"

But, if you don't like, you likely should accept majority.. as in the majority of voters are happy.

In terms of voter, my guy received less than 1%, but I am happy with my choice

I can agree majority but I personally see a difference in most and majority. I guess its all in the definition.

it's a common usage thing ..
how many is many?
how much is very much
how often is often?
is anything really always/never (when it comes to human actions)

this was one of those things that came up in management/hr training, to avoid ill/undefined words ...

most is technically synonymous with majority - and i further define it down to voters ...

but, in honest to goodness brass tacks, was anyone REALLY unhappy with their choice at the moment, or just the outcome? I haven't seen any pictures of someone being forced, at force, to vote for a different candidate

i had a frenemy, let's call him bill, that when i said "most people feel..." he slapped me in the face with "you don't know most people" .. and he was right --

Maybe a plurality of voters. At least in terms votes received in the popular vote.

The number of votes cast for a candidate who receives more than any other but does not receive an absolute majority.

The electors being bound to state popular vote (S.Ct., upheld those laws) may not like who they have to vote for in the EX, but Trump certainly got a majority of the 538 EC delegates/votes.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Maybe a plurality of voters. At least in terms votes received in the popular vote.

The number of votes cast for a candidate who receives more than any other but does not receive an absolute majority.

The electors being bound to state popular vote (S.Ct., upheld those laws) may not like who they have to vote for in the EX, but Trump certainly got a majority of the 538 EC delegates/votes.

except the absolute majority of voters voted for GOP -- by about 4.5 million

here's the link
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...residential_election

Over the years the libs here have very loudly complained about the popular vote wasn't achieved and thus the election was illegitimate. Well, now we have a president elect who got both and these people are still complaining.

quote:

I am not a Dem or a Rep, I am independent. I vote for the person and not the party.

If you actually care about policy and things like laws and regulations and live in reality…you will give that habit up — at least as it pertains to federal government candidates. Because in case you haven’t noticed, those (D)s in Washington DC vote in lockstep 99% of the time.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
The 45% that are unhappy are sequestered in tiny little land masses in various places mostly on the coasts. The vast majority of communities across our nation are ecstatic. I see the public all day long in TX and OK and have yet to speak to anyone not giddy.

Results in Georgia were 50.7% Trump, 48.5% Harris.

We're not exiled. We're still here, for the foreseeable future.

I think "sequestered" and "vast majority" and "giddy" are exaggerations.

However, there is at least one good thing about this election to be happy about. That is that we don't have to listen to and put up with Trump's lies about it being stolen from him and the corresponding BS from his supporters, and all the flakes like Powell and many others claim they had proof. What a farce nightmare.

From all that I know the election went smoothly. So democracy still works. That's something to celebrate. two or four years from now it may not still work if Trump has his way. We even had a honorable and timely concession speech and I'm sure the transition will be peaceful. I'm sure Biden will be cooperative, not so sure about Trump.

For Now, there are plenty of other things to worry about or ponder.

Like what just happened, why, and what's next?

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...f469ff49588979&ei=20

Good video in the article linked:

Largest-Ever International Team to Observe US Election Sees 'Dark' Signs
Story by Tom O'Connor • 7h • 5 min read

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...f469ff49588979&ei=82

Biden urges Americans to 'bring down the temperature' after Trump's US election win
Story by Jeff Mason • 5h • 5 min read

==============================================

This is just one of many things to worry about from Trump:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/mone...55cc42f4dcbaf2&ei=36

The Federal Reserve as we know it could soon be turned on its head
Story by Analysis by Elisabeth Buchwald, CNN • 2h • 2 min read

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

I am not a Dem or a Rep, I am independent. I vote for the person and not the party.

If you actually care about policy and things like laws and regulations and live in reality…you will give that habit up — at least as it pertains to federal government candidates. Because in case you haven’t noticed, those (D)s in Washington DC vote in lockstep 99% of the time.

Well, you vote in lockstep 99% of the time because you think you're right 99% + of the time.

So, why wouldn't those (D) not be in lockstep too?

In Trump's case, the person, he actually does represent the party. If one finds him vile, then so is the party.

Anyway:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...wZ?ocid=BingNewsSerp

‘We have won’: Russians envision new global system with Trump victory
Story by Francesca Ebel, Catherine Belton • 11h • 6 min read

https://www.usnews.com/news/wo...ld-order-is-underway

Putin Praises Trump, Says Russia Is Ready for Dialogue

By Reuters
|
Nov. 7, 2024, at 12:40 p.m.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/heal...iEL?ocid=socialshare

What Donald Trump's Win Could Mean for Vaccines
Story by Jamie Ducharme • 4h • 5 min read

President-elect Donald Trump’s victory over Vice President Kamala Harris means U.S. health policy may soon be shaped, at least in part, by one of the country’s most notorious vaccine skeptics: Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Maybe a plurality of voters. At least in terms votes received in the popular vote.

The number of votes cast for a candidate who receives more than any other but does not receive an absolute majority.

The electors being bound to state popular vote (S.Ct., upheld those laws) may not like who they have to vote for in the EX, but Trump certainly got a majority of the 538 EC delegates/votes.

except the absolute majority of voters voted for GOP -- by about 4.5 million

here's the link
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...residential_election

That's exactly right! Poor old Mangina can whine all she wants too....she is far from the mainstream...... Like kensco and the old sarge.....too much estrogen if you ask me!


.

If by "bulk" you're talking about land area, you are correct. But land doesn't vote; people vote.

The vote of the people was a lot closer than your graphic depicts. You're being misleading again.

Stop gloating.

It is only the beginning, and no one knows how it is going to turn out yet.

47.7& voted Kamala
50.7 voted Trump.

That is a 3% difference!!

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
If by "bulk" you're talking about land area, you are correct. But land doesn't vote; people vote.

The vote of the people was a lot closer than your graphic depicts. You're being misleading again.

Exactly!

Lane's graphic shows Montana all red. That is correct if you are talking about the electoral vote, all 4 went to Trump, however, that actual vote was something like 47 to 53 for Trump so if you do the same graphic by actual people vote it would be almost half blue. A lot of other areas would be the same.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

I am not a Dem or a Rep, I am independent. I vote for the person and not the party.

If you actually care about policy and things like laws and regulations and live in reality…you will give that habit up — at least as it pertains to federal government candidates. Because in case you haven’t noticed, those (D)s in Washington DC vote in lockstep 99% of the time.

The same can be said for you. If you were not completely blinded by your undying love of republicans and your unreasonable hatred of democrats you might be able to see that there are some very bad horrible republicans that do not deserve the time of day let alone your vote and there are some very good democrats that actually do a lot better for the country than most republicans. The hard core party people be it rep or dem are the ones that are causing all the issues in this country because they are so bull headed that they are not willing to compromise and meet in the middle to get stuff done. By far most good legislation come from the middle not the left or the right.

Lane's map shows the small areas that are socialist democrats. But it also confirms something that was amazing to me. I grew up in the lower Rio Grande Valley of extreme South Texas. Was born and lived the first 18 years of my life within a mile from the Rio. Deep Blue country. But right after the election my father sent me the results from down there showing that Trump flipped it red. Immigration was the main issue.

The map is totally misleading.

There is only 3% between the votes.

Not as shown!

And people think things will change!

The right is doing everything to destroy what the left wants.

And the left is totally set on revenge!

Saeed,

I agree the left is totally set on revenge and they have been launched on that strategy for the last 8 years. Now that Trump has been re-elected, all those ridiculous prosecutions stop. And, now, they say we should all play nice and political prosecutions should stop. Funny. Childish.

What goes around comes around. And the first indictment should be Biden.

But he would likely be found incompetent to stand trial.

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
Weird.. I thought naki would be here to hector us on what this meant.

Naki wouldn't understand. It wont fit his preconceived view.

What it shows is the rural urban divide. And yep I know uneducated..

But uneducated does not mean lacks intelligence, and the education so often held in such high regard when it comes up in this type of conversation, is practically useless in many rural areas.

But put a {insert degree here outside of agricultural) person down in rural mississippi or oklahoma etc and ask them to complete half of the ... Highly skilled... tasks the average farmer needs to do just to survive these days, and they would fail.

quote:

Originally posted by lavaca:
What goes around comes around. And the first indictment should be Biden.

What are the charges, Comrade? We need to invent charges so the people don't laugh at us.

quote:

But uneducated does not mean lacks intelligence

Often it does though. In our affluent society, where anyone can get schooling, those with intelligence usually opt for the advantages of an education.

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:

quote:

But uneducated does not mean lacks intelligence

Often it does though. In our affluent society, where anyone can get schooling, those with intelligence usually opt for the advantages of an education.

Gee you are something Rolly Polly
You are turning to be a village …

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:

quote:

But uneducated does not mean lacks intelligence

Often it does though. In our affluent society, where anyone can get schooling, those with intelligence usually opt for the advantages of an education.

Nah I dont think so. You opt for an education if it fits your choice of career and lifestyle. Why rack up debt for a specific education you may/probably never need?
Most of us who live rural and express an interest in living rural get advised to either work our way up, or do training in a field of relevance where we can transfer the skills. So carpentry, mechanic, electrical etc

Easy on Biden, bribes. He's the "Big Guy". Follow the money.

quote:

Originally posted by M.Shy:

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:

quote:

But uneducated does not mean lacks intelligence

Often it does though. In our affluent society, where anyone can get schooling, those with intelligence usually opt for the advantages of an education.

Gee you are something Rolly Polly
You are turning to be a village …

Wow, guys who were too gutless to debate the contest before the election are crawling out from under their rocks now that their idol won.

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:

quote:

But uneducated does not mean lacks intelligence

Often it does though. In our affluent society, where anyone can get schooling, those with intelligence usually opt for the advantages of an education.

Nah I dont think so. You opt for an education if it fits your choice of career and lifestyle. Why rack up debt for a specific education you may/probably never need?
Most of us who live rural and express an interest in living rural get advised to either work our way up, or do training in a field of relevance where we can transfer the skills. So carpentry, mechanic, electrical etc

I disagree. I did say "often," and I believe it's more likely the case than not. My father went to college off the farm.

Yep, there are a few. But the percentage will be lower, than in urban areas where whether you are intelligent or not, you are pretty much pushed towards university.

A few? Are you saying that rural people don't like education? Or that rural people don't go to college?

Provided they have the opportunity, most intelligent people in the US will choose to go to college. Not saying there aren't people who don't match well with higher education or have other interests, just that most will go to college for more opportunities in life.

They may go and come back with a degree in agriculture as my father did, expecting to go back to the farm. The degree and US Air Force service gave him more opportunites off the farm.

Im saying that when evaluating what the time, cost and energy of getting a higher education involves. It dosen't make as much sense. And the payback isn't as great.

For a large number of us there is an alternate pathway to achieve what we want too.
Thats not a comment on the value of education. Its just largely the education on offer doesn't register when these statistics are presented.

The opportunities to use a fine arts or law degree are just not that great out on the back paddock. The number of degrees available in our fields are limited. Ag science, veterinary, ag business. compared to the myriads of at least some use in urban settings.

In life there are other kinds of payback than financial.

A good education opens the doors to jobs you can't get without it, and also opens horizons in your perspective.

And, ideally, gives you the critical thinking skills to recognize bullshit when you see it. Farmers should have an advantage at this, lol.

Thats all true to some extent.

when you are 18 and trying to decide on working two jobs to pay your rent and education and living costs.
Or getting a job in your chosen field of farming and earning money immediately, financial decisions are pretty important.

Happily though, things here anyway have changes some since covid. My partners daughter can now work on the farm, and study for a business degree from home in a way not available 5 years ago, and certainly not when I started out.

Critical thinking skills. Roland Im not saying there is not skills to be learned from university. there are. Im just saying equating education too intelligence is flawed. When there are other factors to take into account.