The exodus of the blue avatars

[No War, but the War on Christmas]

For the liberals who defend Bush and say Trump was more dangerous to democracy.. do not forget this:

Bush STOLE Florida in 2000 and got away with it.

Bush STOLE Ohio in 2004 and got away with it.

Trump won and lost the states he won and lost fair and square

There is absolutely no valid reason to say Ohio in 2004 was stolen and in fact saying so is more crazy than saying 2016 or 2020 were rigged.

I found it so funny when Trump said on TV on January 6th that it was a stolen election.

Gore and Kerry didn't go on TV cheering insurrections and saying it was a stolen election. Especially when the election was clearly STOLEN from Gore and probably stolen from Kerry.

I've always wondered this. Even in 2016, technically, Democrats had a MUCH better reason to riot and attempt to overturn the election. In other countries if the candidate who got millions of votes less was inaugurated there /WOULD/ be significant civil unrest. But besides obviously a lot of, justified IMO, 'resistance' mantra's among the Left we did accept it for the sake of peace and our system.

The FIRST time MAGA lost an election by a clear and decisive margin but wasn't handed the mandate any way they attempted an insurrection. It's mind-boggling.

[No War, but the War on Christmas]

If Blue avatars want to leave cause they don't feel like this is a 'safe-space' for them, go for it. I think the mods on Atlas actually do an amazing job of withholding bias and keeping the forum an open space for discussion with limits on obvious out of bounds behavior.

On the one hand I will never back down from calling out hypocrisy and the very real damage the Conservative ideology and movement causes to marginalized communities and people. Sometimes that involves harsh words and realizations.

I also have always done my best to try and not let it become an attack on the individual as a person instead of an attack on their ideology, but I can see where heated discussions like that can blur the lines.

[No War, but the War on Christmas]

For the liberals who defend Bush and say Trump was more dangerous to democracy.. do not forget this:

Bush STOLE Florida in 2000 and got away with it.

Bush STOLE Ohio in 2004 and got away with it.

Trump won and lost the states he won and lost fair and square

There is absolutely no valid reason to say Ohio in 2004 was stolen and in fact saying so is more crazy than saying 2016 or 2020 were rigged.

I found it so funny when Trump said on TV on January 6th that it was a stolen election.

Gore and Kerry didn't go on TV cheering insurrections and saying it was a stolen election. Especially when the election was clearly STOLEN from Gore and probably stolen from Kerry.

I've always wondered this. Even in 2016, technically, Democrats had a MUCH better reason to riot and attempt to overturn the election. In other countries if the candidate who got millions of votes less was inaugurated there /WOULD/ be significant civil unrest. But besides obviously a lot of, justified IMO, 'resistance' mantra's among the Left we did accept it for the sake of peace and our system.

Hillary did not win the PV in 2016 as if we had a PV system there would have been a runoff in 2016. To win the PV you need a majority which she did not have

Your argument relies on a hypothetical realty, mine is based on the actual popular vote that occurred in our reality, but I digress.

[No War, but the War on Christmas]

For the liberals who defend Bush and say Trump was more dangerous to democracy.. do not forget this:

Bush STOLE Florida in 2000 and got away with it.

Bush STOLE Ohio in 2004 and got away with it.

Trump won and lost the states he won and lost fair and square

There is absolutely no valid reason to say Ohio in 2004 was stolen and in fact saying so is more crazy than saying 2016 or 2020 were rigged.

I found it so funny when Trump said on TV on January 6th that it was a stolen election.

Gore and Kerry didn't go on TV cheering insurrections and saying it was a stolen election. Especially when the election was clearly STOLEN from Gore and probably stolen from Kerry.

I've always wondered this. Even in 2016, technically, Democrats had a MUCH better reason to riot and attempt to overturn the election. In other countries if the candidate who got millions of votes less was inaugurated there /WOULD/ be significant civil unrest. But besides obviously a lot of, justified IMO, 'resistance' mantra's among the Left we did accept it for the sake of peace and our system.

Hillary did not win the PV in 2016 as if we had a PV system there would have been a runoff in 2016. To win the PV you need a majority which she did not have

Your argument relies on a hypothetical realty, mine is the actual popular vote that occurred, but I digress.

Yours also is based on a hypothetical reality cause if we had a PV system , campaign strategies would be very different as well. Campaigns are run to win 270 EV so they focus on the states that would most help there while if there was a PV system the candidates would focus on the states that would most help win that.

I was just saying that in a PV system you need to win a majority of the PV to win and Hillary did not get that either.

That isn't true at all, plenty of popular vote systems allow the winner of the plurality vote to win overall. Although if you're arguing for a more equitable system that also transfers votes then by all means OSR, I'm with you.

And my argument isn't a hypothetical, the absolute fact is that Hillary Clinton won nearly 3 million more votes than Donald Trump under our current system. That's hardly an insignificant margin and not even close to a hanging chad or Florida 2000 margin.

I would argue that our current system actually supresses the vote in urban areas and big states that are already solid Democrat so they don't bother to vote. But we could go in circles all day arguing about how turnout might be effected by changing the electoral system... The fact is, that under the only system we can verify turnout for as a fact, Hillary won by a significant margin on a person per person basis.

[No War, but the War on Christmas]

For the liberals who defend Bush and say Trump was more dangerous to democracy.. do not forget this:

Bush STOLE Florida in 2000 and got away with it.

Bush STOLE Ohio in 2004 and got away with it.

Trump won and lost the states he won and lost fair and square

There is absolutely no valid reason to say Ohio in 2004 was stolen and in fact saying so is more crazy than saying 2016 or 2020 were rigged.

I found it so funny when Trump said on TV on January 6th that it was a stolen election.

Gore and Kerry didn't go on TV cheering insurrections and saying it was a stolen election. Especially when the election was clearly STOLEN from Gore and probably stolen from Kerry.

I've always wondered this. Even in 2016, technically, Democrats had a MUCH better reason to riot and attempt to overturn the election. In other countries if the candidate who got millions of votes less was inaugurated there /WOULD/ be significant civil unrest. But besides obviously a lot of, justified IMO, 'resistance' mantra's among the Left we did accept it for the sake of peace and our system.

Hillary did not win the PV in 2016 as if we had a PV system there would have been a runoff in 2016. To win the PV you need a majority which she did not have

Your argument relies on a hypothetical realty, mine is the actual popular vote that occurred, but I digress.

Yours also is based on a hypothetical reality cause if we had a PV system , campaign strategies would be very different as well. Campaigns are run to win 270 EV so they focus on the states that would most help there while if there was a PV system the candidates would focus on the states that would most help win that.

I was just saying that in a PV system you need to win a majority of the PV to win and Hillary did not get that either.

That isn't true at all, plenty of popular vote systems allow the winner of the plurality vote to win overall. Although if you're arguing for a more equitable system that also transfers votes then by all means OSR, I'm with you.

And my argument isn't a hypothetical, the absolute fact is that Hillary Clinton won nearly 3 million more votes than Donald Trump under our current system. That's hardly an insignificant margin and not even close to a hanging chad or Florida 2000 margin.

I would argue that our current system actually supresses the vote in urban areas and big states that are already solid Democrat so they don't bother to vote. But we could go in circles all day arguing about how turnout might be effected by changing the electoral system... The fact is, that under the only system we can verify turnout for as a fact, Hillary won by a significant margin on a person per person basis.

No that is not how things work as you cant just use a number that has zero actual meaning and assume that is what the number would be if it did have meaning. If the rules of the game would change so would the campaign and nobody knowns what the actual PV ends up like in that campaign.

What we have right now as the PV is the hypothetical while the EV tally is reality 

Who gets to assign meaning to the popular vote? All we can do without veering into hypotheticals, is once again, the popular vote as it exists under our current system. It's my cursory opinion without doing deeper research that the electoral college largely surpasses urban voters and those who lean left, you obviously think differently.

If you want to have a larger conversation about this I'm all game but perhaps it should be moved to a different thread about our electoral system and/or how different systems might change the popular vote outcome.