Tell us how you really feel!
And the US military has no qualms about punishing disrespectful speech, in the interests of good order and discipline.
As a person who was in the Army four years (not a John Wayne at all, just a regular enlisted guy) this blows my fucking mind.
Yeah, something like that.
I believe I said so, sir. In my first paragraph.
To deny that real people actually like trump, and aren’t just trolling, is stupidity. The fact that it isn’t in their best interest to like him does not dissuade them.
You better go set the dictionary straight, they agree with me, not you.
ma·jor·i·ty
məˈjôrədē,məˈjärədē/
noun
- the greater number
Hillary got the MAJORITY of votes cast. It’s really that simple.
He turned eighteen and a half before The Shit got really hot, draft boards were still pretty lax. Most likely they stuck a “1Y” on his card and forgot about him.
(I just don’t have it in me to condemn somebody for taking an easy out, especially when they’re eighteen. There’s plenty to be pissed at him about.)
We could make a list, but it would never end. It would just keep growing.
i’m not likely to make a fuss over it, I don’t have any non-partisan cred to protect.
But she didn’t. Hillary got fewer votes than the non-Hillary votes. Other-than-Hillary was a majority position (so was other-than-Trump – a larger majority than against Hillary). Hillary got a majority of the 2 party vote, but only a plurality of the entire vote.
This hill isn’t worth dying on. There’s no point that requires Hillary to have a majority to support.
That’s pretty much it. If we only look at GOP and Democratic votes, Hillary got a majority of the vote. But if we look at all the votes, she did not get a majority, she got a plurality.
Note that the dictionary definition uses the term “greater”, not “greatest”. The former means you are comparing only 2 numbers. So yes, the majority means “the greater number [of two numbers]”. As we all know, or should know, there are more than 2 numbers for “votes” in the last election.
There’s an implicit denominator here. In your example you assume the denominator is 10, but if I’m comparing whites to Asians, then I don’t see the problem with making my denominator 5, and saying whites are the majority of the group (where I define the group as asians & whites). There’s an implicit denominator in every comparison which doesn’t need to be explicitly stated.
If you goal is to obfuscate, then I suppose there is no need to explicitly state anything. If you goal is effective communication, of course you need to. In that example, I explicitly referred to the group as having 10 people. If you are going to change the number of people in “the group” you are only going to cause confusion by not explicitly stating that a change has been made.
In the case under discussion here, the original group was defined as “the people in America”. Leaving aside the problem of extrapolating the voting public to “everyone in America”, it only causes confusion to suddenly switch to a new definition of “the group” without making discussion meaningless.
*
A: Most Americans agree with me.
B: No they don’t. Cite.
A: Oh, I was talking about Americans that I know personally.
B: Buh-bye!*
Who cares? I don’t particularly care except as it seems necessary to correct the folks desperately trying to prove it’s not true when it manifestly is true. Maybe you should direct your attention to them. You know, fighting ignorance and all that stuff. It’s still a good idea to fight ignorance when the ignorance is on your side, you know.
Not really. There are all sorts of restrictions on what active military people can say in the realm of politics.
It’s one of the things that makes me not honor the military as much as those around me. They seem to unnecessarily remove some of the very freedoms that they are supposed to be fighting for.
Sure, while actively on the job is not the time to disobey an order. But it goes too much further than that.
I support the people in the military much more than I support the institution.
That’s not remotely the same thing. The topic of discussion is how many votes Clinton got compared to Trump. In that case Clinton votes plus Trump votes is a completely natural denominator.
In your example, for example, you say the denominator is 10, but what about Native Americans? or Pacific Islanders? At some level every denominator is arbitrary.
Disrespectful speech certainly but not polite disagreement with aspects of policy. Facebook was full of soldiers, marines, etc criticizing Obama during his Presidency.
Nowhere near a majority of people voted for Trump, which inherently means that a majority did not vote for him. I see no problem in assuming that a majority of those in the military don’t support him. Sure, they lean more Republican, but, as we well know, that’s not enough to establish a Trump bias.
Of course, the polls say a majority supported Trump, but not a large one. So I’m willing to believe that. I’m also willing to refuse to honor their sacrifice for this country, as I view said people the same way I do veterans who say people shouldn’t be able to kneel in front of the flag.
That was my one Facebook fight. Not about Trump. I told a vet that he dishonored his country with that bullshit. Likewise, those who know all those things Trump said but still support him also dishonor their country.
I realizethis article is from months ago, but it showed a big lead for Trump over Hillary among military voters.
But even more to the point - I’ve noticed a certain projection tendency among the political left that I don’t see as much of on the political right. Conservatives, in any fairly mixed setting, often do **not **assume that people that they encounter hold the same political beliefs that they do; in fact, some conservatives assume that people they encounter are **not **their political allies until proven otherwise.
Whereas some liberals are more likely to project their own views onto others - "Since I hate Trump, I assume that those West Point and Annapolis military cadets over there, shaking Trump’s hand, must also secretly inwardly loathe Trump, too. Why? Because* I **loathe Trump, therefore **they *must loathe Trump, too!"
All American voters thought that. Which is why they put Hillary in the White House.