Some Funny Numbers

[skmo]

I got curious about the numbers in this election, and who elects our leaders. We got lucky this time, and the hildabeast lost. Final numbers were: Popular Vote Clinton 65,844,954 and Trump 62,979,879 and the electoral college should have been Trump 306, Clinton 232. However, I decided to do a little subtracting:

If we take out the five counties in CA and NY which were highest for the hildabeast, the numbers then look like this:

Trump 61,115,312 popular vote, 390 electoral votes
Clinton 58,602,357 popular vote, 148 electoral votes

If we take out 1 county in IL, the numbers go to:

Trump 60,675,099 popular vote 410 electoral votes
Clinton 57,073,775 popular vote, 128 electoral votes

Eleven counties in the U.S. out of the 3143 there are (or county equivalents) damned near destroyed us. If NYC, SF, LA, and Chicago didn't exist, the dumb-as-craps couldn't put a president in office for the next 50 years.

No, there's no real purpose for this, I just got curious, and the numbers shocked me. We got lucky this time. One thing I realized, maybe much of America isn't as bad as we see all the time. I remember seeing a comment that while we're at the high end of murders per capita in the world, if you take out the numbers of the f highest murder cities in the U.S. we're practically at the bottom of the list of countries. Why are our cities so horrible?

[bbsion]

I think it's too early to say we got lucky with Donald...

[markharr]

This is exactly why the Electoral college was created. Sometimes I wonder if the founding fathers saw our time.

[Melissa]

I agree that most of the country is not as bad as we might think. I believe the media and entertainment industry is desperately trying to make us believe anything but reality and truth.

[DesertWonderer]

Why are our cities so horrible?

I saw a news article with a study where rats were put in over-crowed living conditions and they turned to cannibalism and homosexual activities. Not sure how legit the study was (have no idea where I read this...) but it wouldn't surprise me if true.

[paulrobots]

Growing up, I used to wonder about parts of the Book of Mormon where there was great destruction, but "the more part of the righteous" were saved. How were they separated that only the wicked were destroyed? I don't wonder about it now.

3 Nephi 9:1-5

1 And it came to pass that there was a voice heard among all the inhabitants of the earth, upon all the face of this land, crying:

 2 Wo, wo, wo unto this people; wo unto the inhabitants of the whole earth except they shall repent; for the devil laugheth, and his angels rejoice, because of the slain of the fair sons and daughters of my people; and it is because of their iniquity and abominations that they are fallen!

 3 Behold, that great city Zarahemla have I burned with fire, and the inhabitants thereof.

 4 And behold, that great city Moroni have I caused to be sunk in the depths of the sea, and the inhabitants thereof to be drowned.

 5 And behold, that great city Moronihah have I covered with earth, and the inhabitants thereof, to hide their iniquities and their abominations from before my face, that the blood of the prophets and the saints shall not come any more unto me against them.

 6 And behold, the city of Gilgal have I caused to be sunk, and the inhabitants thereof to be buried up in the depths of the earth;

 7 Yea, and the city of Onihah and the inhabitants thereof, and the city of Mocum and the inhabitants thereof, and the city of Jerusalem and the inhabitants thereof; and waters have I caused to come up in the stead thereof, to hide their wickedness and abominations from before my face, that the blood of the prophets and the saints shall not come up any more unto me against them.

 8 And behold, the city of Gadiandi, and the city of Gadiomnah, and the city of Jacob, and the city of Gimgimno, all these have I caused to be sunk, and made hills and valleys in the places thereof; and the inhabitants thereof have I buried up in the depths of the earth, to hide their wickedness and abominations from before my face, that the blood of the prophets and the saints should not come up any more unto me against them.

 9 And behold, that great city Jacobugath, which was inhabited by the people of king Jacob, have I caused to be burned with fire because of their sins and their wickedness, which was above all the wickedness of the whole earth, because of their secret murders and combinations; for it was they that did destroy the peace of my people and the government of the land; therefore I did cause them to be burned, to destroy them from before my face, that the blood of the prophets and the saints should not come up unto me any more against them.

 10 And behold, the city of Laman, and the city of Josh, and the city of Gad, and the city of Kishkumen, have I caused to be burned with fire, and the inhabitants thereof, because of their wickedness in casting out the prophets, and stoning those whom I did send to declare unto them concerning their wickedness and their abominations.

 11 And because they did cast them all out, that there were none righteous among them, I did send down fire and destroy them, that their wickedness and abominations might be hid from before my face, that the blood of the prophets and the saints whom I sent among them might not cry unto me from the ground against them.

 12 And many great destructions have I caused to come upon this land, and upon this people, because of their wickedness and their abominations.

 13 O all ye that are spared because ye were more righteous than they, will ye not now return unto me, and repent of your sins, and be converted, that I may heal you?

 14 Yea, verily I say unto you, if ye will come unto me ye shall have eternal life. Behold, mine arm of mercy is extended towards you, and whosoever will come, him will I receive; and blessed are those who come unto me.

 15 Behold, I am Jesus Christ the Son of God. I created the heavens and the earth, and all things that in them are. I was with the Father from the beginning. I am in the Father, and the Father in me; and in me hath the Father glorified his name.

[vertigo]

Just because someone voted for Trump does not make them good.
And just because someone voted for Hillary does not make them evil.
I know and love several people who voted for Hillary, and I promise you they are not wicked or evil. I also know people who support Trump and they are absolutely not righteous.
So just because America voted for Trump does not mean the majority of America is good, it doesn't mean the majority is bad either. My point is I know good and bad who voted for both. But having Trump win does not mean that good won over evil IMO, I can say I was relieved that Hillary lost, but I was still sad that Trump won.

Why are our cities so horrible?

Maybe its the lack of personal space that makes cities rot faster? I saw a news broadcast that was reporting on the rise of airplane disruptions by passengers, and specialist concluded that its the lack of personal space that was causing people to react so violently. More and more people getting crammed into smaller areas. Think about road rage, that happens in more populated areas as well. Especially since we have become so selfish and narcissistic- How dare anyone feel inconvenienced or disrupted in any way? That study with the rats doesn't surprise me.

[David13]

I think it's too early to say we got lucky with Donald...

No, the great luck we had with Donald is that he is not ... the Hella Beast.
That is just great luck right there.
dc

[David13]

I agree that most of the country is not as bad as we might think. I believe the media and entertainment industry is desperately trying to make us believe anything but reality and truth.

And part of the reality that they hide is how bad the inner cities are, and how much the Democrats contribute to keeping them that way.
dc

[David13]

skmo
I think the other thing about those counties you mention, is that they are the locations where all the fraudulent votes come from. So if you could approximate reality there, it may well be that the beast did lose even those counties.
dc

[EmmaLee]

I remember seeing a comment that while we're at the high end of murders per capita in the world, if you take out the numbers of the f highest murder cities in the U.S. we're practically at the bottom of the list of countries. Why are our cities so horrible?

I assume this was a rhetorical question, but if not, please see excerpts below from just a few articles (plenty more out there than just these three) showing why socialized/Democrat cities are, indeed, so horrible.

America's ten most dangerous cities—as measured by federal crime statistics—have one highly notable feature in common: All are led politically by Democratic mayors. Most, in fact, have been controlled by Democrats for a very long time. For example, Detroit, which in 2015 ranked as the nation's most dangerous city, has not had a Republican mayor since 1961. The second most dangerous city in 2015 was Oakland, California, a Democrat stronghold since 1977. Third was Memphis, in Democratic hands since 1991. Fourth was St. Louis, which has been led exclusively by Democratic mayors since 1949. Fifth was Cleveland, where no Republican has been mayor since 1989. Sixth was Baltimore, Democrat-led since 1967. Seventh was Milwaukee, which has elected only Democratic mayors since 1908. Eighth was Birmingham, which has been Democrat-run since 1975. Ninth was Newark, a Democrat bastion since 1933. And tenth was Kansas City, Missouri, which has not seen a Republican mayor in a quarter-century.

Full article here - http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/263495/ ... r-networks" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Two-thirds of America's 100 largest cities are controlled by Democratic Party mayors. (67 Democrats, 28 Republicans and 5 mayors with an Independent Party or no party affiliation). "Historically, we've seen a shift over the last 30 years to more Democrats in urban areas and Republicans in rural areas. It just reflects the cultural shifts we've seen in our country," said Brooks Rainwater, senior executive at the National League of Cities (NLC).

Full article here - http://www.cnbc.com/2016/11/11/are-amer ... -home.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

For decades, the Democratic party has pushed policies that have turned America’s inner cites into islands of profound impoverishment — neighborhoods where shattered families are often housed, doctored, educated, and fed by bureaucrats. There’s a misery in many of America’s inner cities that projects perpetual poverty. Below are seven truths about how the Democratic party’s policies are destroying America’s inner cities, all while taking the voters who live there for granted.

Full article here - http://www.breitbart.com/big-government ... er-cities/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Separatist]

I remember seeing a comment that while we're at the high end of murders per capita in the world, if you take out the numbers of the f highest murder cities in the U.S. we're practically at the bottom of the list of countries. Why are our cities so horrible?

I assume this was a rhetorical question, but if not, please see excerpts below from just a few articles (plenty more out there than just these three) showing why socialized/Democrat cities are, indeed, so horrible.

America's ten most dangerous cities—as measured by federal crime statistics—have one highly notable feature in common: All are led politically by Democratic mayors. Most, in fact, have been controlled by Democrats for a very long time. For example, Detroit, which in 2015 ranked as the nation's most dangerous city, has not had a Republican mayor since 1961. The second most dangerous city in 2015 was Oakland, California, a Democrat stronghold since 1977. Third was Memphis, in Democratic hands since 1991. Fourth was St. Louis, which has been led exclusively by Democratic mayors since 1949. Fifth was Cleveland, where no Republican has been mayor since 1989. Sixth was Baltimore, Democrat-led since 1967. Seventh was Milwaukee, which has elected only Democratic mayors since 1908. Eighth was Birmingham, which has been Democrat-run since 1975. Ninth was Newark, a Democrat bastion since 1933. And tenth was Kansas City, Missouri, which has not seen a Republican mayor in a quarter-century.

Full article here - http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/263495/ ... r-networks" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Two-thirds of America's 100 largest cities are controlled by Democratic Party mayors. (67 Democrats, 28 Republicans and 5 mayors with an Independent Party or no party affiliation). "Historically, we've seen a shift over the last 30 years to more Democrats in urban areas and Republicans in rural areas. It just reflects the cultural shifts we've seen in our country," said Brooks Rainwater, senior executive at the National League of Cities (NLC).

Full article here - http://www.cnbc.com/2016/11/11/are-amer ... -home.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

For decades, the Democratic party has pushed policies that have turned America’s inner cites into islands of profound impoverishment — neighborhoods where shattered families are often housed, doctored, educated, and fed by bureaucrats. There’s a misery in many of America’s inner cities that projects perpetual poverty. Below are seven truths about how the Democratic party’s policies are destroying America’s inner cities, all while taking the voters who live there for granted.

Full article here - http://www.breitbart.com/big-government ... er-cities/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It really is terrible. If there is ever an experiment to see the results of central planning, it is this. Welfare, rent controls, public schools etc.

[captainfearnot]

I got curious about the numbers in this election, and who elects our leaders. We got lucky this time, and the hildabeast lost. Final numbers were: Popular Vote Clinton 65,844,954 and Trump 62,979,879 and the electoral college should have been Trump 306, Clinton 232. However, I decided to do a little subtracting:

If we take out the five counties in CA and NY which were highest for the hildabeast, the numbers then look like this:

Trump 61,115,312 popular vote, 390 electoral votes
Clinton 58,602,357 popular vote, 148 electoral votes

If we take out 1 county in IL, the numbers go to:

Trump 60,675,099 popular vote 410 electoral votes
Clinton 57,073,775 popular vote, 128 electoral votes

Eleven counties in the U.S. out of the 3143 there are (or county equivalents) damned near destroyed us. If NYC, SF, LA, and Chicago didn't exist, the dumb-as-craps couldn't put a president in office for the next 50 years.

No, there's no real purpose for this, I just got curious, and the numbers shocked me. We got lucky this time. One thing I realized, maybe much of America isn't as bad as we see all the time. I remember seeing a comment that while we're at the high end of murders per capita in the world, if you take out the numbers of the f highest murder cities in the U.S. we're practically at the bottom of the list of countries. Why are our cities so horrible?

This kind of back-of-the-envelope statistical analysis sounds more impressive than it really is because population distribution in the US is so counter-intuitive. It doesn't matter how many times you remind yourself that the population of New York City is greater than that of Montana, Alaska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Idaho, Wyoming, and Nebraska combined. When you look at an electoral map and see all those red counties across all that vast land area, compared to one tiny little blue county in the northeast, your brain tells you that those big states must somehow matter more.

It wouldn't be a very meaningful observation to say, hey look what happens to the election numbers if we just get rid of seven whole states comprising 354 counties. Because obviously that's a huge change, of course things will be different. But you're essentially saying the same thing by observing what happens if we "just" get rid of New York City. We know the numbers, but again, our brains are trained to think of things like counties as roughly equal units. Surely 354 counties is more significant than one city (cities typically being smaller than counties). But you're essentially using geographical sleight-of-hand to make a point that doesn't really follow.

To account for this error of perspective, all we need to do is ignore geography and talk about people. Yes, because the national popular vote count margin numbers in the neighborhood of two to three million, if you got rid of heavily Democratic leaning populations numbering 16 million (the combined population of NYC, SF, LA, and Chicago) then of course that would be more than enough to tilt the balance firmly in the Republicans' favor well into the future. But why is that any kind of significant observation? Obviously, the same thing would happen on the other side if you got rid of heavily leaning Republican populations to the tune of 16 million people.

Is the fact that the former can be accomplished by erasing four blue cities, while the latter would most likely require erasing several red states, at all significant? Sixteen million people are sixteen million people, are they not? Why should it matter whether people congregate in cities or spread out across the landscape?

[skmo]

Just because someone voted for Trump does not make them good.

Oh, believe me, I understand this, and I agree with it wholeheartedly. I don't believe anyone on this forum was more critical of Troompa Loompa prior to the election than I was. I have consistently found ONE positive thing to say about him: He ain't the hildabeast. That's the end of my list.

And just because someone voted for Hillary does not make them evil.

I'll trust you know people, as you said, that fit this category. To me I have all manner of problems with people being unable or unwilling to see the evil dripping off of her, but luckily for me I don't have to sit in judgement of any of them. I may be judging them, but I'm keeping my thoughts between my own two ears where they belong on the matter. There wasn't a win in this election, just a less painful loss.

I will say Trump's actually looked decent in his preliminary activities, and as much as I despised our right political side for selecting him I'm going to support him now and hope he can live up to the positive things he claims to want to do. I certainly think he's been more gracious so far than the hildabeast would have been.

I'm glad to see the Mormon Tabernacle Choir performing at his inauguration. It's not an endorsement of his presidency, as some whiny fuss-pots have cried over, the endorsement part is over. He's elected. This is the continuation of our political process in a freely elected society.

[skmo]

Is the fact that the former can be accomplished by erasing four blue cities, while the latter would most likely require erasing several red states, at all significant?

Yes, it is significant.

Sixteen million people are sixteen million people, are they not?

Yes, they are. Sixteen million farmers, plumbers, teachers and mechanics are people, just like sixteen million crack dealers, welfare recipients, robbers are. And before someone starts screaming about the generalizations I'm implying, I understand that not everyone in a city is a criminal or a welfare leech, and I know not everyone in rural areas are farmers and workers. However, I've spent enough time in big cities and seen educational surroundings to be able to make some fairly accurate estimations about this. In addition, look at the preponderance of crime in big cities as opposed to suburbs and small towns. Rats in the countryside don't eat each other. Rats in the city slums do.

Why should it matter whether people congregate in cities or spread out across the landscape?

Crime, poverty, single parent homes, and welfare use and abuse is much more prevalent in big cities.

[captainfearnot]

Is the fact that the former can be accomplished by erasing four blue cities, while the latter would most likely require erasing several red states, at all significant?

Yes, it is significant.

Sixteen million people are sixteen million people, are they not?

Yes, they are. Sixteen million farmers, plumbers, teachers and mechanics are people, just like sixteen million crack dealers, welfare recipients, robbers are. And before someone starts screaming about the generalizations I'm implying, I understand that not everyone in a city is a criminal or a welfare leech, and I know not everyone in rural areas are farmers and workers. However, I've spent enough time in big cities and seen educational surroundings to be able to make some fairly accurate estimations about this. In addition, look at the preponderance of crime in big cities as opposed to suburbs and small towns. Rats in the countryside don't eat each other. Rats in the city slums do.

Why should it matter whether people congregate in cities or spread out across the landscape?

Crime, poverty, single parent homes, and welfare use and abuse is much more prevalent in big cities.

Well, at least you are admitting that you believe 16 million people on your side are worth more than 16 million people on their side. That's good enough for me.

[JohnnyL]

I think a major point is the fake votes in those few places, too.

[skmo]

Well, at least you are admitting that you believe 16 million people on your side are worth more than 16 million people on their side. That's good enough for me.

If you're going to put something in my mouth, you'd damned well better be my wife, and it had damned well better be food, not words. I said nothing about their worth, but if they're breaking laws or sucking off of the federal teat so they don't HAVE to work, that's information that needs to be seen and acknowledged. It doesn't matter to God for their worth as a soul, but it sure as hell matters to free people who need to acknowledge where money spent by our government goes.

The government cannot give something to a person they have not taken from someone else. How the government spends money it takes away from people matters. Democrats have realized they can buy votes from welfare cases with more welfare, and until it's seen and acknowledged by those who work for the money it will continue to be inequity in our system. I know people who work less hours than they're offered so they don't affect their welfare and other benefits. They're not all in big cities, but a relevant proportion of them are when compared to rural areas.

In any case, you're free to believe what you will about me, but don't you ever put words in my mouth.

[captainfearnot]

Well, at least you are admitting that you believe 16 million people on your side are worth more than 16 million people on their side. That's good enough for me.

If you're going to put something in my mouth, you'd damned well better be my wife, and it had damned well better be food, not words. I said nothing about their worth, but if they're breaking laws or sucking off of the federal teat so they don't HAVE to work, that's information that needs to be seen and acknowledged. It doesn't matter to God for their worth as a soul, but it sure as hell matters to free people who need to acknowledge where money spent by our government goes.

The government cannot give something to a person they have not taken from someone else. How the government spends money it takes away from people matters. Democrats have realized they can buy votes from welfare cases with more welfare, and until it's seen and acknowledged by those who work for the money it will continue to be inequity in our system. I know people who work less hours than they're offered so they don't affect their welfare and other benefits. They're not all in big cities, but a relevant proportion of them are when compared to rural areas.

In any case, you're free to believe what you will about me, but don't you ever put words in my mouth.

My apologies if I misread you. Were you not implying a qualitative difference between equal numbers of people living in blue cities vs. vs red states with this statement?

Sixteen million farmers, plumbers, teachers and mechanics are people, just like sixteen million crack dealers, welfare recipients, robbers are.

It sounds like maybe I shouldn't have said "worth" because you seem to be interpreting that in the sense we use it at church. The worth of souls is great in the sight of God, for example. I didn't mean to suggest that you think God loves these people on the other side of the political aisle any less, or that they are less valuable as human lives or anything like that.

I only meant that you had suggested that the question is more than just quantitative, it is also qualitative. It is not enough to know that we're talking about 16 million people when we imagine erasing swaths of humanity from the map to see what that does to the electoral picture. We also need to know whether those 16 million people live in the country or the city, so that we can factor in their relative quality. Sixteen million robbing, crack dealing welfare recipients would not represent the same loss to the country as 16 million farmers, plumbers, teachers, and mechanics would, so it makes sense to talk about wiping out the former in a hypothetical thought experiment, but not the latter.

Let me know if I'm misreading you again.

[skmo]

My apologies if I misread you.

Gratefully accepted.

Were you not implying a qualitative difference between equal numbers of people living in blue cities vs. vs red states with this statement?

Yes, a qualitative evaluation as citizens. It has nothing to do with their worth (as souls) but it makes a difference in how they contribute to society. Taxpaying citizens, me included, are certainly understanding of a need for some of our tax dollars to go to caring for invalids and people truly needy, but I'm sure not going to agree to having my taxes used to prop up the lifestyles of lazy, Obamaphone-sucking deadbeats. People who pay taxes, all 53% of us in this country, deserve to know where our taxes are going.

Leftist goobers have done a marvelous job of fooling idiot middle America that because many of them are white they should feel guilty and be willing to give freely of our taxes to repair the damage done to Natives, blacks, immigrant whatevers (meaning whatever song and dance they do to get people feeling sorry for them*) which, as a Native myself, I say is CRAP. The wrongs done last century are not my responsibility, and people in this country need to man up and be responsible. If they're not going to, I want to know that so I can help show our blinded, somewhat ignorant populace because as the Widow's mite matters to the Kingdom of God, the tax-collector's pickpocket needs to be watched.

When the Irish came here, signs proclaiming "NO IRISH" in businesses popped up all over. The Italians, Greeks, Hungarians, and Bulgarians met the same wall. Instead of screaming "Not My President" or burning down white businesses in Boston and NYC, the rolled up their sleeves and got to work. Ben Carson, a young black kid growing up with a single mother in slums of Detroit became a doctor and ran for President. Like Morgan Freeman said "If you don't like where you are, the buses run both ways." I could be another drunk Indian cursing at how the white man stole our land and refuses to let us succeed, but my mom and dad told me I'd be getting an education even if I didn't want one, and if I wanted to be a bum, I could do it after I graduated.

Sixteen million robbing, crack dealing welfare recipients would not represent the same loss to the country as 16 million farmers, plumbers, teachers, and mechanics would, so it makes sense to talk about wiping out the former in a hypothetical thought experiment, but not the latter.

It matters to me so I can understand and explain to people what's happening, so people's blindness can be cured. Our people are being dumbed down, and I'm going to continue to fight that until I can't fight any longer.

*We're generous people, but we should be deciding for ourselves where our charitable donations go to help the suffering of the world. I don't trust the government to do it for me. The couldn't run a whorehouse next door to a Naval Base and show a profit.