plantagenet,

OK I'm convinced. Trump wrestles.

Putin wrestles...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lxMglj8LuM

The collusion couldn't be clearer. Why haven't the Dems started impeachment based on this irrefutable evidence?

Foxy,

"Congratulations! You've just passed your American Citizenship Test."

That's a strange way to admit to a monumental error... but to each her own.

“When my information changes, I change my mind. What do you do?” JM Keynes. The information changed Foxy...what will you do? Let me guess."

I guessed right.

The thing is this Foxy, When you base an opinion on faulty facts and, after finding out your facts are wrong, you don't change your opinion, that simply shows that the facts of the matter were utterly unimportant to your opinion. That the opinion was formed and then a search was made to find something (anything) that would give the opinion a veneer of scholarship.

We see this all the time from the likes of Belly and Paul, but I keep hoping to convince myself that Foxy is better than that.

But you're making it very hard to hold to that hope.

mhaze,

I tried to point out the things that the US
Electoral College clearly violates - but it seems
that I did not do a good job and I did not
express myself well. What I was trying to say was
that due to the uneven representation of electoral
delegates in proportion to population some votes
count more than others.

For example the vote of a Wyoming citizen weighs more
than 3 times as much as a California vote. How can this
be fair?

The candidate with the majority of votes should become President.
(sorry Trump supporters but this should be obvious).
The election result should represent the majority. In at
least several cases in the US history tells us it didn't.

It's fundamentally undemocratic that someone with millions less
votes than his opponent wins the Presidential election.

If you can't see that this is wrong - that's your right.
I have the right to view things in a different perspective
to you.

I wrote to the Crikey website this morning. Crikey’s article says "Someone committing the ultimate profanity of child sexual assault at the heart of the sacred? That’s not an impossibility, it’s a Law and Order:SVU episode". In other words, Crikey is literally saying that the event is a fictional event, written by a scriptwriter.
I e-mailed kelso lawyers last night. Their website has an article dated 30.6.2017 which does not say anything bad about Pell, but suggests he is going to be stitched up. The website says "But his name will never be cleared now, even if he is found innocent. There is hardly any chance of Pell winning these cases".
Is this what Milo meant when he said that the word was out that Pell was going to be stitched up? Kelso lawyers web page seems to be evidence that at least they thought that a stitch up was going to take place.
I still think the evidence against Pell is absurd. I assume that the witness is lying, or deluded. I assume there is nothing unusual about a witness discussing their evidence with a lawyer. In this case I think the witness has been fed his lines by the lawyer (a scriptwriter with an over-excited imagination, perhaps smoking crack).

Foxy,
“I did not express myself well.”

Now let me get this straight. When you said “they lost the election because of the electoral voting system not being adjusted over the past decades” you really meant to say that they were adjusted every decade but just worded badly? Seriously? You think someone will buy that?

Why is it so hard for people here to just admit error and move on? Wouldn’t it be easier to just admit you got your facts wrong, undertake to try to do better next time, undertake to re-evaluate based on the new data, and then move on. That, to my jaundiced way of thinking would be easier and more honourable.

After all we all make mistakes. Even I’ve been known to be in error – it was 2008 as I recall, although I could be mistaken about that.

As to your general complaint that it was unfair that your girl lost when you were sure she’d win, I offer this. The rules of the contest were known going in. The aim is to win states – that’s always been the aim. Winning the most votes isn’t the aim. These are the rules in the US because, as a federation of states, it’s the states that make the president. Indeed there was time when people didn’t even vote for the president – it was done by the state congress.

It makes no sense in any real world scenario to simply change the rules after the event and then seek to claim victory. St Kilda lost the GF in 2009 despite having more scoring shots. Would it be fair to change the rules and award them the prize?
If the rules were different the contest would be played differently. Trump would chase Californian and NY votes.

You might not agree with the system in place, especially when it gives, in your view, the wrong answer. But it is the system (there are mechanisms to change it if the Dems so wish). Proclaiming Trump illegitimate because you suddenly deem the system wrong is invalid

mhaze,

You protest too much, me thinks.

I tried to point out what the electoral college
clearly violates. Having lived and worked in
the US for close to ten years it was something
that was quite apparent to us all. It has nothing to do
with Mr Trump. Why do you assume I'm pro Hilary
Clinton?

Anyway, I shall leave it there. You can continue to
argue. But you'll be arguing on your own.

Cheers.