I'M SORRY, WHERE WAS THE CONTROVERSY IN 2016? (THIS IS BOTH SAD AND HILARIOUS)

                                 
                             

SINCE THE DEMOCRATS, REPUBLICANS, AND MUCH OF THE NEWS MEDIA IS FOCUSING ON PENNSYLVANIA AND THE ATTEMPT BY TRUMP TO STOP THE OFFICIAL, AND LEGAL VOTE COUNT, I KEEP THINKING: "WHERE WAS THIS CONTROVERSY 4 YEARS AGO?"

THE FOLLOWING IS PART OF AN ARTICLE I WROTE CONCENTRATING ON THE 2012 AND 2016 PENN.ELECTION RESULTS. (BY THE WAY, THE DEMOCRATS NEVER FILED A LAWSUIT IN PENN., NOR ANY OTHER STATE EVEN THOUGH THE RESULTS IN SOME WERE AS  RIDICULOUS AS THIS. INCLUDING FLORIDA)

YOU KNOW THE 2016 ELECTION WHERE DONALD TRUMP WON 30 STATES OR 60%, WHILE LOSING THE POPULAR VOTE WITH 46% OF THE NATIONAL TOTAL. AS I RECALL NOT A SINGLE DEMOCRATIC PARTY LEADER, OR MEMBER OF THE NEWS MEDIA QUESTIONED THESE RESULTS.

HERE ARE THE RESULTS FROM 2012 AND 2016                       

ELECTION RESULTS FOR PRESIDENT.                                      

PENNSYLVANIA- 2012 ELECTION. TOTAL # OF DEMOCRAT\REPUBLICAN VOTES: 5,670,708.

TOTAL DEMOCRATIC VOTES- 2,990,274.

TOTAL REPUBLICAN VOTES- 2,680,434.

MARGIN OF DEMOCRATIC VICTORY- 309,840 VOTES.

PENNSYLVANIA- 2016 ELECTION.  TOTAL # OF DEMOCRATIC/REPUBLICAN VOTES: 5,897,174.  UP +226,466 VOTES FROM 2012 ELECTION.

TOTAL DEMOCRATIC VOTES- 2,926,441 VOTES, LOSS OF 63,833 VOTES FROM 2012 ELECTION.

TOTAL REPUBLICAN VOTES-  2,970,733 VOTES, GAIN OF +290,299 VOTES.

HERE IS A BREAKDOWN:

The TOTAL # OF  DEMOCRAT/REPUBLICAN VOTES INCREASED +226,466 votes from

2012-2016.

THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY LOST 63,833 VOTES BETWEEN 2012 AND 2016, OR ABOUT -2.1%. In itself, that's 

not a drastic decline. It would be considered a result that is well within normal expectations.

HOWEVER, THE REPUBLICAN PARTY NUMBERS ARE ANOTHER MATTER. AN INCREASE OF +290,299 VOTES REPRESENTS ABOUT AN + 10.8% INCREASE.

This number, (+290,299), is more than 4 times the number 

of votes that the Democrats lost.

TO ACHIEVE THE TOTAL OF 2,970,733 VOTES IN 2016, THE REPUBLICAN PARTY NEEDED A SCENARIO LIKE THE FOLLOWING TO HAPPEN:

EVERY SINGLE VOTER WHO CAST A BALLOT FOR THE REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE IN 2012, HAD TO DO SO AGAIN IN 2016: 2,680,434 VOTES.

EVERY NEW VOTER WHO CAST A BALLOT FOR EITHER THE DEMOCRAT OR REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE, HAD TO CHOOSE REPUBLICAN: +226,466 VOTES.

THAT TOTAL= 2,906,900 IS STILL SHORT OF THE "OFFICIAL" TOTAL OF 2,970,733 VOTES.

HOW COULD THIS BE? THE REPUBLICANS WERE STILL 63,833 VOTES SHORT OF THE FINAL NUMBER. WELL, GO BACK A FEW PARAGRAPHS AND CHECK OUT THE NUMBER OF VOTES THE DEMOCRATS LOST FROM 2012-2016= -63,833.

TO ACHIEVE A TOTAL OF 2,970,733 VOTES IN 2016, HERE IS RUNDOWN OF WHAT THE REPUBLICANS NEEDED TO HAPPEN:

EVERY REPUBLICAN VOTER FROM 2012, RETURNS AND VOTES REPUBLICAN AGAIN IN 2016: 2,680,434.

EVERY NEW VOTER WHO SELECTS EITHER DEM.\REP. IN 2016, CHOOSES REP.: 226,466.

EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THE 63,833 VOTERS THE DEM. PARTY LOST BETWEEN 2012- 2016, RETURNS TO THE POLLS AND VOTES REPUBLICAN.

2,680,434 + 226,466 + 63,833 = 2,970,733.

THIS IS LUDICROUS. NO REASONABLE INDIVIDUAL WHO LOOKS AT THESE NUMBERS COULD TAKE THEM SERIOUSLY. 

THIS ELECTION WAS A SHAM. 

DON'T TAKE MY WORD, GO OVER THE RESULTS CAREFULLY. 

DEMOCRATS IN PENNSYLVANIA: DON'T BE SCAMMED AGAIN!!!

AMERICAN PHILOSOPHICAL ASSOCIATION. General Discussion Digest for Wednesday November 4, 2020

 American Philosophical Association (DoNotReply@ConnectedCommunity.org)

To:you Details

General Discussion Post New Message   Nov 4, 2020 Discussions started 6 days ago, Alex Blum (6 replies) Short Paper Section    1.  What I have in mind is a site which accepts full... Alex Blum 2.  I like the idea. Maybe "Phlash Philosophy", ... Edward Main 3.  Are you guys picturing something peer-reviewed,... Jacob Andrews 4.  Yes. Perhaps something like “To the Point” --... Alex Blum 5.  tempting idea but I just tested and copied... Friedrich Grafe started one year ago, Krim Ballentine (2 replies) Life split    6.  Etymologically, "atom" meant "undividable" or ... Edward Main   top  next 1. Re: Short Paper Section Reply to Group Reply to Sender Nov 4, 2020 6:06 AM Alex Blum  What I have in mind is a site which accepts full articles which are no longer than say 500 words. The articles could be on any philosophical topic.  ------------------------------ Alex Blum ------------------------------   Reply to Group Online   View Thread   Recommend   Forward   Flag as Inappropriate   ------------------------------------------- Original Message: Sent: 11-03-2020 10:21 From: Jacob Andrews Subject: Short Paper Section I think this is a great idea. Learning to communicate ideas concisely is a great skill. I've been reading through the 1000 Word Philosophy page, and I think reading such short expositions of big topics has already made me a better academic writer. What kinds of philosophical topics do you think are suitable for this very short format (we can call it "flash philosophy," after "flash fiction"), as opposed to traditional longform journal articles? ------------------------------ Jacob Joseph Andrews Upper School Latin Teacher and IT Administrator – Covenant Classical School PhD Candidate, Philosophy – Loyola University Chicago https://jacobjandrews.wordpress.com/   top previous  next 2. Re: Short Paper Section Reply to Group Reply to Sender Nov 4, 2020 9:01 AM Edward Main I like the idea.  Maybe "Phlash Philosophy", "Philash Philosophy" or even "Philosophlash"?   Reply to Group Online   View Thread   Recommend   Forward   Flag as Inappropriate   ------------------------------------------- Original Message: Sent: 11/3/2020 10:22:00 AM From: Jacob Andrews Subject: RE: Short Paper Section I think this is a great idea. Learning to communicate ideas concisely is a great skill. I've been reading through the 1000 Word Philosophy page, and I think reading such short expositions of big topics has already made me a better academic writer. What kinds of philosophical topics do you think are suitable for this very short format (we can call it "flash philosophy," after "flash fiction"), as opposed to traditional longform journal articles? ------------------------------ Jacob Joseph Andrews Upper School Latin Teacher and IT Administrator – Covenant Classical School PhD Candidate, Philosophy – Loyola University Chicago https://jacobjandrews.wordpress.com/ ------------------------------ ------------------------------------------- Original Message: Sent: 10-29-2020 04:35 From: Alex Blum Subject: Short Paper Section I would like to suggest a short paper section, say, for papers of no more than 500 words not counting bibliography. And see how it develops. Many editors will not even consider papers which are less than thousands of words.     top previous  next 3. Re: Short Paper Section Reply to Group Reply to Sender Nov 4, 2020 11:12 AM Jacob Andrews Are you guys picturing something peer-reviewed, a blog with looser guidelines, a subset of the APA website, or what? ------------------------------ Jacob Joseph Andrews Upper School Latin Teacher and IT Administrator – Covenant Classical School PhD Candidate, Philosophy – Loyola University Chicago https://jacobjandrews.wordpress.com/ ------------------------------   Reply to Group Online   View Thread   Recommend   Forward   Flag as Inappropriate   ------------------------------------------- Original Message: Sent: 11-04-2020 09:01 From: Edward Main Subject: Short Paper Section I like the idea.  Maybe "Phlash Philosophy", "Philash Philosophy" or even "Philosophlash"? Original Message: Sent: 11/3/2020 10:22:00 AM From: Jacob Andrews Subject: RE: Short Paper Section I think this is a great idea. Learning to communicate ideas concisely is a great skill. I've been reading through the 1000 Word Philosophy page, and I think reading such short expositions of big topics has already made me a better academic writer. What kinds of philosophical topics do you think are suitable for this very short format (we can call it "flash philosophy," after "flash fiction"), as opposed to traditional longform journal articles? ------------------------------ Jacob Joseph Andrews Upper School Latin Teacher and IT Administrator – Covenant Classical School PhD Candidate, Philosophy – Loyola University Chicago https://jacobjandrews.wordpress.com/   top previous  next 4. Re: Short Paper Section Reply to Group Reply to Sender Nov 4, 2020 11:26 AM Alex Blum Yes. Perhaps something like “To the Point”   Reply to Group Online   View Thread   Recommend   Forward   Flag as Inappropriate   ------------------------------------------- Original Message: Sent: 11/4/2020 11:12:00 AM From: Jacob Andrews Subject: RE: Short Paper Section Are you guys picturing something peer-reviewed, a blog with looser guidelines, a subset of the APA website, or what? ------------------------------ Jacob Joseph Andrews Upper School Latin Teacher and IT Administrator – Covenant Classical School PhD Candidate, Philosophy – Loyola University Chicago https://jacobjandrews.wordpress.com/ ------------------------------   top previous  next 5. Re: Short Paper Section Reply to Group Reply to Sender Nov 4, 2020 12:19 PM Friedrich Grafe tempting idea but I just tested and copied one page from a  pdf–file to ms-word, and the word count gave me 583 words for this one page hence two suggestions concerning  'short' in this context: allow for up to 1000 words peer reviewing needed, but should be rather liberal with respect to references and detailedness; a thus short article (e.g. research reporting) may be comprehensible because of its shortness only to the informed reader ------------------------------ Friedrich Grafe Wendelstein ------------------------------   Reply to Group Online   View Thread   Recommend   Forward   Flag as Inappropriate   ------------------------------------------- Original Message: Sent: 11-04-2020 06:06 From: Alex Blum Subject: Short Paper Section  What I have in mind is a site which accepts full articles which are no longer than say 500 words. The articles could be on any philosophical topic.  ------------------------------ Alex Blum   top previous 6. Re: Life split Reply to Group Reply to Sender Nov 4, 2020 9:55 AM Edward Main Etymologically, "atom" meant "undividable" or "indivisible" (e.g., to Democritus).   "Splitting the atom" produced the atomic bomb.  The atom had already been "split" into protons, neutrons and electrons, etc.; a nucleus and circling electrons (if that's what they do).  These, in turn, have been further "split" into quarks, although the quarks have differing characteristics (can they be further "split")?  But I digress.   I recall Collingwood's distinction between "kicking a bad dog" and "taking a good walk": the "walk" isn't "there" until it's taken.  Similarly, it may be argued (as do the existentialists) that "life" is nothing more than the "living" of it.  But that depends upon the kind of "life" under consideration; there is "life" in the biological sense (body) and "life" in an experiential sense.  We may speak of "living a good life", a value judgment which would not necessarily apply merely to the biological sense (materially, what happens happens); if we value certain biological processes as (for example) more efficiently producing edible food sources, that imposes a value not inherent in the biological process (even an evolutionary principle such as "survival of the fittest" presupposes a value to survival).     Consciousness can be "split" into the brain (material) and the mind (thinking, perhaps - shades of DesCartes!).  It is the experiential, conscious, thinking part that understands the material, biological part (experiences it, is conscious of it and thinks about it), and employs values in doing so.   Genesis 2:7 distinguishes the "dust of the ground" (material) from "the breath of life" (respiration is a biological process, which developed prior to the emergence of humankind in time).  I would take "the breath of life" more metaphorically as referring to the emergence of consciousness.  This, I think, is follows from the significance of Genesis 2:5-6.  The earth was just "dust" before a "mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground", which allowed plants and herbs to grow.  In Genesis 2:5, the plants and herbs had not yet started to grow because there was no rain; that was supplied by the "mist" in Genesis 2:6, and allowed "life" in the biological sense to emerge.   But other forms of "life" have "consciousness" in varying forms and degrees.  Presumably there were other forms of "life" which did so before humankind emerged with its particular form (or forms) and degree (or degrees) of consciousness.  To my way of thinking, "consciousness" is what a particular form of life (including humankind) makes of it.  A universal, all pervading consciousness would be more of a goal to be achieved in varying degrees, as existing forms of consciousness seek communication and integration with other forms (whether that of particular individuals with shared perspectives or that of different forms seeking to apprehend such a connection).         Reply to Group Online   View Thread   Recommend   Forward   Flag as Inappropriate   ------------------------------------------- Original Message: Sent: 11/3/2020 10:27:00 AM From: Jacob Andrews Subject: RE: Life split Hi Krim, Interesting thoughts. You say, "Academicians and scientists attempt to split everything into two parts, the atom." But "the atom" sounds like one part, not two. What two parts do you have in mind? I'm also curious about your exposition of Genesis 2:7. I read that not as a definition of life, but as a causal explanation of human life: human life is caused by God's spirit, rather than *being* God's spirit. What do you think? I do think your intimation of the idea of telos or goal-directed existence from Genesis is spot in. Genesis 1-2 are all about organization, hierarchy, and structure: everything God makes, including human beings, is made with a purpose in mind. Because of our rationality, God is able to directly talk to us about our purpose (Genesis 2:15-17), rather than simply make us to perform a purpose. You've identified some really deep stuff in here. ------------------------------ Jacob Joseph Andrews Upper School Latin Teacher and IT Administrator – Covenant Classical School PhD Candidate, Philosophy – Loyola University Chicago https://jacobjandrews.wordpress.com/ ------------------------------ You are subscribed to "General Discussion" as macblazer1981@aol.com. To change your subscriptions, go to My Subscriptions. To unsubscribe from this community discussion, go to Unsubscribe.

TO THE AP: SO YOUR AN APOLOGIST FOR ....? THE 2020 FLORIDA PRESIDENTIAL RETURNS.

Here is an article from the AP that talks about the 2020 Florida returns for president. SINCE THEY DID SUCH A GREAT JOB FOUR YEARS AGO IN ANALYZING THE BOGUS RETURNS THAT GAVE TRUMP THE WHITE HOUSE, THIS STORY SHOULD LET US, ONCE AGAIN, BASK IN THEIR WISDOM:

HERE IS THE ARTICLE.

With another Florida loss, Democrats begin second guessing

BOBCAINA CALVAN AND BRENDAN FARRINGTON

Nov 5th 2020 1:29PM

Fla. Perhaps only in Florida is a loss by fewer than 4 percentage points considered a public drubbing.

In a state famous for razor-thin margins, the size of former Vice President Joe Biden's loss to President Donald Trump was humiliating for Democrats and sent many searching for answers to how they failed to close the deal with voters — again.

Democrats zeroed in on two clear explanations: Biden didn't connect with the state's Latino voters, performing particularly poorly with Cuban voters in South Florida. They also second-guessed the party's decision to freeze in-person organizing during the worst of the pandemic, a decision that set them back in reaching voters.

“Clearly, Biden was not able to capture the imagination of the Florida electorate and create the type of enthusiasm to go out and vote for Biden like Trump did with his base of supporters in the state," said Fernand Amandi, a Miami-based Democratic pollster. “It’s an unacceptable record of futility. What makes it so vexing is that the problems that need to be fixed are so apparent. But they just don’t get fixed."

Amandi focused on the Biden campaign's struggles to connect with Hispanic voters in the state.

Trump and Republicans pummeled Biden for months with misleading claims suggesting he was a “socialist” and would cater to the left wing of the Democratic Party. The attacks carried added power with Cuban and Venezuelan Americans, who associate the labels with authoritarian and corrupt Latin American leaders.

Biden's weakness was most evident in his underperformance in Miami-Dade County, which has the state’s deepest concentration of Hispanic voters, particularly Cuban Americans. Biden won the county, the state’s most populous, by just 7 percentage points — compared with Democrat Hillary Clinton’s 30-point victory margin four years ago against Trump.

AP VoteCast, a survey of the Florida electorate, found Trump won 58% of Cuban American voters statewide, while voters with South American heritage split evenly between Biden and Trump. The survey said Puerto Rican voters backed Biden by about 2 to 1.

The relatively poor showing in South Florida hurt other Democrats, as Republicans swept out two Miami-area congressional incumbents — Reps. Donna Shalala and Debbie Mucarsel-Powell.

“When you look at Miami-Dade in particular, there was a lot of advertising on the other side of the aisle dealing with socialism and in some cases even the word communism,” said Democratic Rep. Charlie Crist, a former Republican governor who has held three statewide offices.

“I think that obviously had an impact," Crist said. "When you’re attacked you need to fight back. I’m not sure how much of the fighting back occurred on our side.”

Trump had a head start in his adopted home state and used it to make inroads with the Hispanic community, which accounts for about 1 in every 5 voters in Florida.

Biden had a late start. Not only did he have to secure his party’s nomination, he was sidelined from a more aggressive campaign because of the coronavirus pandemic — for a while, Florida was off limits as an epicenter of the outbreak.

While Biden and his running mate, Sen. Kamala Harris, did eventually visit the key battleground state, much of the campaign was conducted virtually because of concerns over the pandemic. When Republicans resumed going to door-to-door, Democrats remained on the sidelines.

WOW, THEY'RE ON THE BALL, NOTHING GETS PAST THEM...UNLESS YOU ACTUALLY CARE ABOUT THE SUBJECT MATTER. 

HERE IS A SHORT ARTICLE I WROTE ON NOV. 3. DO YOU SEE ANY DIFFERENCES?

2020 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION: LET'S START WITH FLORIDA. UPDATE

SENATE DEMOCRATS, I REALIZE YOUR LEADERSHIP IS USELESS, AND WINNING THE SENATE DOES NOT MEAN MUCH WHEN YOU HANDED OVER THE SUPREME COURT WITHOUT A FIGHT, BUT... A 22.5% INCREASE IN TOTAL VOTES IN FLORIDA. ARE YOU THAT INCOMPETENT AND/OR CORRUPT THAT NOBODY IN THE STATE SAID "HMM, THAT'S A REALLY BIG INCREASE, WE NEED TO LOOK INTO IT NOW," OR DO YOU JUST TAKE WHAT THE REPUBLICANS AND RUSSIANS WILL GIVE YOU?

AS OF RIGHT NOW THE 2020 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION HAS NOT BEEN RESOLVED.

SO, I DECIDED TO GET A JUMP ON THE ANALYSIS, AND STARTED WITH FLORIDA.

2016 REP. VOTE TOTAL- 4,617, 886

2020 REP. VOTE TOTAL- 5,657, 933

INCREASE OF 1,040,047 VOTES or 22.5%

AS OF 4:30PM- TRUMP HAS INCREASED HIS NATIONAL VOTE TOTAL BY 4,749,787 FROM 2016 TO 2020.

 THAT MEANS FLORIDA  ALONE  ACCOUNTS FOR 21.9% OF THAT INCREASE.

                    PERHAPS THE DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP CAN EXPLAIN HOW THIS INCREASE IS IN ANY WAY ACCEPTABLE?

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Oddly enough, the AP Article does not mention CERTAIN FIGURES, SUCH AS TOTALS AND PERCENTAGES. THE NUMBERS I USED FOR THE STATE HAVE GONE UP VERY SLIGHTLY, BUT DON'T CHANGE MY ANALYSIS IN ANY WAY.

AS YOU CAN SEE, DONALD TRUMP HAD AN INCREASE OF 1,040,047 VOTES BETWEEN THE 2016 AND 2020 ELECTIONS. THIS IS A +22.5% CHANGE. PERHAPS THE AP CAN TELL US IF THIS RESULT WAS SIMILAR TO ANY OTHER STATE IN THE 2020 ELECTION FOR EITHER CANDIDATE. I'LL GO YOU ONE BETTER, IN THE HISTORY OF U.S. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS, HOW MANY OTHER CANDIDATES OR PARTIES HAD A 22.5% INCREASE IN VOTE TOTALS FROM ONE ELECTION TO THE NEXT. FINALLY, WHILE IT HAS CHANGED SINCE THEN, AT THE TIME FLORIDAS VOTE TOTAL REPRESENTED MORE THEN ONE- FIFTH OF DONALD TRUMPS INCREASE IN THE NATIONWIDE TOTAL BETWEEN 2016 AND 2020. I ASSUME THIS WAS NOT CONSIDERED IMPORTANT INFO, BECAUSE THE AP DOES NOT MENTION IT.

I GUESS I'M PART OF THAT "LIBERAL MEDIA" BECAUSE I THOUGHT LEAVING OUT SUCH INFORMATION WOULD HAVE BEEN IRRESPONSIBLE.

OH WELL...LIVE AND LEARN.

2020 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION: LET'S START WITH FLORIDA. UPDATE

DEMOCRATS, I REALIZE YOUR LEADERSHIP IS USELESS, AND WINNING THE SENATE DOES NOT MEAN MUCH WHEN YOU  HANDED OVER THE SUPREME COURT WITHOUT A FIGHT, BUT... A 22.5% INCREASE IN TOTAL VOTES IN FLORIDA. ARE YOU THAT INCOMPETENT AND/OR CORRUPT THAT NOBODY IN THE STATE SAID "HMM, THAT'S A REALLY BIG INCREASE, WE NEED TO LOOK INTO IT NOW," OR DO YOU JUST TAKE WHAT THE REPUBLICANS AND RUSSIANS WILL GIVE YOU?

AS OF RIGHT NOW THE 2020 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION HAS NOT BEEN RESOLVED.

SO, I DECIDED TO GET A JUMP ON THE ANALYSIS, AND STARTED WITH FLORIDA.

2016 REP. VOTE TOTAL- 4,617, 886

2020 REP. VOTE TOTAL- 5,657, 933

INCREASE OF 1,040,047 VOTES or 22.5%

AS OF 4:30PM- TRUMP HAS INCREASED HIS NATIONAL VOTE TOTAL BY 4,749,787 FROM 2016 TO 2020.

 THAT MEANS FLORIDA  ALONE  ACCOUNTS FOR 21.9% OF THAT INCREASE.

                    PERHAPS THE DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP CAN EXPLAIN HOW THIS INCREASE IS IN ANY WAY ACCEPTABLE?