New Year's resolution:  stop trying to teach pigs how to sing.

Someone else will have to pick up the slack!   

What? You are going to stop picking dumb arguments with me? Oh no, whatever shall I do...

What? You are going to stop picking dumb arguments with me? Oh no, whatever shall I do...

Ok, so by your definition, whoever wins, even by just 1 vote, has a mandate? That's fine, I am just saying the significance of having 1.5% more votes should not be made to be bigger than it really is. On top of that, I wouldn't interpret this as inherently being pro-Trump because many of those voters could also just be anti-Harris. We can call it a red wave, I don't really care. Thats just a phrase to hype the story up. In the end it doesn't matter, the winner gets the gold metal, I just don't think the win is that significant when it is by a small margin.

Although I do understand your position on the mandate, I have to admit I feel differently, on a few things. The mandate, we are not talking about an election where everything is equal and one candidate got a few more votes. It was shown the media was SEVERLY biased. Trump was made out to be the worse human being in history, and Harris was made out to be the shining savior on the hill. she was also funded by someone , the fictional deep state maybe, so much so she amassed a war chest of over a BILLION dollars in a few short weeks. The debate was also very once sided. Even with all that , the voters, in the end, rejected the lifestyle they were told would be their new normal, and voted the person who would bring back the lifestyle they previously lost. It was not just a few votes. As was pointed out the electoral college was 58% to 42%. A blowout. The popular vote swing was not the 1.5% the republicans won by. It was more like 10%(sorry i don't have exact numbers) the difference of what the democrats usually win by, to what they lost by. That is a mandate. As far as Trump becoming president only for himself or his billionaire friends, he is better off without being president. Now as far as him playing loose with the laws, I may agree. I'd need to look at more facts, and not propaganda given by the same institutions that support the fictional deep state. Moving on to the deep state, government agencies have been weaponized against, American citizens, and political opponents in an effort remain, or to amass power. It was done under Obama, when he used the IRS to go after churches, revoking tax exempt status, while granting the exempt status to any liberal cause. Biden used the FBI, to cover his family's indiscretions, the CIA to go after citizens, and the DOJ to go after political opponents.  All that and it is not limited to just presidents, or people in office. It extends down through our courts, our current representatives, and even former office holders. To me that is the existence of a "deep state".

Although I do understand your position on the mandate, I have to admit I feel differently, on a few things. The mandate, we are not talking about an election where everything is equal and one candidate got a few more votes. It was shown the media was SEVERLY biased. Trump was made out to be the worse human being in history, and Harris was made out to be the shining savior on the hill. she was also funded by someone , the fictional deep state maybe, so much so she amassed a war chest of over a BILLION dollars in a few short weeks. The debate was also very once sided. Even with all that , the voters, in the end, rejected the lifestyle they were told would be their new normal, and voted the person who would bring back the lifestyle they previously lost. It was not just a few votes. As was pointed out the electoral college was 58% to 42%. A blowout. The popular vote swing was not the 1.5% the republicans won by. It was more like 10%(sorry i don't have exact numbers) the difference of what the democrats usually win by, to what they lost by. That is a mandate. As far as Trump becoming president only for himself or his billionaire friends, he is better off without being president. Now as far as him playing loose with the laws, I may agree. I'd need to look at more facts, and not propaganda given by the same institutions that support the fictional deep state. Moving on to the deep state, government agencies have been weaponized against, American citizens, and political opponents in an effort remain, or to amass power. It was done under Obama, when he used the IRS to go after churches, revoking tax exempt status, while granting the exempt status to any liberal cause. Biden used the FBI, to cover his family's indiscretions, the CIA to go after citizens, and the DOJ to go after political opponents.  All that and it is not limited to just presidents, or people in office. It extends down through our courts, our current representatives, and even former office holders. To me that is the existence of a "deep state".

You aren't wrong but the thing about "the biased media" is that they are on both sides. We got places like Fox and places like MSNBC each slanting news for and against the candidates they don't like. Everyone loves to complain about the media that is biased against their candidate but no one complains when the media is biased for their candidate. But that is another topic.

The popular vote was definitely not 10%, it was 1.5%.
https://www.cookpolitical.com/vote-tracker/2024/electoral-college

Trump clearly won, there is no question about that, my only point is that 1.5% does not amount to some massive victory, it cannot be interpreted as some massive amount of support for Trump. If one basketball team beat another  49-47 no one could consider that a decisive win indicating one team is clearly better than the other. Out of 155 million voters in 2024, Trump won only 2.2 million more votes than Harris. It is a win fair and square but its significance should not be overstated. Consider it this way, if we had a poll on a major issue, maybe going to war or abortion, for example, no one would consider 48.3% vs 49.8% to be any decisive mandate on the issue.

So what number is needed in  your opinion  to be a "massive victory?"

10% would be massive.

I would say 30% would be massive. See the problem with things that are subjective.  Or we can go by the actual count of 2.2 million that you posted.  Some would consider that massive. Like if you had 2.2 million people added to HI's population, that's a massive amount. Before you get your panties in a bunch about my example, it's a concept so no reply is needed. lets see if you can control yourself on this one.

WASHINGTON — On a day replete with political symbolism for both parties,
Vice President Kamala Harris on Monday officially acknowledged President-
elect Donald Trump as the winner of the 2024 election, certifying the electoral
college votes.

I would say 30% would be massive. See the problem with things that are subjective.  Or we can go by the actual count of 2.2 million that you posted.  Some would consider that massive. Like if you had 2.2 million people added to HI's population, that's a massive amount. Before you get your panties in a bunch about my example, it's a concept so no reply is needed. lets see if you can control yourself on this one.

Thats fine, if the win was massive in your opinion then so be it. I disagree.

IDK if I would consider the win "massive" as I've never thought about it.  Again does 1 go by % or vote. Then electoral vote % or vote numbers?

So, I have no feeling on it being a massive win or not.  Doesn't matter if you win by an inch or by a mile, winning is winning. (Dom quote).

IDK if I would consider the win "massive" as I've never thought about it.  Again does 1 go by % or vote. Then electoral vote % or vote numbers?

So, I have no feeling on it being a massive win or not.  Doesn't matter if you win by an inch or by a mile, winning is winning. (Dom quote).

I agree, a win is a win and Trump won.

When I said I wouldn't consider it a mandate I was not speaking in terms of how votes are counted as to who wins (the electoral process) I meant in the sense of the pulse of the people of the nation. That is why I looked at the popular vote, not the electoral vote because the electoral vote could give the wrong impression that the vast majority of Americans supported Trump and his ideas when in reality Americans only supported him by a small amount over Harris.

Every single state saw a shift to the right as more people voted Republican than in 2020.  If all 50 states are trending toward the GOP, I think that speaks louder for a Trump mandate than any arbitrary percentage in a non-existent national popular vote.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/11/10/us-election-results-map-2024-how-does-it-compare-to-2020

Republicans have won a larger share of votes in every state in 2024 compared to 2020, with 95 percent of votes counted nationwide.  That is important because it includes races other than the Presidential.

That's a mandate, baby!!

Every single state saw a shift to the right as more people voted Republican than in 2020.  If all 50 states are trending toward the GOP, I think that speaks louder for a Trump mandate than any arbitrary percentage in a non-existent national popular vote.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/11/10/us-election-results-map-2024-how-does-it-compare-to-2020

Republicans have won a larger share of votes in every state in 2024 compared to 2020, with 95 percent of votes counted nationwide.  That is important because it includes races other than the Presidential.

That's a mandate, baby!!