LogFAQs > #882356421

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, Database 1 ( 03.09.2017-09.16.2017 ), DB2, DB3, DB4, DB5, DB6, DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	For those who live outside of the U.S, what are your thoughts on America?
darkknight109 07/05/17 4:00:04 AM #56:	Unbridled9 posted... Trump lost the popular vote but won the electoral by a large margin. No, he didn't. He won the electoral college by a smaller margin than any president in the last 40 years who wasn't named George W. Bush. Even then, that's misleading because of the winner-take-all nature of states in the electoral college. Trump's margin of victory was roughly 100,000 voters spread across three swing states (or less than a tenth of a percentage point of the votes registered). It doesn't look like it in the aftermath, but 2016 was probably the closest election in living memory other than Bush/Gore in 2000. Unbridled9 posted... That's kind of expected considering California and New York are massive Dem strongholds though. I suspect that Republicans will not win the popular vote for a long time just because of those two cities Erm... Also, the Republicans won the popular vote as recently as 2004. In fact, it's a relative rarity for a president to be elected without winning the popular vote (it's only happened four times in US history). Unbridled9 posted... 3) Raping so many woman that a notable percentage of the world population (8% of Asians and 0.5% of the world population) are his own descendants. This isn't as impressive as it sounds. Keep in mind the number of people you draw lineage from doubles every generation (ignoring any inbreeding) - you have two parents, four grandparents, eight great-grandparents, 16 great-great-grandparents, so on and so forth. Going back to Genghis Khan's time would be going back roughly 32 generations, meaning you'd have just shy of 4.3 billion grandparents (32 generations removed) running around, which is (far) more people than were alive at the time (inbreeding, usually of a very benign nature, accounts for the difference). Go back far enough in time and every single person is either everyone's ancestor or no one's ancestor. Genghis Khan is not particularly noteworthy in that regard. Unbridled9 posted... 6) Destroying so many books that 'the rivers ran black with ink'. Wrong Khan. You're referring to the Siege of Baghdad, where the Tigris ran "red with blood and black with ink". However, that siege occurred in 1258, 31 years after Genghis Khan's death (the one in charge of that attack was one of his grandsons, Hulagu Khan). Unbridled9 posted... And that's just some the notable stuff. Basically, in order to even start to compare, Trump would need to nuke an entire nation. Not just a city or a tiny one like Iceland, but something on-par with France in order to be in the same league of evil. You're overblowing Khan's "evilness". Was he a nice guy? No, but he did more good than the "raping, pillaging warlord" image he gets in a lot of western media would suggest. Khan allowed almost total freedom of religion - an almost unheard-of concept for conquerors of the day - and generally allowed defeated enemies to keep their customs and cultures. He established one of the most robust trading networks of the age and created one of the world's first reliable postal services. He was absolutely ruthless in war and showed no mercy to those who resisted him, but actually a pretty decent ruler to the lands he was in charge of. To this day he's revered as a hero in Mongolia. --- Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster. Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror! <cite>darkknight109 posted [p:882356421] in For those ... [t:75527477]...</cite> <quote><cite>Unbridled9 posted...</cite> <quote>Trump lost the popular vote but won the electoral by a large margin.</quote> No, he didn't. He won the electoral college by a smaller margin than any president in the last 40 years who wasn't named George W. Bush. Even then, that's misleading because of the winner-take-all nature of states in the electoral college. Trump's margin of victory was roughly 100,000 voters spread across three swing states (or less than a tenth of a percentage point of the votes registered). It doesn't look like it in the aftermath, but 2016 was probably the closest election in living memory other than Bush/Gore in 2000. <cite>Unbridled9 posted...</cite> <quote>That's kind of expected considering California and New York are massive Dem strongholds though. I suspect that Republicans will not win the popular vote for a long time just because of those two cities</quote> Erm... Also, the Republicans won the popular vote as recently as 2004. In fact, it's a relative rarity for a president to be elected without winning the popular vote (it's only happened four times in US history). <cite>Unbridled9 posted...</cite> <quote>3) Raping so many woman that a notable percentage of the world population (8% of Asians and 0.5% of the world population) are his own descendants. </quote> This isn't as impressive as it sounds. Keep in mind the number of people you draw lineage from doubles every generation (ignoring any inbreeding) - you have two parents, four grandparents, eight great-grandparents, 16 great-great-grandparents, so on and so forth. Going back to Genghis Khan's time would be going back roughly 32 generations, meaning you'd have just shy of 4.3 billion grandparents (32 generations removed) running around, which is (far) more people than were alive at the time (inbreeding, usually of a very benign nature, accounts for the difference). Go back far enough in time and every single person is either everyone's ancestor or no one's ancestor. Genghis Khan is not particularly noteworthy in that regard. <cite>Unbridled9 posted...</cite> <quote>6) Destroying so many books that 'the rivers ran black with ink'.</quote> Wrong Khan. You're referring to the Siege of Baghdad, where the Tigris ran "red with blood and black with ink". However, that siege occurred in 1258, 31 years after Genghis Khan's death (the one in charge of that attack was one of his grandsons, Hulagu Khan). <cite>Unbridled9 posted...</cite> <quote>And that's just some the notable stuff. Basically, in order to even start to compare, Trump would need to nuke an entire nation. Not just a city or a tiny one like Iceland, but something on-par with France in order to be in the same league of evil. </quote> You're overblowing Khan's "evilness". Was he a nice guy? No, but he did more good than the "raping, pillaging warlord" image he gets in a lot of western media would suggest. Khan allowed almost total freedom of religion - an almost unheard-of concept for conquerors of the day - and generally allowed defeated enemies to keep their customs and cultures. He established one of the most robust trading networks of the age and created one of the world's first reliable postal services. He was absolutely ruthless in war and showed no mercy to those who resisted him, but actually a pretty decent ruler to the lands he was in charge of. To this day he's revered as a hero in Mongolia. --- Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster. Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1