I 539 Instructions: Fill & Download for Free

If a President won the “popular vote” by tens of millions of votes but lost the electoral college vote, would the electoral college loss determine the outcome no matter what?I was requested to answer this by someone who lives in Portland, OR. If this gentleman attended an American school, then his high school civics teacher needs to be taken out back of the school and beat with a leather strap until he can properly explain the Constitution, because clearly he didn’t teach it very well.Also, notice when I copied the question back, I put the words popular vote in quotations. That was intentional because !!!! THERE IS NO NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA !!!!Let that sink in for a moment. There’s no way a candidate can “win” a contest that doesn’t exist. There are fifty-one separate popular votes, one for each state and one for DC (You could make an argument that there are also five additional district popular votes in Nebraska and Maine where the electors are divided up by Congressional district).But the point is, there are only 539 people who actually vote for President and Vice President, and you and I aren’t some of them. (Fun fact: Bill Clinton actually did vote for his wife in the 2016 Presidential election)Those votes are the only ones that finally matter and they vote in December. What we do in November is go to the polls to instruct our states on who to appoint as electors.

What do you know about WWII that I probably don’t?Soviet merchant ships were accidentally engaged by American submarines during the war.According to Clay Blair Jr’s Silent Victory, one such trawler was mistaken for a Japanese patrol craft and engaged by the USS Permit on July 9, 1943. Upon realizing the mistake, the skipper of the Permit rescued the survivors – a couple of men and several women – and was instructed to take them to Dutch Harbor, Alaska, rather than risk the internment of the sub and crew in a Soviet port. During transit to Dutch Harbor, the survivors were so well treated by the crew of the Permit that the women were reluctant to leave the boat upon arrival and the trawler captain reported that the Permit had actually saved his crew from an attack by a Japanese submarine.[1]The final tally of Soviet ships attacked by American submarines during the war was comparatively negligible - five in comparison to the 1,314 enemy ships sunk by U.S. subs – but the trend posed to be understandably problematic for U.S.-Soviet relations during the war.[2] In the beginning of 1943, the USS Sawfish was the first boat to fire upon Soviet shipping, but the facts of the engagement were only fully understood after the end of the patrol due to the official protest of the Soviet government. The Soviets, prompted to resolve the situation, “improved recognition markings and furnished more and better information on general traffic routing and individual ship movements,” but these measures still allowed for subsequent examples of fratricide.[3]The rationale offered by the various skippers for these engagements vary due to the circumstances of their engagements, but reflected a recurring theme:USS Sandlance (mid-1943): “It had not markings and was ‘not within the safe conduct lane’ given by the Russians.”[4]USS Tambor (mid-1944): “I knew she was Russian but she didn’t have the proper markings.” [5]USS Spadefish (June 1945): “The ship had no lights burning and ‘was not following a designated Russian route.’”[6]Thus, these events were both unfortunate and unavoidable due to fog of war and the nature of maritime interdiction in the challenging environment of the Sea of Japan.[1] Clay Blair Jr., Silent Victory: The U.S. Submarine War Against Japan, (Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott, 1975), 439-440.[2] Ibid., 539.[3] Ibid., 378.[4] Ibid., 566.[5] Ibid., 671.[6] Ibid., 839.

Post edit: I decided to include Mr. Xydias rebuttal along this tread since he has spending some time and sweat on this topic. He might not aware that I used to be an apostate for over 18+ years when I decide to follow back the Bible again. For the times (yes, times) I was reinstated, I made clear for my fellow Elders that I was at the organization for Jehovah, Jesus, the Holy Spirit and not for any other human. Since I am back to the Watchtower, I am here to support my brothers and sisters who are under scrutiny.Full Disclosure: I am not a PIMO (Phisically In, Mentally Out) but I am a PIMIFDI (Phisically in, Mentally in, Fighting Dumb Ideas).Mr. Xydias, the sites and credentials you have mentioned are the ones I spent most of my apostate life (including others that appeared later on such as John Cedar’s, etc.) among other sources that are beyond your linguistic acumen - I am not sure you can read Portuguese apostate material - along with English material provided by Greg Stanford as well. Needless to say this is just a brief introduction to what we started years before my apostasy followed by my reinstatement.The reason why I asked your personal e-mail is that it would be kind from your side not to leave me post this exposing me (are you attacking me or my religion?) choose your side and I will stick to my means.my e-mail is: [email protected] Xydias, I have been more concerned these days on how to help a friend who has a dying mother and in pain. Your questions are outdated to me since my Jew friends told me (not wikipedia) that the dates about the fall of Jerusalem are a topic of debate among them too thus the sources you’ve mentioned are to discredit my brothers and sisters and not to add a contribution to our spiritual welfare. Having these in mind, I ask you:a) are you willing to help my friend’s dying mother?b) are you a Christian?c) are you against Jehovah?Those questions will define the future of our conversation as I just see you throwing stones but hiding behind an avatar. I have no patience for avatars.My contact information is easily found on my profile.Roosevelt********************************************************The timelines are impossible if 587-B.C.E. is the correct date of Jerusalem's desolation because:The 70-year prophecy about Tyre, which began after the destruction of Jerusalem. If that happened in 586, it would bring us to 516, some 20 years after the exiles returned and Tyre provided cedars for the Jew’s rebuilding work.The 40 years of devastation on Egypt. It that began in 568, the 40 years ends in 528, but all the exiles were released in 537.The 70 years that Jerusalem was to be uninhabited and desolate. If 587 is correct, the desolation would have ended in 517, when houses had been built and crops grown for some 20 years.So, here is the true chronology:625 – NebuChadnezzar begins his rule617 – Daniel, Ezekiel, and JehoiAchin were exiled614 – Daniel’s training ends607 – Jerusalem was destroyed and the 70 years begin606 – Ezekiel prophesies against Tyre606 – The siege of Tyre and the 70 years of being forgotten begins605 – Daniel interprets NebuChadnezzar’s dream590 – Ezekiel gets the prophecy of Egypt’s desolation and tells of the siege of Tyre is now completed (it lasted 13 years according to Josephus)588 – Egypt’s 40-year desolation begins548 – Egypt’s 40-year desolation ends539 – Babylon is conquered537 – the Jews are restored to their homeland and the 70 years end536 – the 70 years on Tyre end when they provide timber for Jerusalem.Yes, the date of 607-B.C.E. the fall of Jerusalem fits perfectly with the Bible. It is in fact the only date that does fit perfectly… no other date will work!Let’s keep in mind Matthew 24:42.Source: American English Bible Website[1][1][1][1]Ken Xydias’ Rebuttal Timeline starts here:*******************Ken Xydias wrote on Wed, August 15, 2018Hi Roosevelt: I tried to place this response deeper in the thread where it belonged, but there was no place to do so. Consequently I’m putting it here.Sorry to be so long in responding to you. I about had this response completed, then lost it and had to reconstruct it. I don’t think the reconstruction is as well thought-out as the original, but here goes.You seemed concerned that I may be an “apostate”. Don’t worry, I’m not. In fact, I was never involved in a “bible study” with a Witness, even though I have Witness family members.You might wonder why I’ve placed quote marks around the term “bible study”. The answer is that the “bible study” offered by Witnesses is not an exegetical a study of the bible as any reasonable person would interpret the term. Instead it is a study of Watchtower literature with occasional references to scripture that would seem to back up the points covered in the study. Often however, the scriptural context of a reference differs from the point it is used to support. I’ve concluded that the objective of a Watchtower “bible study” is not to inform the student about the bible, but is used only as a recruiting tool.In an earlier version of this reply, I went into extensive detail about how I found that the Society can’t be trusted to accurately report what historians or scientists said in the publications they cite. Or for that matter, what the Society has said about themselves in the past. They are masters of deception through their skillful use of the misquote and lying through omission. It’s not uncommon for them to back up their opinion through “appeal to authority”. But they never mention that the authority they quote for support has no expertise in the subject matter he’s talking about. I’ve cut all of that out, because it was simply irrelevant to your 608/586 article. But if you’re interested, I’ll post it on this thread.I did look at the 607-586 article you sent. Before commenting, it might be well to consider the question of what is truth and how can we recognize it. There are two opposing answers to that question. One is based on the premise that the bible is true, and therefore ideas that contradict it are false. The other answer is that truth is that which is supported by evidence.The first answer is that of the biblical literalist and the Watchtower Society. The second answer is that of science. I stand firmly with the approach of science because so many of the biblical claims, if taken at face value, are simply wrong. Furthermore, I believe that ascertaining truth, as it pertains to what happened should only be evaluated by a single standard.Yes, I know that you likely believe that the bible provides an “absolute” truth that never changes, while the truths of science change with new evidence. Don’t deceive yourself. The biblical “truths” provided by the Watchtower Society are always changing. If you don’t believe that, then check JwFacts.com, a site that provides abundant evidence for this. And no, you can’t use the out-of-context argument from Hebrews about “new light” as an explanation for the changes. In many cases, the changes are flip-flops. Probably the best example was the answer to the question of will the sons of Sodom and Gemorrah be resurrected. The answer has changed from yes to no and back to yes at least 5 or 6 times. And the current understanding of who are the superior authorities is the same as it was until the late 1920s. New light changed that interpretation to be the heavenly rulers, Jehovah and Jesus. In the early 1960s, new light changed it back to the original understanding.Now let’s look at the article from the JehovahsJudgement website you sent. I have to say up front, that this article struck me as typical of the Society’s misrepresentation of the factual evidence. The article begins with the logical fallacy of an ad hominum attack. Specifically, it says “apostates and other opposers argue that Jerusalem was not destroyed in 607 BCE, but in 587 BCE”. Apparently their rebuttal to the honest scholarship exhibited by peer-reviewed articles is name calling rather than refuting such views with credible evidence. Of course the reason for not attempting to refute those views with evidence, is that such evidence is lacking. Name-calling is their only recourse.The introduction goes on to assert that “if 607 BCE is wrong, then the seven-times prophecy ending in 1914 would be wrong also.” I believe that few Witnesses today are aware that their early literature taught that Jesus returned invisibly in 1874, and not in 1914 as is currently claimed. That return was said to begin a 40-year period known as the time of troubles, and one which would culminate with Armageddon in the fall of 1914.These early beliefs are well described in the book Historical Idealism and the Jehovah’s Witnesses. By ‘historical idealism” the author means that like the Mormons, the current depiction of Witness history does not agree with what the earlier literature actually said. In fact, the notion that Jesus returned invisibly in 1914 was not mentioned in the earlier literature until 1930. That of course, is well after the current teaching regarding his return.This book bases its arguments on what was actually said in these earlier years, and includes full-page scans of the relevant literature. You can download a copy here.Directory listing for ia802704.us.archive.org...The comment following the post scrip of your article is also instructive. It says, “We did not set out to examine the secular evidence, as the Bible is supreme to anything else.” This says to me that their argument can be dismissed, because they are only interested in what scripture says rather than evaluating all of the evidence. If one takes the approach that the bible is supreme, then one must accept a 7-day creation of the earth by Jehovah himself (Exodus 20:8-11 NWT) , the sun rotating about the earth, the first humans coming into existence only about 6,000 years ago and that Noah’s flood was an actual global event. None of these assertions are supported by evidence outside of scripture, and none of them are true.The article does mention in appendix B, that the academic Dr. Rolf Furuli, agrees with the 607 date. This same claim about him has been mentioned in the Watchtower as well. Both sources fail to mention that he is a JW whose specialty is semetic languages and not archeology. It was noted in a Wikipedia article about him that his views on 607 BC are an example of an amateur who wants to rewrite scholarship.You might read “The Gentile Times Reconsidered, by Carl Olaf Jonsson for a more complete and honest examination of the evidence for 587. The author was a Norwegian Elder who studied the secular evidence for 587, compared it to what the Society said about it, found they misrepresented that evidence. He had extensive correspondence with the US Bethel office about the differences. His reward for seeking the truth was to be disfellowshipped. Here’s one of the many links on the web to his book.https://www.watchtowerlies.com/l...You will probably have little interest in learning the truth from an apostate, unless you’re a PIMO Witness, that is, physically in, mentally out. In that case, it may serve to push you off of the fence. But you don’t need an apostate to inform you of the facts. Just read any encyclopedia. Do a Google search, but restrict your inquiry to those with academic credentials. The online Jewish Encyclopedia supports the 587/586 date and you’d think that the Jews have a better handle on their historical timeline than biblical literalists who are more interested in supporting their belief than believing what the facts support.If you still want to agree with the Jehovahs Judgement assertion that the bible is supreme and should be trusted over archeological evidence, take a look at this linkChristian Library Australia...The author reviews the Society’s claims and assertions about 1914, and 607, then proceeds to use scripture alone to show how the temple was destroyed in the 587/586 period.Here’s another one showing how 607 is a flawed date. They point out the illogic reasoning of the Society. On one hand the Society argues that the archeological data is flawed and can’t be relied upon when it points to 586. But they ignore most of the archeological data in doing so. On the other hand they use that same flawed archeological data to point to 539 as the date for the overthrow of the Babylonian empire, and to 607 BCE by using the archeological data pointing to 537 and going back in time for 70 years.https://web.archive.org/web/20170702013040/http://jehovah.net.au/607.htmlI had previously shown how you can use the regnal lengths of the Babylonian rulers provided in Society literature to calculate that Jerusalem was destroyed in 587 BCE in spite of their assertion of 607 BCE. That idea came from this link.http://jbandjws.blogspot.com/sea...It has several articles, so hit the page-down key five or six times to get to the relevant one. It’s a video showing how one can use the 2007 Watchtower Library CD to find the regnal lengths for the relevant Babylonian rulers. It will save you the time and trouble of searching them out for yourself.According to the FAQs, the author is a moderately conservative evangelical with a bachelor’s degree in religion and philosophy. He is not an apostate, and you should not feel guilty about reading what he has to say. Unless of course, you believe an apostate to be anyone who does not accept the viewpoint of the Society.So what was the 70 year period that seems to be important? I haven’t paid much attention to the speculations of biblical worshipers. But here’s a few that I came across while looking at the 587/607 arguments several years ago.One is it’s the length of time of the Babylonian rule. See http://aboutbibleprophecy.com/ye...Another is that it is the period of time that the temple remained destroyed (586 to 516) http://www.thebereancall.org/nod...Still another says there is more than one interpretation - http://www.2001translation.com/6...So how do I summarize what I said? Specifically, if one bases their understanding on evidence, then it’s pretty clear that Jerusalem was destroyed in 587/586 BCE. The only support for 607 BCE comes from the biblical literalist interpreting scripture to support a pre-existing viewpoint and ignoring overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary.A more general summary, call it advice, is to be cautious about accepting anything the Society says as true. Any support for it is likely taken out of context, representing an “outlier” view, or just plain wrong. Consider as an example, their oft-repeated statement that Armageddon will happen soon. That’s what they said in the years before 1914 when it was believed that it would occur in that year. Their book “the Finished Mystery” said that governments will be destroyed in 1922, and Armageddon will happen in 1925. Their book “Children”, published in 1942 said it would happen in six months. Awake 1968 and earlier literature said 1975. After that, it was before the 1914 generation dies off. And who was the 1914 generation? The Watchtower said it was those who were alive in 1914 and old enough to understand what was going on, but not babies. A few years later, it said babies born in 1914 or earlier. Then in 1995, faced with the reality that most of the 1914 generation by any definition had already died, they came up with a new definition. It became a figurative generation rather than a literal generation. The Service Year Reports show declines in publisher numbers across the developed world around that year, similar to what happened when the passage of time falsified the 1975 expectation. Several years later, they replaced the figurative generation concept with that of an overlapping generation. That idea is unsupported by scripture. Given this long history of failed expectations, why should you accept anything the Society says? That includes the notion that the Jewish temple was destroyed in 607 BCE.That’s enough for now. If you wish to continue this discussion after considering the points I’ve mentioned, please feel free to do so.Ken*******************************Ken Xydias wrote on Jul 1,Nice try, but the starting date for your “true” chronology is 20 years too late based on the regnal lengths published in the Watchtower for each of the Babylonian rulers from Nebuchadnezzar until Babylon was destroyed by King Cyrus in 539 bc. Rulers and regnal lengths in years are Nebuchadnezzar (43), Amel-Marduc (2), Neriglissar (4), Labashi-Marduc (0), and Nabonidus (17). This sums to 66 years. Add that to 539, and the starting point for Nebuchadnezzar’s reign is 605 BC, not 625 BC. Scripture (and the Watchtower) says the temple was destroyed in the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign. Subtract 18 years from 605 BC, the start of his reign, puts the destruction at 587 BC. The Enclclopedia of Jewish History agrees with that date. You’d think that Jewish historians have a pretty good handle on their history.***********************Roosevelt CooplingJul 2 · 1Hello, Ken! JWs will put Bible chronology above men’s secular chronology. Following the Bibles chronology shows that 607 is the correct date.The Problem with Setting Bible Historical Dateswhy 587 is wrong according to the Bible*************************Ken XydiasJul 3Hi RooseveltThank you for your statement of faith that biblical chronology should be placed above men’s secular chronology. Or should I say your faith that whatever the Governing Body says is true is indeed true. But let me point out that you have only expressed your belief, and have completely ignored the substance of my remarks.So let me try again.The governing body asserts that biblical chronology shows that the Temple was destroyed in 607 BC. I think we can agree on that point.The Watchtower points to the importance of 539 BC; it is a biblical date that agrees with the secular date for the destruction of the Babylonian empire by King Cyrus.The Watchtower, in various articles, identifies the Babylonian rulers and the number of years each one reigned beginning with Nebuchadnezzar and ending with Nabonidus who was overthrown by Cyrus in 539 BC. As an aside, both the rulers and their regnal lengths reported in the Watchtower agree with secular history.Given this data, it’s a simple matter to calculate when Nebuchadnezzar began to rule (605 BC), and when the Temple was destroyed (587 BC). So in spite of Governing Body assertions that the destruction happened in 607 BC, their own publications show otherwise.Should you choose to respond, please stay on topic and confine your remarks to the points mentioned after “let me try again”.********************Roosevelt CooplingJul 3Hi, Ken! I will get back to you soon, my friend. At this point you may be aware that Mexico was beaten by Brazil and, you know, my beer can’t go any warmer since we are celebrating. Besides that, I have a toddler to look after and I will prioritize the boy first. You are important to me so I will...(more)ReplyRoosevelt CooplingRoosevelt CooplingJul 3do you have an e-mail so that I can have a word with you in private? my e-mail is [email protected] XydiasKen XydiasJul 3I have an email address, but I don’t mind a public discussion . And like you, I have never met a Governing Body member. I only mentioned them because you, as a Witness, know they are the source of current teachings, and, according to the Watchtower, check the articles written by the Publication C...(more)Reply· Upvote· Downvote· ReportRoosevelt CooplingRoosevelt CooplingJul 3cool. I don’t mind public discussions either. As long as I am concerned you were never one of the JW’s were you? The private talk is personal.ReplyFootnotes[1] Jerusalem's Destruction--587 or 607[1] Jerusalem's Destruction--587 or 607[1] Jerusalem's Destruction--587 or 607[1] Jerusalem's Destruction--587 or 607