Trump Tweets (no more)

[Eisdrache]

ITT: People who didn't vote decided the election.

[GDB]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

If the complaint about Trump not being legitimately voted in was justified by saying the electoral system is wrong, then you either are claiming that the electoral system was never right and no one in US history was legitimately elected, or you don't care it wasn't legitimate.

It was right at one time in history. This argument isn't worth enough time to go and check population densities and voting habits to determine when it became antiquated and broken. But it was around the time when an individual's vote was worth 2-3x as much based solely on what state they lived in.

So you are in a position of either saying there was never going to be a legitimate winner in the first place, which meant Trump is as legit as any other president before him, or you are saying no one was legit but you don't care.

There's only been 1 other President that I can recall who won the EC but not the popular vote (Bush Jr).

The election has rules. You don't have to like the rules but Trump followed it. And Trump won according to the rules, and will likely win again next time because the rules and voters stay the same.

There's currently a federal investigation going on to determine if he DID follow those rules, among other things. If you have information proving his innocence, please feel free to provide it to the FBI. I'm sure they'd be thrilled.

To say he is not legitimate in being the choice of Americans, is false.

No, he still lost the popular vote. And the intelligence communities have unanimously stated that Russia interfered in the election, including hacking voting rolls. And while they claim no votes were changed, it's kind of odd to make such a claim when not a single audit was done.

Americans made their choice according to the rules. And so far those who made the choice are happy with it.

Polling results state otherwise, considering his rapidly collapsing approval rating even among the polls that are heavily biased towards him.

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by GDB

No, he still lost the popular vote.

Which would be relevant if you as a nation had chosen to go with the popular vote for your presidential elections. But you didn't.

The bottom line is that you, as a nation, chose him as your president using the decision mechanism you also chose. Because, for the most part, you were either in support or too apathetic to oppose him and the EC both.

[Ithekro]

It isn't all that clear really. Take out the four most populous states (California, Texas, New York, and Florida) from the election results and the popular vote is a dead heat, with Trump likely being slightly ahead. Take out just the top two (California and Texas) Clinton's lead in the popular vote drops to around 200,000. Drop just California, and Trump is ahead by around 1.4 million votes.

Clinton's popular vote lead in basically entirely from California. Without it, she is in a dead heat with Trump nationwide, which means the Electoral College win is more or less accurate, though realistically is should be a much closer race for the electors that it turned out.

If the Electoral College was proportional, rather that FPTP, I am not sure Clinton or Trump would win. Because of the larger number of third party votes this last year, some electoral votes would go to them based on the amount of the population that voted for them in state that have enough electors to divide out that far. With those taken out, I don't think either Trump nor Clinton would have achieved the 270 voted needed to win, and the Constitution would require the new Congress to vote in the President and Vice President this last January.

[Solace]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

Which would be relevant if you as a nation had chosen to go with the popular vote for your presidential elections. But you didn't.

The bottom line is that you, as a nation, chose him as your president using the decision mechanism you also chose. Because, for the most part, you were either in support or too apathetic to oppose him and the EC both.

And as painful as this point may be, it's not like there weren't giant blazing alert signs during both the primary and general elections that something wasn't right. This was more noticeable on the Democratic side where voter purges, registration changes, and inaccurate exit polling raised a lot of concerns and lawsuits that went nowhere fast. Unfortunately, because a majority of these complaints were from the Sanders camp/supporters, it got barely a blip from the national media until recently with the Russia/Trump investigations.

[GDB]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

Which would be relevant if you as a nation had chosen to go with the popular vote for your presidential elections. But you didn't.

The bottom line is that you, as a nation, chose him as your president using the decision mechanism you also chose. Because, for the most part, you were either in support or too apathetic to oppose him and the EC both.

Regardless, saying he represents ALL Americans and he perfectly represents America is more asinine than most of the BS coming from the White House.

The bottom line is, people need to stop trying to change the argument here. I, and the others here against him, are not arguing that he isn't really the President (not yet, at least, pending the investigation). We're saying he does not perfectly represent Americans and that he does not even represent half of those who voted.

Originally Posted by Ithekro

It isn't all that clear really. Take out the four most populous states (California, Texas, New York, and Florida) from the election results and the popular vote is a dead heat, with Trump likely being slightly ahead. Take out just the top two (California and Texas) Clinton's lead in the popular vote drops to around 200,000. Drop just California, and Trump is ahead by around 1.4 million votes.

Clinton's popular vote lead in basically entirely from California. Without it, she is in a dead heat with Trump nationwide, which means the Electoral College win is more or less accurate, though realistically is should be a much closer race for the electors that it turned out.

This is part of what's wrong with the EC. Stop trying to take states out of the equation. California should not have so many people's votes mean nothing.

Originally Posted by Solace

And as painful as this point may be, it's not like there weren't giant blazing alert signs during both the primary and general elections that something wasn't right. This was more noticeable on the Democratic side where voter purges, registration changes, and inaccurate exit polling raised a lot of concerns and lawsuits that went nowhere fast. Unfortunately, because a majority of these complaints were from the Sanders camp/supporters, it got barely a blip from the national media until recently with the Russia/Trump investigations.

A lot of it also happened in Southern states (though not all), who generally don't seem to care what happens to Democrats.

[Solace]

Originally Posted by GDB

A lot of it also happened in Southern states (though not all), who generally don't seem to care what happens to Democrats.

Arizona and New York were the worst, imo. But there were discrepancies in a number of states, and I won't deny that Clinton got hit too. It's a complicated issue that seems to be a convergence of various issues coming to a head in one perfect storm. Foreign tampering, party politics, antiquated systems, poor cyber security, media biases, scandals, special interests, gerrymandering, bad candidates, you name it.

It's just a whole lot of ugly that comes with a heavy price and some painful lessons that will be felt for a long time.

[Archon_Wing]

ITT people who think it's a game of Civ and countries are stratified monolithic factions.

Why don't you non-Americans take your collectivist bullshit to use and get your countries to stand up against Trump? I mean all you do is bash us when you'd be speaking German, Russian, or Arabic if it weren't for us. If you think that statement is asinine, well just look in the mirror.

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by Archon_Wing

ITT people who think it's a game of Civ and countries are stratified monolithic factions.

It's not a matter of being monolithic. It's a matter of looking at the bottom line. Once you add up all Americans, you get a country that elects Trump. Where opposing him, even in as small a way as voting for his opponent, puts you in a small minority.

Why don't you non-Americans take your collectivist bullshit to use and get your countries to stand up against Trump? If you think that statement is asinine, well just look in the mirror.

We don't elect the POTUS.

[Archon_Wing]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

It's not a matter of being monolithic. It's a matter of looking at the bottom line. Once you add up all Americans, you get a country that elects Trump. Where opposing him, even in as small a way as voting for his opponent, puts you in a small minority.

40'ish percent isn't a small minority. It's the largest possible one, lol.

We don't elect the POTUS.

Considering the suggestions that people can just trivially change the electoral college, the ignorance isn't very surprising. Needless to say, the comments are close to worthless.

But nice deflection there. Point is, do you take accountability when you are in the minority and majority does something else?

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by Archon_Wing

40'ish percent isn't a small minority. It's the largest possible one, lol.

48% of those who voted, who are themselves 58% of the electorate. That comes out to 28%.

Considering the suggestions that people can just trivially change the electoral college, the ignorance isn't very surprising. Needless to say, the comments are close to worthless.

Nobody said it would be "trivial". But I'll point out that the biggest obstacle by far is that not enough people want to. Which, again, says something about you as a people.

But nice deflection there.

Not at all. I'm just pointing out the responsibilities. If, God forbid, we'd elected Le Pen, you'd be justified in asking what we were thinking. But Trump's election? That's not on us.

Point is, do you take accountability when you are in the minority and majority does something else?

Do I, personally, take responsibility for the sum total action of all French? No. But, again, if we'd elected Le Pen, and you'd said there was something seriously wrong with our electorate for allowing that to happen, then I'd have been forced to agree.

[Archon_Wing]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

48% of those who voted, who are themselves 58% of the electorate. That comes out to 28%.

Well, that goalpost moving sure is nice. First off, 28% isn't small either. And that would mean a minority elected Trump too..... unless you consider independents also supporting Trump of which I don't know what to say. I mean I do agree on a fundamental level that non-voting Democrats failed their party, but it really depends if you want to discuss semantics or what actually happened. If you want to stay objective and just stick at Trump was elected and he has a strong base, we could do without the incendiary hyperbole which only weakens your own point.

Nobody said it would be "trivial". But I'll point out that the biggest obstacle by far is that not enough people want to. Which, again, says something about you as a people.

It's a nice message to write on a fortune cookie, but much like it has no real world application. A lot of the ills of the world if enough people wished it away, and sure it is their fault to a certain degree. Hint: It really is. We just deny it.

Throwing it lightly around is the same as it being trivial.

See, this is exactly the kind of attitude that feeds xenophobic reactions. Sure, this is just an internet forum of little value, but it is without doubt that you (as a group, because generalizations are cool), have a prevalent sentiment that goes around, and it's fairly unbearable. Fortunately, I am not blinded by this kind of thing as much, but I would definitely say the other side gets easily triggered over that kind of thing.

Not at all. I'm just pointing out the responsibilities. If, God forbid, we'd elected Le Pen, you'd be justified in asking what we were thinking. But Trump's election? That's not on us.

Well, that logically implies that your opinion doesn't matter here, since as you say you have no effect on the election. ie your standards aren't valid on it. But that hasn't stopped you from sharing your theme park version of politics. Why?

And as for "us" and "you". Well, the problem is shared now, given the US"s place in the world, it does affect you somehow.

I mean would I really give you country crap for trying to pressure the US somehow more aggressively and take a stand against Trump's wanton aggression? Obviously such a statement is vague and may not even be possible. But it is still a problem that you have to face, even if you are not responsible and you have no power.

Or does the not being involved approach suddenly give you the moral upper hand in this discussion? I mean, that's 80% of all discussion involving the election. "I didn't vote", "My state doesn't matter", etc.

Do I, personally, take responsibility for the sum total action of all French? No. But, again, if we'd elected Le Pen, and you'd said there was something seriously wrong with our electorate for allowing that to happen, then I'd have been forced to agree.

What would you intend to do about it, though?

If you intend to change the hearts of people, I think a little less vitriol would help, no? And that is the main problem I see here. By going about tenets and speaking to a generalization (not individuals), it sounds little more than propaganda spreading. I suppose it's somewhat justified by the inherent futility of the situation, of in that case that just comes off as nothing more than a rant.

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by Archon_Wing

Well, that goalpost moving sure is nice.

Nope. I spoke precisely. I said "voting for his opponent". By definition, those who didn't vote at all didn't do that.

First off, 28% isn't small either.

It's not tiny, but the other other way to look at it is 72% of the American electorate expressing either indifference or support to the idea of a Trump presidency.

And that would mean a minority elected Trump too.....

Yes. And another minority passively let it happen. And together, they form a majority.

unless you consider independents also supporting Trump of which I don't know what to say.

A gray area at best, but yes, I'd put them in the same bag as the abstentionists. Though whatever the case, they don't move numbers that much.

I mean I do agree on a fundamental level that non-voting Democrats failed their party, but it really depends if you want to discuss semantics or what actually happened. If you want to stay objective and just stick at Trump was elected and he has a strong base, we could do without the incendiary hyperbole which only weakens your own point.

How have I been either incendiary or hyperbolic?

It's a nice message to write on a fortune cookie, but much like it has no real world application. A lot of the ills of the world if enough people wished it away, and sure it is their fault to a certain degree. Hint: It really is. We just deny it.

Nothing so abstract as unspecified ills and wishes. But some of you committed enough to the cause of getting rid of the EC to run on that platform, and enough of you voted for those people running on that platform, then hey, there would be no EC anymore. It's only unrealistic because, again, not enough of you want it.

Throwing it lightly around is the same as it being trivial.

See, this is exactly the kind of attitude that feeds xenophobic reactions.

Huh uh. Are you sure you don't want to compare me with Hitler, while you're at it?

I'm not saying you personally supported Trump, let alone that you're some kind of racist idiot. I am saying, however, that roughly 70% of the American electorate (depending on how you count) didn't oppose him. Not in the ballot boxes. And that's a matter of public record.

Sure, this is just an internet forum of little value, but it is without doubt that you (as a group, because generalizations are cool), have a prevalent sentiment that goes around, and it's fairly unbearable.

And what sentiment would that be?

Fortunately, I am not blinded by this kind of thing as much, but I would definitely say the other side gets easily triggered over that kind of thing.




Well, that logically implies that your opinion doesn't matter here, since as you say you have no effect on the election. ie your standards aren't valid on it. But that hasn't stopped you from sharing your theme park version of politics. Why?

Having an opinion on something and having a responsibility for it are two different things.

And as for "us" and "you". Well, the problem is shared now, given the US"s place in the world, it does affect you somehow.

It is, to a point, everyone's problem. It's not the same as it being everyone's responsibility.

I mean would I really give you country crap for trying to pressure the US somehow more aggressively and take a stand against Trump's wanton aggression? Obviously such a statement is vague and may not even be possible. But it is still a problem that you have to face, even if you are not responsible and you have no power.

We haven't precisely bent over and accepted Trump as our overlord, but if we had, you'd have some justification in decrying that. As an American, and thus more directly responsible for the problem, you wouldn't be in the best position to do that, but yes, we, all of us living in democracies, have some responsibility for the leaders we elect.

Or does the not being involved approach suddenly give you the moral upper hand in this discussion? I mean, that's 80% of all discussion involving the election. "I didn't vote", "My state doesn't matter", etc.

Not voting isn't the same as not being involved. Which is part of my point.

What would you intend to do about it, though?

I'm not sure, and I'm thankful I don't have to think about it too seriously. But on election day, I did my part.

If you intend to change the hearts of people, I think a little less vitriol would help, no?

Change if you want. If not, don't. I have no interest in flattering you.

Also, you think that's vitriol? Good thing you're not easily triggered, eh?

And that is the main problem I see here. By going about tenets and speaking to a generalization (not individuals), it sounds little more than propaganda spreading. I suppose it's somewhat justified by the inherent futility of the situation, of in that case that just comes off as nothing more than a rant.

Well, it's certainly not a political ad.

[GDB]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

Not at all. I'm just pointing out the responsibilities. If, God forbid, we'd elected Le Pen, you'd be justified in asking what we were thinking. But Trump's election? That's not on us.

You had the advantage of seeing Trump's rise, as well as a warning that Russia was interfering, and still let her get to the finals. And she still got a third of the votes (according to the NYTimes, though I question their numbers since Macron + Le Pen somehow >100% of votes). That's only about 10% less than Trump. And that's without 8-20 years of brainwashing on the electorate.

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by GDB

You had the advantage of seeing Trump's rise,

Which was good for her. It heartened her supporters.

as well as a warning that Russia was interfering,

So did you.

and still let her get to the finals.

But we didn't let her win.

And she still got a third of the votes (according to the NYTimes, though I question their numbers since Macron + Le Pen somehow >100% of votes).

Official numbers.

That's only about 10% less than Trump.

But not even close to letting her win. Good on our electoral system, eh? Which, by the way, we've changed in the 20th century. And may well change again soon. Those things aren't immutable.

(I mean, yes, it is disheartening that she even got that many votes. And doesn't reflect well on us. I admit that. But the fact she didn't win is pretty important all the same.)

And that's without 8-20 years of brainwashing on the electorate.

Yes, tell me again how well our democracy works compared to yours. I don't know how warranted it is, but it is pleasantly flattering. Especially the bit where, as a whole, we don't let ourselves be taken in by absolutely ridiculous bullshit.

[GDB]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

Which was good for her. It heartened her supporters.

And made the opposition realize it wasn't a joke.

So did you.

Not even close to the same extent.

But we didn't let her win.

Entire point of this tangent is that she got too damn close for someone attacking America for letting Trump in.

[SeijiSensei]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

But I'll point out that the biggest obstacle by far is that not enough people want to [change or abolish the Electoral College]. Which, again, says something about you as a people.

No it says something about our Founders. They saw our Constitutional bargain as a fragile one and made it exceedingly difficult to amend the Constitution. I'm often surprised that we have managed to do so seventeen more times since the passage of the original ten amendments known as the "Bill of Rights."

[Archon_Wing]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

Nope. I spoke precisely. I said "voting for his opponent". By definition, those who didn't vote at all didn't do that.

You spoke precisely to move the goalposts. The original discussion line involved whether or not Trump represents the majority. You then moved it to the majority and minority involving just the votes. This is what we call backpedaling.

Nothing so abstract as unspecified ills and wishes. But some of you committed enough to the cause of getting rid of the EC to run on that platform, and enough of you voted for those people running on that platform, then hey, there would be no EC anymore. It's only unrealistic because, again, not enough of you want it.

Why don't you state something more concrete and give a reasonable time frame, if you're willing to judge. Otherwise, it's nothing more than hot air.

How have I been either incendiary or hyperbolic?

The implication that non-Hillary voters were tolerant of Trump. In a vaccum, no, it doesn't, but given the context of this discussion...

Oh and

Huh uh. Are you sure you don't want to compare me with Hitler, while you're at it?

Exactly, how the hell does Hitler even come into this discussion?

How have I been either incendiary or hyperbolic?

Note the above.

Change if you want. If not, don't. I have no interest in flattering you.

You really love those slogans, eh?

I'm not the person you need to preach to. I already voted/will vote against Trump. What I meant is towards those on the fence that as you've termed "tolerate" him. These are the people I meant the tone too.

Also, you think that's vitriol? Good thing you're not easily triggered, eh?

If you actually read what I wrote earlier in the post, instead of worrying about my emotional well-being, you would note that I had also referred to a lot of people in the aformentioned group get triggered pretty easily. Thus, it's best to you know, not come off too strongly.

It's not a hard concept. You are smart enough to identify the problem that apathetic people, or just plain disillusioned people are the problem. That means it's best to tackle the problem there, and find out what's wrong with it, instead of this sentiment.

Now, I'll be honest. A lot of the stronger posts come from Vallen on the previous page and your posts probably blurred with his. But my points still stand. Which is why I didn't really want to argue these details with you, but hey, since you decided to interject with a tangent, might as well.

[Eisdrache]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

It's not tiny, but the other other way to look at it is 72% of the American electorate expressing either indifference or support to the idea of a Trump presidency.

Yes. And another minority passively let it happen. And together, they form a majority.

How many of your 72% remain if you subtract the % of people who couldn't identify themselves with neither Trump nor Clinton? Or any of the other joke candidates for that matter. If anything a high abstain rate only proves that the parties have lost the contact to their base. It's easy to pretend that you can split the whole (non-)voter base in homogeneous groups whereas in reality the situation isn't just black and white.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by Eisdrache

How many of your 72% remain if you subtract the % of people who couldn't identify themselves with neither Trump nor Clinton?

Why subtract them? It just meant they don't see the difference between Trump and Clinton, which means they are literally indifferent to Trump winning.

If a voter think "They are both the same", then they are literally saying Trump and Clinton are equal, thus they are in the "It is fine for Trump to be President I don't care".

And that is what I was talking about. That if a voter think it doesn't matter if Trump won, then the voter is fine with Trump winning. That is literally what it is by definition.

If the voter vote third party, then that person would have made a decision. But it is extremely unlikely such a person was in a group large enough to be a detectable proportion of the population that didn't actually vote.


EDIT: Maybe I can make it more clear by using a recent example; Brexit referendum had high voter turnout, but it still only got 72% of people voting. What do you call people who didn't vote?
By your logic, you are suggesting the non-voters don't want either a Brexit or staying in the EU. That they wanted something else. But of course there is no such thing. The reality is most of the non-voters just didn't care enough either way. Thus, the non-voters were responsible playing their part for the final outcome for letting it happen. That by not voting they are consenting to the final outcome.