Trump voter in shock as family get deported from Trump's executive orders

[Terralthra]

Thanas, appropriately enough, is indulging in schadenfreude.

[Flagg]

Thanas, appropriately enough, is indulging in schadenfreude.

I generally (actually, almost universally) agree with Thanas' evaluation of America and it's actions, but when you're wrong, you're wrong. And he's wrong. But making fun of America for electing President Pussygrabber, and having such a fucked up system that allowed it despite that foul entity literally losing the popular vote is fair game.

[Simon_Jester]

Mocking America relentlessly for electing Trumpolini is justified. I fully expect to be hearing Trump jokes thrown at the US for the rest of my life, and I plan to live a fairly long time. That's okay.

Calling the election democratic is not justified. Because there are excellent arguments for why it isn't particularly true.

Asserting that individual Americans who personally oppose Trumpolini are somehow 'unable to complain' because Trumpolini (or some earlier US leader) did something wrong is also not justified.

[Thanas]

Mocking America relentlessly for electing Trumpolini is justified. I fully expect to be hearing Trump jokes thrown at the US for the rest of my life, and I plan to live a fairly long time. That's okay.

Calling the election democratic is not justified. Because there are excellent arguments for why it isn't particularly true.

Nevertheless, he is the legitimate president. See what I am seeing here is that a lot of people who think that because Trump was not the winner of the popular vote, he is not the president of the USA or that he does not represent the USA proper. But that does not matter. He won the election. He is as legitimate of a president as Bush was, even more because he won the electoral college outright.

Asserting that individual Americans who personally oppose Trumpolini are somehow 'unable to complain' because Trumpolini (or some earlier US leader) did something wrong is also not justified.

You can complain about Trump and his actions all you want, don't let me stop you. What you should stop complaining about is how he is not the legitimate president. He won by using the legitimate system in place. Should the system be changed? Sure. But using it ex post facto to complain about Trump just because he won using it is not the way to go. Especially because I think precious few here would complain if the system had turned in favor of Clinton. Unless of course CLinton would enact policies they would not like....

[Thanas]

It was as democratic as any other election in US history.

I'm going to have to go with TRR on this one. Usually, US elections don't feature federal agencies interfering in the election by releasing time bombs that depress turnout for one of the candidates right before election day. Usually, Vladimir Putin doesn't weigh in.

This statement is so ignorant of US political history it should be enshrined in every classroom as a reminder of why history is important. Do you really think any of what they did was worse than Tammany Hall? Or voter deprivement of the past? Or the way the mob was used to influence presidential elections? Really?

[mr friendly guy]

I think its fair to say Trump is the legitimate president. I do not think its fair for Trump supporters to say he has popular support as a justification for his actions.

[Simon_Jester]

It was as democratic as any other election in US history.

I'm going to have to go with TRR on this one. Usually, US elections don't feature federal agencies interfering in the election by releasing time bombs that depress turnout for one of the candidates right before election day. Usually, Vladimir Putin doesn't weigh in.

This statement is so ignorant of US political history it should be enshrined in every classroom as a reminder of why history is important. Do you really think any of what they did was worse than Tammany Hall? Or voter deprivement of the past? Or the way the mob was used to influence presidential elections? Really?

Okay, maybe this is a language problem or a formal logic problem. You said "it was as democratic as any other election in US history."

That does not mean "it was as democratic as that one particular election in US history."

That means "if you look at the whole list of elections in US history, all of them were as democratic as this one, or less so. None were more so."

I am not denying the first proposition, but I am denying the second. Tammany Hall and the spoils system and so forth were indeed bad; they are also not part of modern American history. We were supposed to have moved past that.

Cheating to win an election is not a legitimate means of winning that election. In addition, this particular election was an example of a highly undemocratic but unusual phenomenon in American politics- an electoral college win that doesn't correspond to the popular vote.

The combination of the cheating and Trump's loss of the popular vote does not give us a good place to stand when saying "this election was as democratic as any."

No, it was not. It was rather less democratic than many have been in the past, less democratic than it should have been. Why is it a problem to admit this?

[The Romulan Republic]

Argument for the American people having chosen Trump: A group of our ancestors, back in the day when only well-off white men could vote, created a system that allowed Trump to win without the popular vote, and we haven't managed to get rid of that system yet.

Argument against the American people having chosen Trump: Three million more of us voted for his opponent.

Which is the stronger argument?

The first one. Them's the rules and it's been that way for centuries. If the ~American people~ felt strongly that this isn't how the system should work they've collectively had ample time to change it. Barring some efforts at the state level they have not. You agreed to those rules by choosing to vote in an election using them. You don't get to declare that they aren't legit when the system decides against you.

This is misrepresenting my argument to a degree.

Again, and I will not say it again, I am aware that the EC is legit in the sense that it is legal.

That does not make it democratic.

I chose to vote under that system because it was that or not vote at all, in which case you would have held me accountable for not voting, I'm sure. Not because I consider it an ideal electoral system.

As to abolishing it- believe me, I and many others are 100% on board with that, but it will take time, and is unlikely to happen under Trump and the current Congress, I imagine, unless the state level efforts (the interstate compact) can successfully circumvent them, which as I understand it would be of dubious Constitutionality and probably end up in front of the Supreme Court.

[Flagg]

Mocking America relentlessly for electing Trumpolini is justified. I fully expect to be hearing Trump jokes thrown at the US for the rest of my life, and I plan to live a fairly long time. That's okay.

Calling the election democratic is not justified. Because there are excellent arguments for why it isn't particularly true.

Nevertheless, he is the legitimate president. See what I am seeing here is that a lot of people who think that because Trump was not the winner of the popular vote, he is not the president of the USA or that he does not represent the USA proper. But that does not matter. He won the election. He is as legitimate of a president as Bush was, even more because he won the electoral college outright.

Asserting that individual Americans who personally oppose Trumpolini are somehow 'unable to complain' because Trumpolini (or some earlier US leader) did something wrong is also not justified.

You can complain about Trump and his actions all you want, don't let me stop you. What you should stop complaining about is how he is not the legitimate president. He won by using the legitimate system in place. Should the system be changed? Sure. But using it ex post facto to complain about Trump just because he won using it is not the way to go. Especially because I think precious few here would complain if the system had turned in favor of Clinton. Unless of course CLinton would enact policies they would not like....

We've all acknowledged that he is legally the President of the United States. The only thing being contested is your assertion that is was "democratic". And when we provided examples of why, you moved the goalposts. It's beneath you.

[Simon_Jester]

As to abolishing it- believe me, I and many others are 100% on board with that, but it will take time, and is unlikely to happen under Trump and the current Congress, I imagine, unless the state level efforts (the interstate compact) can successfully circumvent them, which as I understand it would be of dubious Constitutionality and probably end up in front of the Supreme Court.

While the interstate compact is unlikely to succeed in the immediate future*... I don't really see the constitutionality problem with it. States are free to allocate their electors pretty much as they see fit, from what I understand.

If the compact were going to be challenged on constitutionality grounds, it would already have been done, I'd think, because the law is already on the books in a number of states and has been for years.
_____________________

*(Almost all the states that signed up already are blue, and a lot of Republicans know damn well how screwed they are without being able to count on the electoral college)

[The Romulan Republic]

I think it has something to do with states not being allowed to make compacts with each other circumventing Congress, but I don't recall the source. And it may not have been challenged simply because it hasn't, up until now, been an immediate threat to the established election system.

According to Wikipedia, however, it is currently in force in Washington state, California, Illinois, Hawaii, New York, Maryland, New Jersey, Vermon, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island, for a total of 165 EC votes (needs 270 to take effect). Yes, all blue states.

But it is listed as "Pending in current legislative session" in a whole lot more: Oregon, Idaho, Colorado, Kansas, Missouri, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Minnesota, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Maine, South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida (worth 218). That includes a lot of red and swing states, and as I recall, is a huge jump in the number of states where it is listed as "Pending" since election day (hmm, I wonder why? ).

If my math is correct:

If all those states passed it, it would be at 383- far more than enough. Half the EC votes of those states would put it at 274- barely enough.

If all of the states on that list that were blue in the last election passed it (counting Maine, which split its EC votes in favour of the Dems, as blue), it would have 211- not quite their.

Add in traditionally blue and swing states, though, and it gets to 278- in effect.

It can happen, if Democrats and anti-Trump independents and Republicans unite to push hard for it in the right states.

[Lord Insanity]

Trump won the popular vote in 30 out of 50 states. That he lost the national popular vote doesn't matter because that is not how the US counts votes. Clinton may have won the national popular vote but she lost 30 out of 50 states. Let that sink in nice and deep. A majority of people in 30 out of 50 states thought Clinton was worse than Trump.

Remember when everyone was laughing at Trump campaigning in Wisconsin because everyone "knew" Clinton was going to win that state anyway. Whoops.

People may not like the results but the election was by no means unfair or stolen. Clinton and Trump were both playing by the same rules and they both knew what those rules were going in.

If Republicans can't win in California it is Republicans' fault for failing to appeal to a majority of citizens in California.
If Democrats can't win in Texas is is Democrats' fault for failing to appeal to a majority of citizens in Texas.
And so on for every state that is considered a "lock" for one party over the other.
Don't blame the system for a candidate's inability to win enough states.

[The Romulan Republic]

Trump won the popular vote in 30 out of 50 states. That he lost the national popular vote doesn't matter because that is not how the US counts votes.

No shit.

Nobody here is denying that that's the case.

We're saying that that's the fucking problem.

"These are the rules" is never a defence for unjust rules, no matter how much EC apologists seem to think it is.

Clinton may have won the national popular vote but she lost 30 out of 50 states. Let that sink in nice and deep. A majority of people in 30 out of 50 states thought Clinton was worse than Trump.

States are not people, any more than corporations are. Nor are they unified blocks where everyone in the state thinks the same. Therefore, "winning states" should not matter, certainly not more than the popular vote.

I fail to see why the opinion of a (in many cases very slim) majority of votes in certain states should matter more than the overall vote if we're going to have any pretence of being a united or democratic country.

I mean, what you're really saying is that the votes of people in some states should count more than the votes of the people in other states. That, say, a citizen of Wyoming should have greater voting rights than a Californian. Except that because of the EC, the vote of a non-Republican in Wyoming (or a non-Democrat in California) is absolutely worthless too, except as a tiny symbolic gesture.

And it just so happens that the states the EC counts more tend to be heavily white, rural, and Right wing states.

Remember when everyone was laughing at Trump campaigning in Wisconsin because everyone "knew" Clinton was going to win that state anyway. Whoops.

What is the point of this, other than petty gloating?

People may not like the results but the election was by no means unfair or stolen. Clinton and Trump were both playing by the same rules and they both knew what those rules were going in.

And again, "these are the rules" is not, in and of itself, a defence for an unjust rule. This broken record is getting tired.

As is "They agreed to campaign/vote under those rules". So... you're suggesting that if someone doesn't like the current system, they shouldn't participate in it at all? And that if they do, they thereby forfeit their right to criticize any aspect of said system, no matter how unjust? That the only options should be "Have no voice at all" or "accept that this is the way the system is, no matter how unfair?"

Again, we're not saying the EC isn't legal (though other aspects of the election, like the Russian and FBI interference, certainly were). We're saying that being legal doesn't make it fair, or democratic.

If Republicans can't win in California it is Republicans' fault for failing to appeal to a majority of citizens in California.
If Democrats can't win in Texas is is Democrats' fault for failing to appeal to a majority of citizens in Texas.
And so on for every state that is considered a "lock" for one party over the other.
Don't blame the system for a candidate's inability to win enough states.

And again, states' aren't people, and we should not have a system that gives more weight to a slim majority in a small state than a larger majority in a bigger state. That is not democratic.

[FireNexus]

Maybe it's time for some blue states to split up. I know it's not what they mean when they say "divide and conquer", but...

[Tribble]

Trump won the popular vote in 30 out of 50 states. That he lost the national popular vote doesn't matter because that is not how the US counts votes. Clinton may have won the national popular vote but she lost 30 out of 50 states. Let that sink in nice and deep. A majority of people in 30 out of 50 states thought Clinton was worse than Trump.

Remember when everyone was laughing at Trump campaigning in Wisconsin because everyone "knew" Clinton was going to win that state anyway. Whoops.

People may not like the results but the election was by no means unfair or stolen. Clinton and Trump were both playing by the same rules and they both knew what those rules were going in.

If Republicans can't win in California it is Republicans' fault for failing to appeal to a majority of citizens in California.
If Democrats can't win in Texas is is Democrats' fault for failing to appeal to a majority of citizens in Texas.
And so on for every state that is considered a "lock" for one party over the other.
Don't blame the system for a candidate's inability to win enough states.

What others are saying is that the system is to blame because the president should be elected by the national popular vote, not via state wide votes. That the system is inherently unfair and needs to be abolished since voters in larger states are effectively being disenfranchised by being worth significantly less than voters in smaller states, proportionately speaking. Also the current EC setup of "winner take all" means that the candidate to get 50% +1 vote gets every single elector which means that the minority voters in that state are completely unrepresented.

Though I do agree with your sentiment that the Democrats did themselves no favours by ignoring the current rules of the game when they really ought to have known better.

And as for electoral reform, a compromise solution might be to have a statewide proportional vote. Yes, its not 100% perfect when compared to abolishing the electoral college outright, but the math on my other thread suggested that the results would be similar to a nationwide vote (Clinton would have won). And it might be somewhat easier to get smaller states to agree as their "official" number of electors would remain the same.

[The Romulan Republic]

Maybe it's time for some blue states to split up. I know it's not what they mean when they say "divide and conquer", but...

Heh.

One idea I've toyed with (though I doubt it would be in any way practical) is to encourage Democrats in safe blue states to move en mass to swing/marginally Republican states.

Anything we can legally do to make our numbers actually count against a rigged system.

Again, we've won the popular vote six out of the last seven races. The one loss was when we ran an uncharismatic candidate against a war time incumbent. Two out of three Republican "wins" since the Reagan/Bush Sr. era have been against the popular vote.

The results simply aren't matching the will of the people, and that's a huge systemic problem.

[Flagg]

Trump won the popular vote in 30 out of 50 states. That he lost the national popular vote doesn't matter because that is not how the US counts votes. Clinton may have won the national popular vote but she lost 30 out of 50 states. Let that sink in nice and deep. A majority of people in 30 out of 50 states thought Clinton was worse than Trump.

Remember when everyone was laughing at Trump campaigning in Wisconsin because everyone "knew" Clinton was going to win that state anyway. Whoops.

People may not like the results but the election was by no means unfair or stolen. Clinton and Trump were both playing by the same rules and they both knew what those rules were going in.

If Republicans can't win in California it is Republicans' fault for failing to appeal to a majority of citizens in California.
If Democrats can't win in Texas is is Democrats' fault for failing to appeal to a majority of citizens in Texas.
And so on for every state that is considered a "lock" for one party over the other.
Don't blame the system for a candidate's inability to win enough states.

Land area doesn't matter. I'm really sick of having to explain this to people. Wow, President Pussygrabber won a bunch of low population states with 3 electoral votes, big deal. Hell, I'd bet Obama probably lost the majority of states. I mean if Clinton had won the few swing states whose populations votes count more than in the large population states like California and Texas (That's so Democratic. ) she'd be in the White House and the entire planet wouldn't be pointing and laughing about how fucking stupid the American people and system of electing Presidents are.

And for the 50th motherfucking time for you lazy and/or illiterate fucks: None of us is saying President Pussygrabber is not the legal and legitimate President of the Useless Stupid Asses (or as it used to be called, the "United States of America"), we're saying the process for electing them is undemocratic, the electoral college serves no valid purpose, it should be done away with, and that the winner of the national popular vote should be the President elect.

[The Romulan Republic]

The one valid purpose the EC was supposed to have, as far as I can tell, was preventing the election of someone like Trump.

At which, obviously, it utterly failed.

Edit: Of course, it would still been an obsolete and undemocratic institution. Its just that is one paper-thin justification no longer exists either.

[Flagg]

The one valid purpose the EC was supposed to have, as far as I can tell, was preventing the election of someone like Trump.

At which, obviously, it utterly failed.

Edit: Of course, it would still been an obsolete and undemocratic institution. Its just that is one paper-thin justification no longer exists either.

Unfortunately many states have laws on the books that make it a crime for Electors to vote for anyone other than whomever won the states popular vote. So if that was the intent, then it's not even capable of doing what it exists to do. Of course the other reason was to get votes counted and Presidents elected ASAP in an age of communication by letters delivered by men on horseback and sailing vessels.

[Simon_Jester]

Back on the original topic:

This family lived in Pennsylvania, one of the key states that, by tipping to Trump, decided the election. While the Assalis (the two who have lived here and are citizens, I gather) did not personally decide this election...

If thirty thousand votes had flipped in that state, Trump's electoral margin of victory would have dropped from 77 votes to 37 votes. Pennsylvania was literally half of everything Trump needed. And the Assalis were two of the thirty thousand voters Trump needed to get that half.

I really, really wish they were not suffering... But given that they, like so many other people, have to suffer...

I hope they comprehend just how significant a role they played in making this happen. Of every thousand Americans, only one or two can say "I did as much to ensure Trump's victory as Mr. and Mrs. Assali."

[Thanas]

We've all acknowledged that he is legally the President of the United States. The only thing being contested is your assertion that is was "democratic". And when we provided examples of why, you moved the goalposts. It's beneath you.

If it was undemocratic he is not legally the president.

Okay, maybe this is a language problem or a formal logic problem. You said "it was as democratic as any other election in US history."

That does not mean "it was as democratic as that one particular election in US history."

That means "if you look at the whole list of elections in US history, all of them were as democratic as this one, or less so. None were more so."

I am not denying the first proposition, but I am denying the second. Tammany Hall and the spoils system and so forth were indeed bad; they are also not part of modern American history. We were supposed to have moved past that.

I should have said "most" instead of any, you are correct in that.

And the Florida recount and voter exclusion laws proved that you have indeed not moved past that.

[K. A. Pital]

I think there are formal problems here. Namely, claiming that something is democratic without having a unanimously agreed upon definition of democracy (is it just the formal representative democratic mechanism as designed by any country? or does popular will also count? some of these are not so "democratic" as they are claimed to be). If a person thinks that EC is an undemocratic system, then neither the Trump election, nor many other ones were not perfectly democratic.

But I do not understand how the democratism of a given election applies to the topic at hand. This person was not a Trump detractor, but a Trump supporter. The suffering is clearly self-inflicted (which can't be said about many US citizens who voted against Trump).

[The Romulan Republic]

It was in response to the OP's comment, and it sort of took on a life of its own from their.

As to these people- yes, they, like many others, were foolish enough to vote against both their own self-interest and that of their fellows. I'm torn between contempt and sympathy, because on the one hand, they brought it on themselves (and a great many other, more innocent people), but on the other hand, I wouldn't wish a Trump Presidency and its consequences on anyone.

The Democratic Party needs to do a better job of reaching out to these people, showing them that Trump cheated them. That's going to be a big part of any strategy to undo this catastrophe we've found ourselves in.

[K. A. Pital]

I do not understand where could the sympathy come from. The person actively wished that Trump's order would happen in the US. It happened. Actions have consequences. So he has to deal with the consequences.

I could be sympathetic to a person who never wished for this in the first place, but Trump made the point of Muslim ban and travel bans a key campaign pledge. You can connect the dots, can you not? If you can (and in this case, even stupid people can understand the plain text speech spoken by their presidential candidate, come on!), you need to be prepared and understand the consequences.

[Flagg]

We've all acknowledged that he is legally the President of the United States. The only thing being contested is your assertion that is was "democratic". And when we provided examples of why, you moved the goalposts. It's beneath you.

If it was undemocratic he is not legally the president.

I see you don't understand the American system of government. Kinda sad. Was Bushs "election" in 2000 democratic? Where recounts were stopped by a Republican riot and a SCOTUS decision that set a precedent that very same court refused to uphold in every other case where it would have applied? Because if you say "no" then I guess he wasn't legally president until 2005?

You seem to think that something in the US system must be "democratic" to be "legal" and you are wrong. Please cite the laws saying that "undemocratic=illegal".