The people that didn't boo Trump
- Thread starter Charlemagne
- Start date
People of all demographics attend these games, and they come from more than one city. A lot of black people live in the city and surrounding areas of where this game was played.
Btw, you just admitted right wingers are bigger snowflakes.
Whatever the labels you personally apply to the two lots of voters, there's no doubt that the number approving of Trump was considerably less that the total who voted for Hillary (not to mention those who preferred fringe candidates without a hope of actually winning, over Trump).
I'd say the usual definition of 'ordinary' is what characterizes most American voters i.e. the average. It's certainly not the distinct minority who the bankrupt reality-TV'billionaire attracted. Fed-up with being patronized, they may well be, but a repeat of the rigged result of 2016 where some underpopulated rural states lord it over most of the Nation won't make America Great Again.
It'll just make it even worse than the last four years.
I don't think that most people would use the words "considerably less" to describe the difference between 48% and 46% of the popular vote.
Fortunately, such quibbling is beside the point, as the popular vote is not how American Presidents have ever been elected, and isn't how the next President will be elected. Considering the accomplishments of the United States both at home and on the world stage, it's hard to say that they aren't managing their democracy correctly.
It's more than a couple of million less. Even for possible billionaires like Donny, multi-millions is a considerable number. All the more so when we consider those are millions of individual voters, each a person making up their own mind, and so trusted by the Constitution that even if Trump had lost the College by the vote of just a single one of them somewhere in the hinterland, that would count. And decide the Presidency. But he lost decisively by upwards of seven millions of those votes by Americans.
Thanks for the customary BS about how the popular vote doesn't count in the US. If that was factually true, they wouldn't hold one, or count it. Nor would Trumpians be bleating to this day about the three million illegal immigrant voters, they've never done anything to find or stop. Nor would I have mentioned it, had yet another dopey Trumpian not claimed once again, that he was the people's choice.
If accomplishments on the world stage were the test of "managing democracy" that would make Attila the Hun and the Ottoman Caliphate more successful at it than Trump. It can only be that you mean American accomplishments of the past, since the booing these days isn't just domestic. The world wants Donny off the stage. And how ironic to read someone defending that serial corporate bankrupt, suggesting he has a role in 'managing' anything, let alone democracy.
OK, I'll give him Twitter. That he can manage, sorta. Covfefe!
"Considerably" can only have meaning relative to context. Otherwise, increasing the number of Senators in large states from 2 to 3 would not be "considerable" political change (effecting only an increase of a few seats to the total).
I don't believe there is any constitutional requirement to count the national popular vote. Seems to me it is merely a favorite diversion of polling companies and media outlets. Gives them a way of pretending the race is going a different way than it is, which is an opportunity to influence voters. Also handy for losers to be able to say - "See, lots of people liked me. If only they weren't all in California or New York, I could have been the President!" A comforting, if irrelevant, sentiment. Lastly, I suppose it's necessary information for the inevitable gerrymandering of districts at the congressional level.
Even if you regard someone, or even a whole country, as your enemy, it never accomplishes anything to underestimate their abilities or understate their accomplishments. That kind of thinking can only lead to a complete and utter Covfefe!
While increasing the number of Senators of a state by 50% would be a 'considerable' increase, it's still just one person. One single person — 50% 0f the vote plus one — might be the cause all that State's Electors being chosen from their Party, because many states go by 'winner takes all'. And the Electors of that state, be it large or small, might be the margin between winner and loser. A 'considerable result' coming from that one vote. As you say, the contest you see the number against makes all the difference.
Even though reality is counted one by one by one, the actual margin by which Hillary was the people's choice over Donny was several millions or several percent if you prefer. The margin he lost by was even greater as ther were additional millions that went to the Green and other fringe candidates. Donny may not think millions 'considerable' in the context of his various money-losing corporate ventures, but when every vote counts it's considerable.
As you say however, the popular vote doesn't count in the US. That's because the reality is that voters are choosing Electors, and only they elect the President. But as long as folks like you want to discuss US politics on the level of fiction that the President is elected by the people, I'm game. Sadly you'll then have to put up with me also pointing out the realities of stuff like the count of the popular vote, and of who the real voters are. You can play it both ways among amongst those who think as you do, but not out in the open where ideas and reality actually have to contend. Abandon the fiction you seem so attached to and i won't bring up the reality: Donny was elected only by a majority of 538 party pols — as 'elite' a gang as the Founders could invent. And another 'considerable' quantity, this time for the astounding mis-match between it's decision and that of the 150,000,000 American voters.
I can't speak to your closing paragraph at all, as I fail to see it's relevance to Trump being booed or to anything I think or have said, but I appreciate the closing salutation and echo it back.
Even that's too much if your reference is to a guy who publicly demonstrated his manifest unfitness for the game decades before he ever thought to try out. Now that he's in (thanks to an out-dated technicality from centuries back) he's done nothing but confirm his lack of talent and total disinterest in any aspect of the game that doesn't feed his need for self-aggrandizement. In spite of campaigning on his knowledge the game itself was defective, flawed and "rigged", he's done nothing to improve it. Hate's your word, not mine. But why shouldn't I despise a weasel like him?
The game of democracy itself, I love. Because it's a game where every amateur begins with an equal chance. And it isn't about winning, but about keeping all the different variants of the game played around the planet going. Forever if we can, the fun never stops.
That's not all I can say. But perhaps you prefer 'thoughts' that stop at 280 mis-spelled characters.
