856
this post was submitted on 07 Oct 2024
856 points (99.2% liked)
politics
19243 readers
3229 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
For most of my life I blissfully had no idea who Trump was, as I grew up in the Middle East and not North America. While I did hear his name a few times I had no idea who he was or what he did or anything about him.
But the first time I heard him was back in 2010 when I saw YouTube interviews with Trump I wasn't initially sure of what to make of his proposed tariffs with China (and he was talking about them back then), but after just some thinking (I had just graduated with a Bachelors in business at the time) and more reading I concluded that his idea was bonkers.
Then cracked.com made an entire series of articles that were wildly successful that documented just what a horrific businessman and human being he was. You know on how comments sections anywhere are often highly toxic and conflict ridden? The comments on the Trump articles were actually quite unanimous on how much everyone hated Trump!
I still can't believe that he won and I cannot believe that his presidency was real.
You do realize he didn't win, right?
Its a well-documented historical fact that Clinton got more votes than Trump, but the US isn't a democracy. Trump declared himself the winner and nobody did anything to stop him
This obsession to shift the definition of what's required to be president just so you can continue a world view of winners and losers is as meaningless as it is American. Trump won the election due to the electoral college and gerrymandering shenanigans, but lost the popular vote. Why not say that most people didn't want him as a president and why did the system allow it instead of mapping this into Americas obsession with winners and losers? He literally did not win, and it highlights a flaw in the system that needs to be addressed.
Nobody "did anything to stop him" because at that point, you are dropping down to his level and calling for an insurrection. That the side of morons with guns and expanding prison systems has no problems with insurrections might highlight another even darker problem, one which might be a bigger problem when those morons are also the ones crowding around and abusing positions of authorities up to the federal supreme court level, regardless of whether they are a minority.
it's not because trump declared himself the winner. it's because in the US, empty lands can have more votes than people. it's called electoral college but that's what it really is. essentially rocks and dirt voting.
When I learned about the electoral college in a US school, I was told by my teacher that it exists so the delegates can override the people's vote in an event where they voted for someone clearly terrible (eg a clown or a fascist)
Again, Trump lost the popular vote, and the US just let him claim that he won, when they should have stopped it.
The electoral college exists to give slave states more votes.
that's the excuse. the real reason is to give republicans/conservatives more voting power, and for a long time now, any chance of winning elections really.
you know how they cry about DEI because they think it gives minorities undue positions? the electoral college is that kind of DEI for conservatives. otherwise the country wouldn't be this backwards so consistently all the time.
voter suppression and gerrymandering helps too of course. basically the less democratic the voting process the better chances they have.
He didn't declare himself the winner. The voting system is a bit more complex and while it's possible to completely override the election results through the electoral college, usually what happens is that the blue candidate gets a lot more votes in populous states with big cities (California, NY, etc), but as soon as you're one vote ahead in a state, the extra million or 2 don't matter.
Something that's been proposed to combat this without moving to an entirely new model, is for states to no longer be all or nothing. Instead of candidate A getting 60% of the votes and 100% of the EC vote, they'd get 60% of the EC vote and the other guy would get 40%. Then all votes would matter, rather than only swing state votes.