what does trump becoming president say about our country? our citizens?

[respect]

only respond if you are american or given honorary american status by me 

 

what does trump becoming president say about our country? our citizens?

 

 

are we divided racially? will white women and ethnic males come together to fix this issue? are we equals? do we respect transgender?

[DocumentaLy]

That a lot of people think the system is broken and that they're being left behind, so change must come at any means possible.

[Fat Ass Keâ„“â„“y Price]

not this "white women are for black men" bullshit

[Green Willow]

america has been divided not only racially but financially and they was well on its way to pot if regardless of trump touching the white house or not.

 

and i thought it was confirmed trump was hacked in???? so why are you still trying to blame the voters????

[The Last Duchess]

it says we're divided in a number of ways

[tearose]

It says that the electoral college system is fucking broken

[LisaVandercunt]

Everything is just fucked up and we're becoming more and more divided. I cannot even fathom what will happen when he gets re-elected in 4 years.

[sakurahanabira]

nothing because there are a lot of people who didn't vote for him or wanted him for president. If anything, it says a lot about how much weight the electoral college votes have compared to regular citizens' votes. Hilary won the popular vote and clearly had more public votes than Trump, but he won because of the electoral college. The same thing happened in 2000 between George Bush and Al Gore--Gore had the popular vote but Bush won the electoral vote and became president instead.

 

 

and this rift between the electoral votes and citizens' votes is partly why some people think it's pointless to vote, because they feel that: why vote at all if the electoral college ultimately decides who's president.

 

[Seto Kaiba]

It says that the electoral college system is fucking broken

[♥SNS-Shinomiya♥]

When people get sick and tired or being sick and tired they do something about, good bad or indifferent

[Sybil]

racial divides aside,

the media has to be much more mindful about the messages they signal to their audiences. anti-trump media was anti-trump, but didn't frame trump as a candidate to be taken seriously. which he was - even though the idea of it seemed pretty ridiculous. SNL and talk shows gave him a platform not to talk about his actual ideas but to just poke fun and make jokes, which made him appear as not a threat of any kind.

we had our share of laughs and snickers at the ridiculous shit he said on the campaign trail - the wall, immigration policy, international relations - not recognizing that was actual pledges he was going to enter office with given he won. Statisticians, social media, and other platforms were so assured that Clinton was going to win, so some likely did not go out to vote with that notion of security.

 

 

The people who wanted change were pushed and enticed to make change and tend to have a higher voter turnout regardless (like the older generations). People who are unhappy about current situations are more likely to get out to contribute, which was the case here - i'm assuming a significant population of Trump voters were dissatisfied with Obama and believed that Clinton would be a continuation of those ideals. Others were probably very against the idea of Clinton as president - whether it's le emails, the Clinton name, BENGHAZIS - and looking at how the media seemed to imply that the numbers were against them went to vote in an attempt to change what was expected.

granted, the younger generation has a pretty miserable voting turnout regardless but it would help.

[Königin]

Not enough people cared to vote. He doesn't represent the majority.

[KoreaxxLove]

It says that the electoral college system is fucking broken

 

nothing because there are a lot of people who didn't vote for him or wanted him for president. If anything, it says a lot about how much weight the electoral college votes have compared to regular citizens' votes. Hilary won the popular vote and clearly had more public votes than Trump, but he won because of the electoral college. The same thing happened in 2000 between George Bush and Al Gore--Gore had the popular vote but Bush won the electoral vote and became president instead.

 

 

and this rift between the electoral votes and citizens' votes is partly why some people think it's pointless to vote, because they feel that: why vote at all if the electoral college ultimately decides who's president.

 

 

No, it means that big cities in New York and California shouldn't have the right to determine the president for the entire country just because they have a majority of like-minded individuals living in them while the rest of the country largely holds different beliefs. 

[tearose]

No, it means that big cities in New York and California shouldn't have the right to determine the president for the entire country just because they have a majority of like-minded individuals living in them while the rest of the country largely holds different beliefs. 

It completely distorts the presidential campaign. It's not just about the popular vote issue. It causes campaigning politician to completely ignore well over half of the states. Swing states are given far more attention than any other state, so politicians often won't even visit the other states. To get the swing state vote, like in Florida, you have to cater to a very specific demographic; usually retirees. And we all know how "enjoyable" the elderly are when it comes to politics. To win the election you have to kiss the ass of swing state voters. That is who determines the president, not the "like-minded individuals" living in big cities. If you think people are like-minded in big cities then idk what to tell you buddy.

 

The electoral college makes it so that tiny third party votes can change the entire course of the election. see: Ralph Nader. If they get even 1 percent of the votes in those godforsaken swing states, then all hell tends to break loose.

 

btw California isn't a city.

[KoreaxxLove]

It completely distorts the presidential campaign. It's not just about the popular vote issue. It causes campaigning politician to completely ignore well over half of the states. Swing states are given far more attention than any other state, so politicians often won't even visit the other states. To get the swing state vote, like in Florida, you have to cater to a very specific demographic; usually retirees. And we all know how "enjoyable" the elderly are when it comes to politics. To win the election you have to kiss the ass of swing state voters. That is who determines the president, not the "like-minded individuals" living in big cities. If you think people are like-minded in big cities then idk what to tell you buddy.

 

The electoral college makes it so that tiny third party votes can change the entire course of the election. see: Ralph Nader. If they get even 1 percent of the votes in those godforsaken swing states, then all hell tends to break loose.

 

btw California isn't a city.

 

That's the point. You have to campaign to people across the country in order to win the election. Not just certain big cities. 

 

I didn't say California was a city. I said big cities in California. 

[tearose]

That's the point. You have to campaign to people across the country in order to win the election. Not just certain big cities. 

 

I didn't say California was a city. I said big cities in California. 

they DON'T campaign across the country. They don't visit upwards of 40 states. Do you know what a swing state is?

[milkcafe]

it says that the electoral college is broken

[tearose]

And this notion that so many American nationalists have that the electoral college was decided by our founding fathers and thus should be honored really doesn't add up when you consider the fact that the entire purpose of the electoral college was to allow the State Governments to choose the president, not the actual people. There wasn't even a popular vote until, what, 1820?

 

The electoral college was made to keep the general population from deciding the president. There's nothing right about that.

 

Also I want to point out that getting New York and California won't win you the election, even if everyone in that state votes for you. Stop trying to make this about small town, good 'ol 'Murica. It's bullshit.

[tearose]

It says that the electoral college system is fucking broken

i w o n d e r who negged me 

[KoreaxxLove]

they DON'T campaign across the country. They don't visit upwards of 40 states. Do you know what a swing state is?

I know what a swing state is. Other states have already decided what candidate they want to vote. No need to campaign as hard, but to act like there's no need to campaign at all is ridiculous. Trump beat Hillary by flipping blue states where she failed to campaign as much.

 

The point is, most of the country voted for Trump, but more people lived in the cities/states that voted Hillary. That's not hard to understand. The electoral college helps have fairer representation.

[tearose]

The point is, most of the country voted for Trump, but more people lived in the cities/states that voted Hillary. That's not hard to understand. The electoral college helps have fairer representation.

 

Most of the country voted for Hillary. The electoral college voted for Trump.

 

But again: this is not just about the popular vote. There are glaring issues in the system and the history of the system as I discussed in my previous posts.

[KoreaxxLove]

Most of the country voted for Hillary. The electoral college voted for Trump.

 

But again: this is not just about the popular vote. There are glaring issues in the system and the history of the system as I discussed in my previous posts.

I mean as in number of states. Most states voted for Trump. Most people in most states voted for Trump. Hillary won highly populated states.That's what I mean.

 

I just think the intent of the founders is irrelevant.

[tearose]

I mean as in number of states. Most states voted for Trump. Most people in most states voted for Trump. Hillary won highly populated states.That's what I mean.

 

I just think the intent of the founders is irrelevant.

Again, glaring issues in the system

 

I'll repeat a few again if you want:

 

1. The wishes of swing state voters almost always takes precedence. If a president wants to be reelected, they have to stay on Florida's good side and so on, even if it means alienating the other states because those don't matter in the long run.
2. Third party voters can change the entire course of the election with just a minute percentage, if they're in a swing state
3. People are happy to cry "but ____ won the popular vote!" as long as their preferred candidate did so and still lost. If Trump had won the popular vote and lost the electoral vote, his supporters would be crying outrage. 
4. "The Electoral College gives disproportionate voting power to states, favoring the smaller states with more electoral votes per person. For instance, each individual vote in Wyoming counts nearly four times as much in the Electoral College as each individual vote in Texas. This is because Wyoming has three (3) electoral votes for a population of 532,668 citizens (as of 2008 Census Bureau estimates) and Texas has thirty-two (32) electoral votes for a population of almost 25 million. By dividing the population by electoral votes, we can see that Wyoming has one "elector" for every 177,556 people and Texas has one "elector" for about every 715,499."(Source: fairvote.org)
5. Advocates of the system say that this uneven power forces politicians to pay attention to smaller states, which would otherwise be ignored. But as I explained before, it does not ACTUALLY encourage politicians to campaign in every state.
6. The winner-take-all method is inherently flawed. The politician sees no reason to campaign in a state that clearly favors one candidate. Democrats rarely campaign in Texas, even though there are democrats there it is still red majority. Conversely, Republican candidates have little incentive to campaign in solidly Democratic states, like Massachusetts, especially when they have those sweet sweet swing states to pay attention to.
7. The winner-take-all rule leads to lower voter turnout in states where one party is dominant, because each individual vote will be overwhelmed by the majority and will not, in effect, "count" if the winner takes all the electoral votes. People don't bother, because they know it doesn't matter in the long run, and this is not a good thing, this is effectively bowing down to the majority, knowing your voice will never be heard in this or that state.

[KoreaxxLove]

 

Again, glaring issues in the system

 

I'll repeat a few again if you want:

 

• The wishes of swing state voters almost always takes precedence. If a president wants to be reelected, they have to stay on Florida's good side and so on, even if it means alienating the other states because those don't matter in the long run.
• Third party voters can change the entire course of the election with just a minute percentage, if they're in a swing state
• People are happy to cry "but ____ won the popular vote!" as long as their preferred candidate did so and still lost. If Trump had won the popular vote and lost the electoral vote, his supporters would be crying outrage.

• "The Electoral College gives disproportionate voting power to states, favoring the smaller states with more electoral votes per person. For instance, each individual vote in Wyoming counts nearly four times as much in the Electoral College as each individual vote in Texas. This is because Wyoming has three (3) electoral votes for a population of 532,668 citizens (as of 2008 Census Bureau estimates) and Texas has thirty-two (32) electoral votes for a population of almost 25 million. By dividing the population by electoral votes, we can see that Wyoming has one "elector" for every 177,556 people and Texas has one "elector" for about every 715,499."(Source: fairvote.org)

• Advocates of the system say that this uneven power forces politicians to pay attention to smaller states, which would otherwise be ignored. But as I explained before, it does not ACTUALLY encourage politicians to campaign in every state.

• The winner-take-all method is inherently flawed. The politician sees no reason to campaign in a state that clearly favors one candidate. Democrats rarely campaign in Texas, even though there are democrats there it is still red majority. Conversely, Republican candidates have little incentive to campaign in solidly Democratic states, like Massachusetts, especially when they have those sweet sweet swing states to pay attention to.

• The winner-take-all rule leads to lower voter turnout in states where one party is dominant, because each individual vote will be overwhelmed by the majority and will not, in effect, "count" if the winner takes all the electoral votes. People don't bother, because they know it doesn't matter in the long run, and this is not a good thing, this is effectively bowing down to the majority, knowing your voice will never be heard in this or that state.

And again, I don't think those are flaws with the system. It's ridiculous. If your voice "won't be heard in this or that state," isn't it even worse to know your voice won't be heard in the nation? That's how the supporters of a losing candidate would feel. You act as those majority vote doesnt decide how a state swings. Technically it doesn't have to, but it always does. I just don't see these as issues.

[Sana Minatozaki]

he is still better than any Clinton who bombed my country so yikes