[DEBATE] Presidential Election - 2016 (closing Nov 22)

I just want to point out to crazy_x_gamer that there is no set "Ideology of Islam," so it's not okay to call us all terrorists or threaten to ban us from the US (Land of the free!)

Also I believe Georgia is part of *Eurasia* XD

Also as stated a Republic is essentially democratic, but besides (at least this is what we learned) the US is a "Democratic-Republic," so it is referred to as a democracy.

Thank you wholeheartedly for your service for this country! God bless America!
-----

In my perfectly honest opinion, the "left" had it coming. First off the DNC chose Clinton; where was Bernie on the ballot? I know so many Bernie supporters who voted Trump because they could not support Clinton. Also, how do you expect people to vote when you call them "a basket of deplorables?" When you label people as sexist, racist, xenophobic just because they support Trump, how to you expect them to vote?? And some Trump supporters might be sexist, racist, and xenophobic but not all of them! On the same token, this is exactly why all the national polls showed Clinton winning every time. Where I live, you can get lynched if you say you are a Trump supporter. I have a good friend who is a huge Trump supporter but says he likes Clinton to avoid the completely unnecessary social disdain that follows any Trump supporter. But, when you're in the polling booth, that's when no one is looking. That's when millions of people on Tuesday put down Trump and Pence over Clinton and Kaine because they just couldn't stand being labeled and shut down by people who love all kinds of diversity except intellectual.

While both candidates had their positives, it is my opinion that Trump better filled the dignity card to gain voters. A Trump vote represented your voice being heard over the incessant political clamor. Now, if my mansplaining is triggering you, talk to me and engage.

Cool stori, but Clinton won the popular vote. So basically what happened was that hundreds of thousands of people got smushed aside and their votes essentially didn't count.

True, except you know as well as I do that with the electoral college in place the popular vote is irrelevant. You have people who didn't vote, couldn't vote, didn't want to and the list goes on. Using the popular vote in any argument, in my opinion, is like taking a cake that is half vanilla and half chocolate, eating the 1/2 chocolate side of the cake, and then looking at the cake and saying "all of this cake was vanilla". I'm sorry this is a really bad analogy but my point is is that the popular vote is a fairly incomplete data point.

At any rate, though, any election with a winner or loser you will have people who get their votes "smushed aside".

but if you look at the vote map, you see that the majority of her votes came from quite small pockets of actual area aka the heavily populated big cities.

well that tells me is that land-wise, a majority of the country is not being represented by the major media outlets because if you listened to the media you would come away thinking Clinton had this election in the bag.. even if you watched Fox News most of the time.

so, as Bill Maher likes to say, the "left" is in a bubble and it's really big cities being in a bubble. actually I just think everyone is in some sort of bubble of varying size and influence. that bubble gets burst if you pay attention to the outcome of the election though.

But my point still stands. We don't need to be represented by the major media outlets, they're just in it for money. But we do need to be represented by the government. So whether you live in a big city or on a farm, your vote should matter. Tis what it is though I guess.

I don't believe that the electoral college in place of the popular vote is irrelevant. The people voted, and they voted for Clinton. But the electoral college elects Trump. Also how is the popular vote an incomplete data point? It shows who got more votes from the people... isn't that what should matter?

No, I totally agree! My point is, though, is that for it to be a true popular vote, ALL the populous must vote. I think we had something like 200M eligible voters but only 100M people actually vote. Those numbers could be wrong, I can't find the source where I read that, but I do think it's safe to say that not everyone eligible in this election voted for president.
Haha sorry if I don't make any sense!

I agree it's a very bad analogy. ESSELEM is just saying that the majority of Americans that voted wanted Hillary to be president. More people want Hillary as president than Trump. He won and I totally get it but you know what I mean? It's like this, more Americans want Hillary to be president but Trump is president. See what I'm saying? It's just what it is but it is what it is.

PLEASE. Do not ever call neoliberals and establish democrats "left". They are center-right.

I heard on the news (TV, not news article) that people want the electors to break the law and make Clinton president, not only that, but people are considering to vote in favor of removing the electoral college from existence...

Dear satan, I hope that this is all a joke...

PLEASE!!!

I agree with removing the electoral college but it should take effect NEXT election. Trump won according to the laws today, and we can't take that away from him.

I second that notion; Trump won fair and square. The Democratic party was unprepared this election and slipped. Let Trump keep his presidency. If we were to remove him from office, a crapload more riots would happen; the trump supporters, the justice supporters and it'll just be a huge middle finger to our whole system if we tampered with the election outcome AFTER the election. We already have chaos, no need to cause more than what we already got...

I'm uncertain about the electoral college getting removed though; I'm not 100% certain what will be the fallout of getting rid of it. (I'm not a political major; I have no idea why we have it in the first place...)

It's a bit lame to speculate about any changes to this election. Ain't gonna happen. It won't happen for the next one either cause republicans are in power and why would they want to change anything. I remember a much closer election where Gore had even more of the majority of the popular vote and still lost. I lament about that one. Bush crushed this country into submission. There has never been a worse president. You can say whatever you want about how great Trump will be but only 1% of the country was better off from Bush. The other 99% suffered and continues to suffer from him.

Basically it's a safety net the founding fathers created. They were afraid the (stupid) American public would pick a buffoon but the elite and educated white males (electors) could override the decision and elect a good president. It's undemocratic and needs to go.

I see what you mean, and I assumed this of it first:

"Another old piece of our constitution that withheld 250 years ago but has horribly aged in today's modern society and needs to have a good look taken at."

Looks I was right; I just didn't have enough information to call it out, thank you for confirming my first thought. However, here's a good counterargument that we could also use against it's abolishment:

It may be good for this election, but there could be more extreme elections in the future, worse than what we had 6 days ago and if we don't have a middle ground and majority of the population are more uneducated than this past week, without those checks to see if the "sane" choice is being made, I can see us going down the crapper as a nation, even quicker than what happened 6 days ago...

the electoral congress is needed because without it the population of Chicago, Los Angels, Philadelphia, and New York City would decide the presidency how is that fair to the small states. I will let you guess. IT isn't

Well, that's where most of the population is so it is fair that they get more representation.

Plus, you've also got congress to represent your wishes, and that is what it's designed to do, more so than the presidency.

I already Told you this on a different thread and I Quote
"Isis can print Syrian passports if they want to so i can't tell if Mr. Smith is a refuge or a terrorist (I use smith as an example). Our immigration Screening process is a freaking joke. He wants to fix it then allow the refuges to flow in so we can make sure Mr Smith is not a terrorist."
I am not saying that you are 1 or that anyone else is.
He wants to ban Incoming Muslims not 1s that are already here. As Said our screening process is a joke XD and we can't tell if Pablo (the drug lord) is actually Pablo or is He Juan form Columbia ( I use these names as examples)

And as for a Ideology https://www.politicalislam.com/about/

I promise you their's a Ideology behind Islam (or atlas a Fundamental 1) their's 1 for every Religion Islam Included. (just to make sure I asked a classmate if all of the stuff in the link was accurate and she said yes.

Lmao, you're not very educated on this. The US has the most difficult and extreme vetting process that takes 6 months before they accept refugees? Also, Trump said Muslims entering the US, implying ALL 1.6 billion regardless of their residency or citizenship. His ban is absurd: lets ban ALL 1.6 billion Muslims because ISIS exists. By that logic all whites should be banned from other countries because the KKK exists. Anyways, moving on, every religion has extremism. There's fundamentalist Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, and it's unfair to the majority of the followers who are not fundamentalist to be grouped as the same. "Asked a classmate" LOL