How Effective is Trump&#x27;s &quot;Muslim Ban&quot;?

OP

Original post by Jammy Duel

the popular vote result is wholly down to California

137 million people voted and comprised the popular vote, of which California contributed 14 million votes - little over 10% of the overall popular vote.

10% is quite clearly not "wholly" - more fake news from Trumptards.

Reply 262

Original post by Palmyra

So you are saying that most people do not support this policy?

Firstly, he lost the popular vote and more people voted for Hillary than Trump.

Secondly, and more importantly, your comment is dangerous because it seems to imply that there should be no accountability or criticism of a President's policies. For some reason I do not think you would be espousing such a view were HC the POTUS.

More "alternative facts". He never banned legal immigration from any country.

The popular vote means nothing when it's all done on the electoral vote. The complaining only really started after Hillary lost. Most people don't support the policy because it's being labelled as a Muslim ban, despite it being a temporary suspension for 90 days and being for everyone in those countries. The media decides what they print, and many don't hear the full story. Also, many people seem to forget the idea of illegal immigrants being called illegal means they are committing a crime by being in the States, but liberals don't want to get rid of them, mainly because they think he wants to get rid of ALL Mexicans and ALL Muslims, which simply isn't true

Reply 263

troubadour.

19

Original post by That'sGreat

The complaining only really started after Hillary lost.

People have been complaining about the electoral college for much longer than that. :erm:

Reply 264

Original post by Hydeman

People have been complaining about the electoral college for much longer than that. :erm:

Only 'really' started is suggesting it wasn't such a big deal until now. And electoral college is the fairest way to do things

Reply 265

OP

Original post by That'sGreat

And electoral college is the fairest way to do things

Not that this is at all relevant to this thread, but I wonder if you would be saying this if Hillary lost the popular vote but won the electoral college.

The electoral college requires an inherently arbitrary division of electoral college votes among states, whereas the popular vote is just raw votes - I find it hard how anyone can argue that the former is 'fairer' than the latter.

Reply 266

Original post by Palmyra

Not that this is at all relevant to this thread, but I wonder if you would be saying this if Hillary lost the popular vote but won the electoral college.

The electoral college requires an inherently arbitrary division of electoral college votes among states, whereas the popular vote is just raw votes - I find it hard how anyone can argue that the former is 'fairer' than the latter.

It means the President won't be voted in just because California etc. Wanted him to be. It allows all the states to be heard, hence its called the United States. Of course I wouldn't be happy that Hillary won, but I wouldn't blame the electoral college

Reply 267

OP

Original post by That'sGreat

It means the President won't be voted in just because California etc.

California only constitutes 10% of the overall popular vote. It's so hilarious when Trumptards can't see how retarded their logic is (which is most of the time) - "California etc", why don't you just prevent the states you dislike from voting all together?

It allows all the states to be heard, hence its called the United States.

As incredibly persuasive as your conjecture is, a raw popular vote system would allow all the individuals in all the states "to be heard".

Reply 268

Original post by Palmyra

California only constitutes 10% of the overall popular vote. It's so hilarious when Trumptards can't see how retarded their logic is (which is most of the time) - "California etc", why don't you just prevent the states you dislike from voting all together?

As incredibly persuasive as your conjecture is, a raw popular vote system would allow all the individuals in all the states "to be heard".

No. Popular vote would mean the Presidency would constantly be decided New York, California and Texas, what about the small guys who want to have their voices heard? Trumptards? What, for believing in a system that allows everyone to have a meaningful vote? And how does me doing California etc, mean I want states to be discounted for the voting, the whole point is that I want them to be all counted for. Use your brain

Reply 269

OP

Original post by That'sGreat

what about the small guys who want to have their voices heard?
:facepalm:

Everyone would have their voice heard - what part of one person one vote do you not understand?

Reply 270

Original post by Palmyra

Everyone would have their voice heard - what part of one person one vote do you not understand?

Which part of a state having 38 million and a state having 1 million do you not understand? I'm going to bed now

Reply 271

OP

Original post by That'sGreat

Which part of a state having 38 million and a state having 1 million do you not understand? I'm going to bed now

What part of candidate X getting 38 million votes and candidate Y getting 1 million votes means that it would be unfair for candidate X to win is a terrible argument do you not understand?

Reply 272

troubadour.

19

Original post by That'sGreat

Only 'really' started is suggesting it wasn't such a big deal until now.

It was a pretty big deal after the 2000 election.

And electoral college is the fairest way to do things

Depends entirely on whose interests you prioritise.

Reply 273

Caius Filimon

17

Original post by Palmyra

What part of candidate X getting 38 million votes and candidate Y getting 1 million votes means that it would be unfair for candidate X to win is a terrible argument do you not understand?

The point is that the states with larger populations would steamroll the interests of ALL other less populated states.

Namely, California and the other highly populated states would have THEIR interests catered to by presidential runner-ups while the smaller states that only contain a few million people would have their interests COMPLETELY IGNORED.

Even if the few million in the smaller states would be nominally heard, they would very likely be fully ignored by the programs of the presidents because the presidents would aim to appeal to the interest of far more densely populated states because that's where the votes are.

That's the disadvantage of a one man one vote system in the context of the UNITED STATES. Is it clear enough now?

I'm not saying the system isn't faulty though and frankly quite weak. Regardless, a one man one vote system would definitely not be any better.

--
Likewise, a ban on countries that have sourced ZERO deaths from terrorism in the USA for the past decades is clearly in no way effective, if only for anything BUT political maneuvering on Trump's part.

Reply 274

Original post by Palmyra

What part of candidate X getting 38 million votes and candidate Y getting 1 million votes means that it would be unfair for candidate X to win is a terrible argument do you not understand?

You really have no idea how the electoral college works

Reply 275

Closer2God

Was 9/11 just a dream I had??? I'm sick of people constantly comparing death figures/totals basically defending terrorist's.

Reply 276

OP