Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

How Effective is Trump's "Muslim Ban"? Watch

Announcements
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    And the aforementioned articles and amendments add context to the context, making it still irrelevant because to hold any relevance relies on assumptions that simply cannot be made, namely that campaigns and outcomes in terms of each individual vote are unaffected by the electoral system in place.
    What a complete non-post.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Palmyra)
    What a complete non-post.
    About as much of a non post as any declaring the popular vote a major indicator, especially given the popular vote result is wholly down to California

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (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
    • Offline

      18
      (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:
      Offline

      18
      ReputationRep:
      (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
      • Thread Starter
      Offline

      17
      ReputationRep:
      (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.
      Offline

      18
      ReputationRep:
      (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
      • Thread Starter
      Offline

      17
      ReputationRep:
      (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".
      Offline

      18
      ReputationRep:
      (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
      • Thread Starter
      Offline

      17
      ReputationRep:
      (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?
      Offline

      18
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Palmyra)
      :facepalm:

      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
      • Thread Starter
      Offline

      17
      ReputationRep:
      (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?
      • Offline

        18
        (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.
        Offline

        3
        ReputationRep:
        (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.
        Offline

        18
        ReputationRep:
        (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
        Offline

        0
        ReputationRep:
        Was 9/11 just a dream I had??? I'm sick of people constantly comparing death figures/totals basically defending terrorist's.
        • Thread Starter
        Offline

        17
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by Closer2God)
        Was 9/11 just a dream I had??? I'm sick of people constantly comparing death figures/totals basically defending terrorist's.
        No, it definitely wasn't a dream. The 19 hijackers who carried out the 9/11 attacks were also not a dream. They were citizens of Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Egypt and Lebanon. But none of these countries are included in Trump's 'travel ban' - why not?

        In fact, Trump has recently approved a multi-billion dollar weapons deal to Saudi Arabia, despite previously calling Saudi the greatest source of terrorism in the world.

        I'm sick of Trump and his supporters basically defending terrorists.
       
       
       
      Reply
      Submit reply
      TSR Support Team

      We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

      Updated: March 31, 2017
    • See more of what you like on The Student Room

      You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

    • Poll
      Will you be richer or poorer than your parents?
      Useful resources
    • See more of what you like on The Student Room

      You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

    • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

      Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

      Quick reply
      Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.