7 ms·

You can't call trump an extremist when half the country voted for him.

ArkyBeagle 10y ago
This country was founded by extremists.
Jtsummers 10y ago
1) Seems a bit strong to tell someone what they can and can't say. 2) He didn't get half the country to vote for him. It looks like around 55-60% of voters turned out this year (the whole tally isn't calculated yet). Of those, he got less than 50% (as Clinton got more votes than him). So at best he seems to have gotten around 30% of the voters to vote for him. Not everyone is a voter (age, other disqualifying factors). So even if he had somehow gotten 50% of voters (which, again, he didn't), he'd still have less than half the country voting for him.
- wtbob 10y ago
  > Of those, he got less than 50% (as Clinton got more votes than him). Mrs. Clinton also got less than 50% of the votes. Neither one won a clear majority of the popular vote.
  - tptacek 10y ago
    You are rebutting an argument nobody made.
    - wtbob 10y ago
      His phrase, 'he got less than 50% (as Clinton got more votes than him),' implies that Mr. Trump received less than 50% because Mrs. Clinton received more votes than him, which is not true: they both received less than 50% because a significant portion of voters chose not to vote for either.
      - Jtsummers 10y ago
        If there are at least two candidates in an election, and one has more votes than all the others, none of the others can have over 50%. This does not, strictly speaking, imply that the winning (by plurality rules, not majority rules) candidate has over 50%, it merely sets the bounds on what all other candidates can have. Clinton has more votes (popular vote) than Trump, ergo, he cannot have had 50% of the vote. That was my statement, and it's a factual statement. You interpreted it to imply that she, then, must have had over 50% of the vote. That was not my statement nor my intended implication.
  - Jtsummers 10y ago
    You are correct. I didn't say otherwise. EDIT: Out of curiosity I looked some numbers up, going just by the ones that did turn out to vote, she has 47.52% of the cast votes, he has 47.19%. The difference in votes is around 400k.
    - wtbob 10y ago
      > I didn't say otherwise. Well, you wrote, 'he got less than 50% (as Clinton got more votes than him),' which means that the reason Mr. Trump received less than half the votes is that Mrs. Clinton received more than half the votes, which isn't true: both of them received less than half the votes because some voters voted for neither. It's interesting that I'm being downvoted because folks think I'm a Trump partisan (I'm not!) I'm just pointing out facts, not opinion.
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
      - Jtsummers 10y ago
        I was responding to someone claiming that a majority voted for Trump, which is a falsifiable statement. My response was to use the quickest, factual statement to counter it (Clinton had the largest block of the popular vote, therefore Trump must be under 50%). Perhaps I should have responded with the actual percentages (which showed they were both under the 50% mark), but there's no need to read into my writing statements that I did not make.
        wtbob 10y ago
        Yup, you're right. I've been so annoyed at folks claiming that either of them got the majority of the votes that I completely misread your claim.
- vivekd 10y ago
  I agree with gnarbarian. Being an extremist is defined as being far outside the norm. Even with a low voter count, it seems irrational to suggest that the majority of the people who voted in this election are people with views far outside the norm in America and the majority with ordinary views just didn't go to the polls. If someone can convince the large majority of voters in a country to pick them, I think it's a strong suggestion that their views are well within the norm for that country. Trump could never be elected into office here in Canada, even with a low voter count because his views are far outside of the norm of how many Canadians think. America is different with a different culture, and the only evidence we have (polling data) suggests that the views of a great many Americans in 2016 line up pretty closely with the views of Mr. Trump.
  - Jtsummers 10y ago
    Google - define:extremist a person who holds extreme or fanatical political or religious views, especially one who resorts to or advocates extreme action. Nothing about this requires they not be the majority or even a very significant minority. It just requires they hold extreme views. Nothing about this requires viewing them only through a local and not a global lens, either. And just because people voted for Trump doesn't mean they agree with all or even any of his positions. (Anecdata) I've spent the last several days speaking with numerous people who voted for him despite disagreement on many of his policy positions, strictly because they were voting against Clinton.
    - vivekd 10y ago
      But how do you define extreme? Consider this, believing non-whites are morally and intellectually inferior would be considered an extreme and fanatical position. However this was not considered an extreme position in the 1800s because, unforutnately, it was the majority position. The problem you are having is you are defining extreme with reference to what you and the people around you believe to be extreme and fanatical rather than defining it based on what the majority consider extreme and fanatical, and the best evidence we have for the majority view in America is a very recent poll.
- masondixon 10y ago
  > Seems a bit strong to tell someone what they can and can't say. Oh the irony. Political correctness played a large part in this election especially for the youth vote. The left says: here is a list of things you can't say. Here are the punishments for saying them (public shaming, etc.). The right says: say anything you like.
  - kafkaesq 10y ago
    The right says: say anything you like. Unless it's in reference to a certain political candidate's hair, that is: http://www.thewrap.com/gawker-says-peter-thiels-lawyer-threatened-lawsuit-over-article-about-trumps-hair/ http://www.thewrap.com/gawker-says-peter-thiels-lawyer-threa...
- lightcatcher 10y ago
  > So at best he seems to have gotten around 30% of the voters to vote for him. What do you mean by this exactly? Trump lost the popular election with 47.5% support to Clinton's 47.7%. How did you come up with the "around 30%" figure?
  - Jtsummers 10y ago
    Assuming 60% voter turnout (55-60% based on tallies at the time I wrote that, so 60% is the most optimistic/generous view). With 47.5% of that 60%, that puts him at around 28.5% of all potential voters voting for him. Near enough to 30% for my back of the envelope calculations. I did neglect the third-party candidates' percentages when I made that estimate, though.
  - grzm 10y ago
    Perhaps that's looking at the number of eligible voters, rather than a percentage of actual votes cast. http://heavy.com/news/2016/11/eligible-voter-turnout-for-2016-data-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-republican-democrat-popular-vote-registered-results/ http://heavy.com/news/2016/11/eligible-voter-turnout-for-201... 231,556,622 eligible voters 59,791,135 for Trump (25.8%) 60,071,781 for Clinton (25.9%) I just grabbed the first website in the search results that had numbers, which are based on projections. I'm not standing behind their accuracy (I don't even recognize the site), but I have no reason to suspect they'd be purposefully wrong. And we're talking ballpark figures anyway.
    - Jtsummers 10y ago
      Thanks, I was about to edit my post with more accurate numbers but yours work.
tptacek 10y ago
Yes, you can. Your rebuttal doesn't even hold together logically. Extremism isn't defined by lack of popular support. Our entire system of government was designed in part out of a fear of the extremism of the massed public.
- kordless 10y ago
  We do like our roads and cars here.
pharrington 10y ago
Perhaps the man who lives in a golden palace with this name emblazoned on it isn't actually representative of half the country?

This country was founded by extremists.

1) Seems a bit strong to tell someone what they can and can't say. 2) He didn't get half the country to vote for him. It looks like around 55-60% of voters turned out this year (the whole tally isn't calculated yet). Of those, he got less than 50% (as Clinton got more votes than him). So at best he seems to have gotten around 30% of the voters to vote for him. Not everyone is a voter (age, other disqualifying factors). So even if he had somehow gotten 50% of voters (which, again, he didn't), he'd still have less than half the country voting for him.

wtbob 10y ago
> Of those, he got less than 50% (as Clinton got more votes than him). Mrs. Clinton also got less than 50% of the votes. Neither one won a clear majority of the popular vote.
- tptacek 10y ago
  You are rebutting an argument nobody made.
  - wtbob 10y ago
    His phrase, 'he got less than 50% (as Clinton got more votes than him),' implies that Mr. Trump received less than 50% because Mrs. Clinton received more votes than him, which is not true: they both received less than 50% because a significant portion of voters chose not to vote for either.
    - Jtsummers 10y ago
      If there are at least two candidates in an election, and one has more votes than all the others, none of the others can have over 50%. This does not, strictly speaking, imply that the winning (by plurality rules, not majority rules) candidate has over 50%, it merely sets the bounds on what all other candidates can have. Clinton has more votes (popular vote) than Trump, ergo, he cannot have had 50% of the vote. That was my statement, and it's a factual statement. You interpreted it to imply that she, then, must have had over 50% of the vote. That was not my statement nor my intended implication.
- Jtsummers 10y ago
  You are correct. I didn't say otherwise. EDIT: Out of curiosity I looked some numbers up, going just by the ones that did turn out to vote, she has 47.52% of the cast votes, he has 47.19%. The difference in votes is around 400k.
  - wtbob 10y ago
    > I didn't say otherwise. Well, you wrote, 'he got less than 50% (as Clinton got more votes than him),' which means that the reason Mr. Trump received less than half the votes is that Mrs. Clinton received more than half the votes, which isn't true: both of them received less than half the votes because some voters voted for neither. It's interesting that I'm being downvoted because folks think I'm a Trump partisan (I'm not!) I'm just pointing out facts, not opinion.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - Jtsummers 10y ago
      I was responding to someone claiming that a majority voted for Trump, which is a falsifiable statement. My response was to use the quickest, factual statement to counter it (Clinton had the largest block of the popular vote, therefore Trump must be under 50%). Perhaps I should have responded with the actual percentages (which showed they were both under the 50% mark), but there's no need to read into my writing statements that I did not make.
      - wtbob 10y ago
        Yup, you're right. I've been so annoyed at folks claiming that either of them got the majority of the votes that I completely misread your claim.
vivekd 10y ago
I agree with gnarbarian. Being an extremist is defined as being far outside the norm. Even with a low voter count, it seems irrational to suggest that the majority of the people who voted in this election are people with views far outside the norm in America and the majority with ordinary views just didn't go to the polls. If someone can convince the large majority of voters in a country to pick them, I think it's a strong suggestion that their views are well within the norm for that country. Trump could never be elected into office here in Canada, even with a low voter count because his views are far outside of the norm of how many Canadians think. America is different with a different culture, and the only evidence we have (polling data) suggests that the views of a great many Americans in 2016 line up pretty closely with the views of Mr. Trump.
- Jtsummers 10y ago
  Google - define:extremist a person who holds extreme or fanatical political or religious views, especially one who resorts to or advocates extreme action. Nothing about this requires they not be the majority or even a very significant minority. It just requires they hold extreme views. Nothing about this requires viewing them only through a local and not a global lens, either. And just because people voted for Trump doesn't mean they agree with all or even any of his positions. (Anecdata) I've spent the last several days speaking with numerous people who voted for him despite disagreement on many of his policy positions, strictly because they were voting against Clinton.
  - vivekd 10y ago
    But how do you define extreme? Consider this, believing non-whites are morally and intellectually inferior would be considered an extreme and fanatical position. However this was not considered an extreme position in the 1800s because, unforutnately, it was the majority position. The problem you are having is you are defining extreme with reference to what you and the people around you believe to be extreme and fanatical rather than defining it based on what the majority consider extreme and fanatical, and the best evidence we have for the majority view in America is a very recent poll.
masondixon 10y ago
> Seems a bit strong to tell someone what they can and can't say. Oh the irony. Political correctness played a large part in this election especially for the youth vote. The left says: here is a list of things you can't say. Here are the punishments for saying them (public shaming, etc.). The right says: say anything you like.
- kafkaesq 10y ago
  The right says: say anything you like. Unless it's in reference to a certain political candidate's hair, that is: http://www.thewrap.com/gawker-says-peter-thiels-lawyer-threatened-lawsuit-over-article-about-trumps-hair/ http://www.thewrap.com/gawker-says-peter-thiels-lawyer-threa...
lightcatcher 10y ago
> So at best he seems to have gotten around 30% of the voters to vote for him. What do you mean by this exactly? Trump lost the popular election with 47.5% support to Clinton's 47.7%. How did you come up with the "around 30%" figure?
- Jtsummers 10y ago
  Assuming 60% voter turnout (55-60% based on tallies at the time I wrote that, so 60% is the most optimistic/generous view). With 47.5% of that 60%, that puts him at around 28.5% of all potential voters voting for him. Near enough to 30% for my back of the envelope calculations. I did neglect the third-party candidates' percentages when I made that estimate, though.
- grzm 10y ago
  Perhaps that's looking at the number of eligible voters, rather than a percentage of actual votes cast. http://heavy.com/news/2016/11/eligible-voter-turnout-for-2016-data-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-republican-democrat-popular-vote-registered-results/ http://heavy.com/news/2016/11/eligible-voter-turnout-for-201... 231,556,622 eligible voters 59,791,135 for Trump (25.8%) 60,071,781 for Clinton (25.9%) I just grabbed the first website in the search results that had numbers, which are based on projections. I'm not standing behind their accuracy (I don't even recognize the site), but I have no reason to suspect they'd be purposefully wrong. And we're talking ballpark figures anyway.
  - Jtsummers 10y ago
    Thanks, I was about to edit my post with more accurate numbers but yours work.

tptacek 10y ago

Yes, you can. Your rebuttal doesn't even hold together logically. Extremism isn't defined by lack of popular support. Our entire system of government was designed in part out of a fear of the extremism of the massed public.

kordless 10y ago
We do like our roads and cars here.

pharrington 10y ago

Perhaps the man who lives in a golden palace with this name emblazoned on it isn't actually representative of half the country?