5 ms·

The Trump policies are those of the democratically elected leader, which means it's the will of almost the majority of Americans that there should be such trave

by trexen 8y ago

The Trump policies are those of the democratically elected leader, which means it's the will of almost the majority of Americans that there should be such travel restrictions. Seems a strange and disturbing choice that the US public has made but their willl should be respected. Democracy provides for people to vote out the leadership if they don't agree, although the Google seems to suggest trump is currently looking good for reelection.

rsynnott 8y ago
> Seems a strange and disturbing choice that the US public has made but their willl should be respected. Sure. The US has, for now, chosen to adopt hostile immigration policies, which will incentivise international conference organisers to avoid it, like they do other countries with hostile immigration policies. I'm not sure where you see a problem? > although the Google seems to suggest trump is currently looking good for reelection Eh? How did Google do that?
Larrikin 8y ago
The majority of people who voted did not vote for Trump.
- RightMillennial 8y ago
  True, but Trump got the votes where they mattered. Since we're categorizing votes, a majority of people didn't vote for president at all (44.37%) when compared to Clinton (28.43%) or Trump (27.20%) [1]. [1]: https://brilliantmaps.com/did-not-vote/ https://brilliantmaps.com/did-not-vote/
samfisher83 8y ago
Trump didn't get the majority of the vote. He won the electoral college.
- perl4ever 8y ago
  You are responding to a more defensible statement than what was made above, as it said "Americans" and not "voters". Turnout was 55.7% and Trump got 46.1%, which means he got about 25.7% of the possible voters. Clearly not "almost" a majority.
  - dllthomas 8y ago
    And of course there are plenty of Americans who aren't eligible to vote.
    - perl4ever 8y ago
      Yes, but I thought that interpreting "Americans" as including those not eligible to vote was too uncharitable in context and possibly in violation of the HN injunction to respond to the strongest possible interpretation of a comment. I was going for "the strongest possible, but no stronger".
      - dllthomas 8y ago
        On the one hand, I think it's a relevant bit of perspective. On the other hand, I heartily approve of the application of charity. Maybe there was a line you could walk that does both, pointing it out as an aside rather than as direct criticism of what was presented? shrug Keep up the good commenting :)
SketchySeaBeast 8y ago
The article says that guests can't attend because of the travel restrictions, so it's moving to accommodate those individuals. Are you saying that the conferences shouldn't be allowed to move because "almost the majority" of Americans made a decision? The tech industry, a very small group with specialized interests spread across a global theatre, and specifically, a particular set of conferences, an even smaller sample, is beholden to the almost will of the almost majority in one nation?
- lolc 8y ago
  > Are you saying that the conferences shouldn't be allowed to move because "almost the majority" of Americans made a decision? I didn't read it that way. I think the intent was to say that if anybody is to blame for this, it's the people who voted for Trump. And that their will will be respected when conferences are held somewhere else.
  - SketchySeaBeast 8y ago
    Yeah, I didn't get that from their statement, seemed a "well, this is the will of the people, so put up with it" sort of thing. Hopefully they'll clarify, because, yeah, I could be totally off base, and I don't want to mindlessly add to the hostility for an unwarranted reason.
- magduf 8y ago
  You totally misunderstood the intent of that comment; it looks just like a comment I would have written myself. He's correct, Trump was democratically elected, so his policies represent the will of the people. If people outside the country don't like this, it's their prerogative (and in fact their duty) to take their conference and its 25000 attendees and all the tourism dollars that entails to a location that's more welcoming. I'm sure the people who elected Trump will be more than happy to see all these foreigners not coming to the US.
  - SketchySeaBeast 8y ago
    Thank you for the clarification. In that case I absolutely agree. If the US and the "Will of the People" (which is largely decided through apathy it would seem) decide that they really don't want tech minds from around the world in their midst, I'm sure Canada will gladly take that on.
Svip 8y ago
Wait, what are suggesting the tech conferences do? Stay in the US? Isn't it also their freedom to choose where to operate? And if operating in the US makes their conference inconvenient or impossible for some of their attendees, doesn't it make sense to move it to another country?
perl4ever 8y ago
There is a certain tension between the phrases "democratically elected" and "almost the majority".
- magduf 8y ago
  An overwhelming majority of American voters support the election system that resulted in Trump winning. If they didn't, they would have demanded that their leaders change this system some time in the last 225+ years. They've demanded and gotten other changes during that time, such as the Constitutional Amendment which banned alcohol, and then the one shortly after that repealed it. If Americans thought our strange voting system was such a problem, we would have gotten it changed by now.
  - rsynnott 8y ago
    > An overwhelming majority of American voters support the election system that resulted in Trump winning. Eh? No they don't. See http://news.gallup.com/poll/2305/americans-long-questioned-electoral-college.aspx http://news.gallup.com/poll/2305/americans-long-questioned-e... For the last 50 years it has been divided with a majority favouring reform. It's just not something that most people care about _much_ (except in the immediate aftermath of an election where it has a grossly obvious effect), so it never attains the sense of urgency and permanency that might actually lead to a constitutional change.
    - magduf 8y ago
      You're quibbling. If people really cared about this issue, they'd be demanding change. If they really cared, they would have demanded change after Gore lost in 2000, and again in 2016 when Trump won. But they don't. The ones on the losing side complain "he wasn't elected by a majority! He shouldn't pursue his agenda!" while the ones on the winning side counter with "your side lost! get over it! This is the system we all use!" Have you seen any groundswell of movement to try to change any of the election laws? Of course not. We've seen people pushing for new gun laws (in the wakes of shootings), we've seen people pushing for marijuana legalization or decriminalization or rescheduling, we've seen people pushing for gay marriage (and winning), we've seen people pushing for higher minimum wage laws, but we have NOT seen any real push for electoral reform. Our gun laws have seen various changes (at all levels) over the decades, MJ was only banned in the 1930s IIRC, gay marriage only became an issue in the last couple decades, yet we've had these same election laws since the founding of the nation. If we really cared about changing them, we have done so by now. I, for one, certainly haven't seen any desire to change the Electoral College system on the right, since they benefit from it; instead, they steadfastly defend the system. So yes, a majority of Americans do support this election system.
lambda 8y ago
> almost the majority Trump was not elected by a "majority of Americans". He was not even elected by a majority of Americans who voted. In fact, he did not even win by a plurality of Americans who voted. Because of weirdness of the way the Presidential election process works in the US, it's possible to win the election with fewer votes than your opponent; you just need a majority of electors, but most states allocate electors in a winner-takes-all fashion. > there should be such travel restrictions Voting for someone does not mean that you agree with all of their policies. It's possible that a large number of Americans disagreed with those policies, but preferred other policies Trump held over Clinton, like lowering taxes and reducing regulations. Or that enough people were sufficiently uncomfortable with a woman as president. Or that enough people were convinced by the combination of Clinton conspiracy theories with the email scandal.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > but most states allocate electors in a winner-takes-all fashion. And, while there is a positive relationship between population and elector count, electors aren't even assigned proportional to population, so even if each state assigned electors proprtionately to the vote, you could still win with less votes than an opponent if your support is concentrated on low-population states.
netsharc 8y ago
Well, the conference organizers are "respecting" the "US public"'s choice by holding their conference somewhere where more people are welcome. If the management of the Holtin Hotels said brown-haired people are no longer welcome in their hotel, would you hold your conference (which has some brown haired people attendees) there or would you hold it somewhere else?
- ihsw2 8y ago
  That's not an appropriate comparison, the current administration is no more racist than the last (if anything it is less racist).
  - rsynnott 8y ago
    How racist or otherwise Donnie is is largely irrelevant in this case; the reality is, his policies make it more difficult for people to hold international conferences in the US, so they're beginning to go elsewhere. I don't see what's so hard to grasp about this.
  - krapp 8y ago
    > the current administration is no more racist than the last (if anything it is less racist) That reads like ideological boilerplate attempting to pass as fact. Can you back it up with something objective?
- magduf 8y ago
  >Well, the conference organizers are "respecting" the "US public"'s choice by holding their conference somewhere where more people are welcome. Yes, exactly. You don't need the scare-quotes. The voters of the US have spoken, and their will should be respected. If they don't want to be a welcoming place, that's their right. It's the conference organizers' right to take their conference someplace more welcoming, and it isn't disrespectful for them to do this. >If the management of the Holtin Hotels said brown-haired people are no longer welcome in their hotel, would you hold your conference (which has some brown haired people attendees) there or would you hold it somewhere else? Exactly! There's plenty of places in the world where you can have a large tech conference.
root_axis 8y ago
As others have already alluded to, Trump lost the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes, but even if he had won the popular vote that definitely doesn't mean his policies necessarily reflect the will of the majority of the American people (and the polls clearly demonstrate that the opposite is true)

by trexen 8y ago

rsynnott 8y ago

> Seems a strange and disturbing choice that the US public has made but their willl should be respected. Sure. The US has, for now, chosen to adopt hostile immigration policies, which will incentivise international conference organisers to avoid it, like they do other countries with hostile immigration policies. I'm not sure where you see a problem? > although the Google seems to suggest trump is currently looking good for reelection Eh? How did Google do that?

Larrikin 8y ago

The majority of people who voted did not vote for Trump.

RightMillennial 8y ago
True, but Trump got the votes where they mattered. Since we're categorizing votes, a majority of people didn't vote for president at all (44.37%) when compared to Clinton (28.43%) or Trump (27.20%) [1]. [1]: https://brilliantmaps.com/did-not-vote/ https://brilliantmaps.com/did-not-vote/

samfisher83 8y ago

Trump didn't get the majority of the vote. He won the electoral college.

perl4ever 8y ago
You are responding to a more defensible statement than what was made above, as it said "Americans" and not "voters". Turnout was 55.7% and Trump got 46.1%, which means he got about 25.7% of the possible voters. Clearly not "almost" a majority.
- dllthomas 8y ago
  And of course there are plenty of Americans who aren't eligible to vote.
  - perl4ever 8y ago
    Yes, but I thought that interpreting "Americans" as including those not eligible to vote was too uncharitable in context and possibly in violation of the HN injunction to respond to the strongest possible interpretation of a comment. I was going for "the strongest possible, but no stronger".
    - dllthomas 8y ago
      On the one hand, I think it's a relevant bit of perspective. On the other hand, I heartily approve of the application of charity. Maybe there was a line you could walk that does both, pointing it out as an aside rather than as direct criticism of what was presented? shrug Keep up the good commenting :)

SketchySeaBeast 8y ago

The article says that guests can't attend because of the travel restrictions, so it's moving to accommodate those individuals. Are you saying that the conferences shouldn't be allowed to move because "almost the majority" of Americans made a decision? The tech industry, a very small group with specialized interests spread across a global theatre, and specifically, a particular set of conferences, an even smaller sample, is beholden to the almost will of the almost majority in one nation?

lolc 8y ago
> Are you saying that the conferences shouldn't be allowed to move because "almost the majority" of Americans made a decision? I didn't read it that way. I think the intent was to say that if anybody is to blame for this, it's the people who voted for Trump. And that their will will be respected when conferences are held somewhere else.
- SketchySeaBeast 8y ago
  Yeah, I didn't get that from their statement, seemed a "well, this is the will of the people, so put up with it" sort of thing. Hopefully they'll clarify, because, yeah, I could be totally off base, and I don't want to mindlessly add to the hostility for an unwarranted reason.
magduf 8y ago
You totally misunderstood the intent of that comment; it looks just like a comment I would have written myself. He's correct, Trump was democratically elected, so his policies represent the will of the people. If people outside the country don't like this, it's their prerogative (and in fact their duty) to take their conference and its 25000 attendees and all the tourism dollars that entails to a location that's more welcoming. I'm sure the people who elected Trump will be more than happy to see all these foreigners not coming to the US.
- SketchySeaBeast 8y ago
  Thank you for the clarification. In that case I absolutely agree. If the US and the "Will of the People" (which is largely decided through apathy it would seem) decide that they really don't want tech minds from around the world in their midst, I'm sure Canada will gladly take that on.

Svip 8y ago

Wait, what are suggesting the tech conferences do? Stay in the US? Isn't it also their freedom to choose where to operate? And if operating in the US makes their conference inconvenient or impossible for some of their attendees, doesn't it make sense to move it to another country?

perl4ever 8y ago

There is a certain tension between the phrases "democratically elected" and "almost the majority".

magduf 8y ago
An overwhelming majority of American voters support the election system that resulted in Trump winning. If they didn't, they would have demanded that their leaders change this system some time in the last 225+ years. They've demanded and gotten other changes during that time, such as the Constitutional Amendment which banned alcohol, and then the one shortly after that repealed it. If Americans thought our strange voting system was such a problem, we would have gotten it changed by now.
- rsynnott 8y ago
  > An overwhelming majority of American voters support the election system that resulted in Trump winning. Eh? No they don't. See http://news.gallup.com/poll/2305/americans-long-questioned-electoral-college.aspx http://news.gallup.com/poll/2305/americans-long-questioned-e... For the last 50 years it has been divided with a majority favouring reform. It's just not something that most people care about _much_ (except in the immediate aftermath of an election where it has a grossly obvious effect), so it never attains the sense of urgency and permanency that might actually lead to a constitutional change.
  - magduf 8y ago
    You're quibbling. If people really cared about this issue, they'd be demanding change. If they really cared, they would have demanded change after Gore lost in 2000, and again in 2016 when Trump won. But they don't. The ones on the losing side complain "he wasn't elected by a majority! He shouldn't pursue his agenda!" while the ones on the winning side counter with "your side lost! get over it! This is the system we all use!" Have you seen any groundswell of movement to try to change any of the election laws? Of course not. We've seen people pushing for new gun laws (in the wakes of shootings), we've seen people pushing for marijuana legalization or decriminalization or rescheduling, we've seen people pushing for gay marriage (and winning), we've seen people pushing for higher minimum wage laws, but we have NOT seen any real push for electoral reform. Our gun laws have seen various changes (at all levels) over the decades, MJ was only banned in the 1930s IIRC, gay marriage only became an issue in the last couple decades, yet we've had these same election laws since the founding of the nation. If we really cared about changing them, we have done so by now. I, for one, certainly haven't seen any desire to change the Electoral College system on the right, since they benefit from it; instead, they steadfastly defend the system. So yes, a majority of Americans do support this election system.

lambda 8y ago

> almost the majority Trump was not elected by a "majority of Americans". He was not even elected by a majority of Americans who voted. In fact, he did not even win by a plurality of Americans who voted. Because of weirdness of the way the Presidential election process works in the US, it's possible to win the election with fewer votes than your opponent; you just need a majority of electors, but most states allocate electors in a winner-takes-all fashion. > there should be such travel restrictions Voting for someone does not mean that you agree with all of their policies. It's possible that a large number of Americans disagreed with those policies, but preferred other policies Trump held over Clinton, like lowering taxes and reducing regulations. Or that enough people were sufficiently uncomfortable with a woman as president. Or that enough people were convinced by the combination of Clinton conspiracy theories with the email scandal.

dragonwriter 8y ago
> but most states allocate electors in a winner-takes-all fashion. And, while there is a positive relationship between population and elector count, electors aren't even assigned proportional to population, so even if each state assigned electors proprtionately to the vote, you could still win with less votes than an opponent if your support is concentrated on low-population states.

netsharc 8y ago

Well, the conference organizers are "respecting" the "US public"'s choice by holding their conference somewhere where more people are welcome. If the management of the Holtin Hotels said brown-haired people are no longer welcome in their hotel, would you hold your conference (which has some brown haired people attendees) there or would you hold it somewhere else?

ihsw2 8y ago
That's not an appropriate comparison, the current administration is no more racist than the last (if anything it is less racist).
- rsynnott 8y ago
  How racist or otherwise Donnie is is largely irrelevant in this case; the reality is, his policies make it more difficult for people to hold international conferences in the US, so they're beginning to go elsewhere. I don't see what's so hard to grasp about this.
- krapp 8y ago
  > the current administration is no more racist than the last (if anything it is less racist) That reads like ideological boilerplate attempting to pass as fact. Can you back it up with something objective?
magduf 8y ago
>Well, the conference organizers are "respecting" the "US public"'s choice by holding their conference somewhere where more people are welcome. Yes, exactly. You don't need the scare-quotes. The voters of the US have spoken, and their will should be respected. If they don't want to be a welcoming place, that's their right. It's the conference organizers' right to take their conference someplace more welcoming, and it isn't disrespectful for them to do this. >If the management of the Holtin Hotels said brown-haired people are no longer welcome in their hotel, would you hold your conference (which has some brown haired people attendees) there or would you hold it somewhere else? Exactly! There's plenty of places in the world where you can have a large tech conference.

root_axis 8y ago

As others have already alluded to, Trump lost the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes, but even if he had won the popular vote that definitely doesn't mean his policies necessarily reflect the will of the majority of the American people (and the polls clearly demonstrate that the opposite is true)