6 ms·

I really find it amusing that it was Democrats accusing Trump of not accepting the outcome of an election....

by forgingahead 7y ago

duxup 7y ago
Is that what you think this story is about?
Fjolsvith 7y ago
I still don't understand why they call Trump a populist president when [HRC] had the bigger populist vote count.
- krustyburger 7y ago
  I think you may be confusing the words populist and popular.
- cybersnowflake 7y ago
  If Libs are SO concerned that the Will of the People must always be heard can we count on their support to bring back popular initiatives like CA Prop 187 that Judges struck down,have the census count citizens so that Blue States can't improperly gain Legislative seats, crack down on ballot harvesting (when it benefits them) and generally reverse all the things Libs have done that wouldn't have won in a straight majority vote of the population? No?
  - AngryData 7y ago
    Why would the census count citizens? We already know how many citizens we got, every US citizen has documentation on their existence. If you don't exist on paper already, you aren't a citizen as far as the US government is concerned. The census is for one thing, counting the number of people actually living in each area and the very basics of what conditions they live in. Being a citizen doesn't change whether you exist or not.
    - tomatocracy 7y ago
      I’m not American so I may be wrong on this, but my understanding of US law regarding birthright citizenship is that if you’re born in the US, regardless of your parents immigration or citizenship status, you’re considered a citizen. From this it would follow that the US citizen children of undocumented immigrants may well not have documentation of that fact.
    - sokoloff 7y ago
      If you wanted to know where the citizen children of a divorced and living in 2 states couple lived, how would you do that in a way that tied out for census purposes without doing a census? For retired people with houses in more than one state?
- ddingus 7y ago
  2016 was an establishment referendum election for many Americans. The number of people struggling economically rose to a majority during Obama. That has not gone without notice. Trump, whether it's true or not, positioned himself as an outsider. That's savvy, and potent in these times. Economic performance from both parties, in terms of ordinary working people, has been poor. It's tough for way too many people and being networked now, they know it, flat out. Clinton was seen as Obama 2.0, and that tepid performance, along with 1000+ seat party losses made for a difficult election, given Trumps positioning and willingness to work the crowds. (It's not really a debate as to whether he intended to follow up on any of that rhetoric. He had no intent other than to win.) All of that added up to populism. People responding to messages aimed at them. Again, I'm not speaking the merits of the current POTUS. Just that his messaging and positioning was solid populist on economic fronts, and moderate enough on social fronts to make for a compelling package. One must also consider very large numbers of people not voting. That share of people is actually quite large, and is larger than either party base right now. Getting those people involved basically means populist messaging right now too. It's still going to be a referendum. The economic difficulties are still in play. Anyway, maybe that helps frame it a bit. And it's just one way to look at it. There are several, likely valid. Populist may not = popular, and in this case didn't.
mikeash 7y ago
He outright said he wouldn’t accept the outcome if he lost. It’s not like this was some imagined scenario. He barely accepted the actual outcome! Despite winning, he couldn’t resist calling it rigged and saying millions of illegal votes were cast.
- microcolonel 7y ago
  Could it be that perhaps his opinions... didn't depend on the result? Seems like what you're describing is basically ideological consistency: believing the same thing both before and after it suits you, for the same stated reasons (polling places not adequately protecting the integrity of the ballot) on either side. Hillary Clinton just tried throwing a family friend under the bus because his research led somewhere she doesn't like; does that bother you equally?
  - guelo 7y ago
    > Hillary Clinton just tried... No idea what you're talking about. People that don't get their news from biased right wing sources are not usually up to date with the endless Hillary pseudo scandals.
    - microcolonel 7y ago
      A thread pulled together here by a helpful Twitter user, since Dr. Epstein doesn't know how to use Twitter properly: https://twitter.com/QuillnInk1776/status/1163950407569330176 https://twitter.com/QuillnInk1776/status/1163950407569330176 I got my news about this from the horse's mouth, I'd been following the guy's work before Hillary threw him under the bus. This is not a "biased right wing" story, it is a true story. > No idea what you're talking about. People that don't get their news from biased right wing sources are not usually up to date with the endless Hillary pseudo scandals. Frankly, how dare you cast those aspersions on me? Take that back. You can't just go calling people cynical, bad-faith actors because they've said something you aren't willing to look in to. I really do miss the left who were willing to consider that maybe, just maybe, a politician who receives significant monetary and material support from a particular major corporation, is willing to go to bat for that corporation in spite of the facts. It is no crime for you to be fond of Hillary Clinton, the Doctor himself is, despite what she's done to him this week. However, not every criticism of her actions is pseudo-something; sometimes it's just something.
wwweston 7y ago
I really find it amusing that you think you're making some kind of clever incisive point, but you apparently can't tell the difference between: (1) a candidate who said a loss for him meant the system was rigged vs a candidate who, in the end, actually conceded the election (2) refusing to accept the outcome of the election vs acknowledging the outcome while believing a different system would produce better results (3) a post that's about the limits of state ability to control EC votes vs a discussion that's about certain forms of structural countermajoritarianism

I really find it amusing that it was Democrats accusing Trump of not accepting the outcome of an election....

duxup 7y ago

Is that what you think this story is about?

Fjolsvith 7y ago

I still don't understand why they call Trump a populist president when [HRC] had the bigger populist vote count.

krustyburger 7y ago
I think you may be confusing the words populist and popular.
cybersnowflake 7y ago
If Libs are SO concerned that the Will of the People must always be heard can we count on their support to bring back popular initiatives like CA Prop 187 that Judges struck down,have the census count citizens so that Blue States can't improperly gain Legislative seats, crack down on ballot harvesting (when it benefits them) and generally reverse all the things Libs have done that wouldn't have won in a straight majority vote of the population? No?
- AngryData 7y ago
  Why would the census count citizens? We already know how many citizens we got, every US citizen has documentation on their existence. If you don't exist on paper already, you aren't a citizen as far as the US government is concerned. The census is for one thing, counting the number of people actually living in each area and the very basics of what conditions they live in. Being a citizen doesn't change whether you exist or not.
  - tomatocracy 7y ago
    I’m not American so I may be wrong on this, but my understanding of US law regarding birthright citizenship is that if you’re born in the US, regardless of your parents immigration or citizenship status, you’re considered a citizen. From this it would follow that the US citizen children of undocumented immigrants may well not have documentation of that fact.
  - sokoloff 7y ago
    If you wanted to know where the citizen children of a divorced and living in 2 states couple lived, how would you do that in a way that tied out for census purposes without doing a census? For retired people with houses in more than one state?
ddingus 7y ago
2016 was an establishment referendum election for many Americans. The number of people struggling economically rose to a majority during Obama. That has not gone without notice. Trump, whether it's true or not, positioned himself as an outsider. That's savvy, and potent in these times. Economic performance from both parties, in terms of ordinary working people, has been poor. It's tough for way too many people and being networked now, they know it, flat out. Clinton was seen as Obama 2.0, and that tepid performance, along with 1000+ seat party losses made for a difficult election, given Trumps positioning and willingness to work the crowds. (It's not really a debate as to whether he intended to follow up on any of that rhetoric. He had no intent other than to win.) All of that added up to populism. People responding to messages aimed at them. Again, I'm not speaking the merits of the current POTUS. Just that his messaging and positioning was solid populist on economic fronts, and moderate enough on social fronts to make for a compelling package. One must also consider very large numbers of people not voting. That share of people is actually quite large, and is larger than either party base right now. Getting those people involved basically means populist messaging right now too. It's still going to be a referendum. The economic difficulties are still in play. Anyway, maybe that helps frame it a bit. And it's just one way to look at it. There are several, likely valid. Populist may not = popular, and in this case didn't.

mikeash 7y ago

He outright said he wouldn’t accept the outcome if he lost. It’s not like this was some imagined scenario. He barely accepted the actual outcome! Despite winning, he couldn’t resist calling it rigged and saying millions of illegal votes were cast.

microcolonel 7y ago
Could it be that perhaps his opinions... didn't depend on the result? Seems like what you're describing is basically ideological consistency: believing the same thing both before and after it suits you, for the same stated reasons (polling places not adequately protecting the integrity of the ballot) on either side. Hillary Clinton just tried throwing a family friend under the bus because his research led somewhere she doesn't like; does that bother you equally?
- guelo 7y ago
  > Hillary Clinton just tried... No idea what you're talking about. People that don't get their news from biased right wing sources are not usually up to date with the endless Hillary pseudo scandals.
  - microcolonel 7y ago
    A thread pulled together here by a helpful Twitter user, since Dr. Epstein doesn't know how to use Twitter properly: https://twitter.com/QuillnInk1776/status/1163950407569330176 https://twitter.com/QuillnInk1776/status/1163950407569330176 I got my news about this from the horse's mouth, I'd been following the guy's work before Hillary threw him under the bus. This is not a "biased right wing" story, it is a true story. > No idea what you're talking about. People that don't get their news from biased right wing sources are not usually up to date with the endless Hillary pseudo scandals. Frankly, how dare you cast those aspersions on me? Take that back. You can't just go calling people cynical, bad-faith actors because they've said something you aren't willing to look in to. I really do miss the left who were willing to consider that maybe, just maybe, a politician who receives significant monetary and material support from a particular major corporation, is willing to go to bat for that corporation in spite of the facts. It is no crime for you to be fond of Hillary Clinton, the Doctor himself is, despite what she's done to him this week. However, not every criticism of her actions is pseudo-something; sometimes it's just something.

wwweston 7y ago

I really find it amusing that you think you're making some kind of clever incisive point, but you apparently can't tell the difference between: (1) a candidate who said a loss for him meant the system was rigged vs a candidate who, in the end, actually conceded the election (2) refusing to accept the outcome of the election vs acknowledging the outcome while believing a different system would produce better results (3) a post that's about the limits of state ability to control EC votes vs a discussion that's about certain forms of structural countermajoritarianism