5 ms·

You realize that the large country you're mentioning, with many opinions, still elect 1 president, who represents that large country with different opinions?

by zenlot 1y ago

danaris 1y ago
You realize that no more than a third of the people in the country actually voted for said president?
- zenlot 1y ago
  You realize, that it doesn't change the fact, that the elected president represents that large country with many opinions?
  - danaris 1y ago
    I genuinely believe that, at this point, that starts to stretch the definition of the word "represents." It's readily apparent that no president for the past decade has clearly represented a majority of the country (as opposed to a plurality) in the sense that they voted for or supported him. But Trump has gone further, and openly declared that not only does he not consider himself to represent the people politically opposed to him, he considers them to be dangerous violent extremists. At what point do you admit that a fascist dictator no longer meaningfully "represents" the people he rules?
    - sfn42 1y ago
      When they stop voting for him, and when the people who are supposedly against him actually get off the couch and vote against him, how about that?
      - paulryanrogers 1y ago
        Please keep in mind many non-voters aren't laying around on the couch, but working multiple jobs trying to pay rent and healthcare. Our unitary president is talking about restricting mail in voting and taking other measures to ensure the desired outcome. He's already resorted to sending fake electors, demanding votes be 'found', and inciting violence to interrupt the results of elections he doesn't like. (And pardoning those found guilty of participating in such interference on his behalf.)
        armitron 1y ago
        Trump is trying hard to get voter id passed (common sense in Europe) and he’s obviously not doing that because he wants to cheat in elections. Your characterization is therefore misguided in the extreme. We only need to look at states like California and their complete absence of voter id to realize where and for whom rampant election fraud takes place.
        danaris 1y ago
        > he’s obviously not doing that because he wants to cheat in elections No, that's exactly why he wants to do it. Requiring voter ID makes it much harder for poor people—disproportionately likely to be minorities, vastly more likely to be city-dwellers (who don't need a driver's license)—to vote. There is no rampant vote fraud. There have been many, many studies on this. Even the ones from Republicans prove that there are no more than a tiny, tiny handful of people who ever deliberately try to vote where they're not eligible (including multiple voting, etc).
        lisbbb 1y ago
        [flagged]
        lovich 1y ago
        He tried to overturn the results of the 2020 election with the false slates of electors in various states. We don’t have to theorize if he’s the kind of man who would cheat in an election when he has already done it before
        lisbbb 1y ago
        That's a mischaracterization of what took place. The alternate slates of electors were exactly what is prescribed legally and had to exist in case the courts ruled in his favor. If the alternate electors didn't exist, and the case was successful, too bad, so sad, original electors are sent to DC. That's why the electors who were charged with crimes had the charges all dropped. You were witnessing lawfare and media distortions of actual long-standing, but little used processes.
      - soulofmischief 1y ago
        The billions of dollars poured into post-industrial revolution, pro-capitalist propaganda in US politics mean we cannot simply blame the populace for being brainwashed or wrong. This is a concerted effort over many generations, people are born into the propaganda machine and biased media. Fixing this starts from the top.
soulofmischief 1y ago
No, I don't realize that, because it's laughably false. The president is not elected to represent me, that's what Congress is supposed to be for. A single man cannot possibly represent a country of 340 million people. It's understandably easy for people from smaller countries to not be able to fathom just how big and divided America is.
- sfn42 1y ago
  It's exactly the same thing man. 34 million people is pretty unfathomable too. One person can't truly represent all those just like one person can't truly represent 340 people. Unless of course those 340 people all self selected to follow that one person, but that's not how countries work. In all cases the members of the group choose whoever gets the most votes and everyone is never happy. The semantics of how the voting works may change but at the end of the day the people chose their president. And it just so happens the US chose a disgraceful orange clown twice. For all their biglyness and dividedness, that's who they managed to unite behind. You can explain it however you want, to me it definitely means something and it's not a good thing.
  - soulofmischief 1y ago
    You are fundamentally misunderstanding the size and complexity of US politics, and harmfully oversimplifying what it means for a country to "choose" representation. America is extremely divided, and viewing it as a single country where the "losers" deserve the negative consequences of the "winners'" choices is just absurd and void of empathy.
- zenlot 1y ago
  > A single man cannot possibly represent a country of 340 million people. So how many presidents US have? 1 or many? I don't mind you're putting your opinion out, but it doesn't change the fact, despite that it sounds laughable to you.
  - soulofmischief 1y ago
    It might seem like an opinion if you're uneducated about the American political system, but if you kill the negativity and actually go study how our government is balanced, you would realize that Congress represents the people, the president is a necessary function within our political framework, but the intention was never for a single person to represent the entire country, or we wouldn't have an entire legislative branch dedicated to just that.

You realize that the large country you're mentioning, with many opinions, still elect 1 president, who represents that large country with different opinions?

by zenlot 1y ago

You realize that the large country you're mentioning, with many opinions, still elect 1 president, who represents that large country with different opinions?

danaris 1y ago

You realize that no more than a third of the people in the country actually voted for said president?

zenlot 1y ago
You realize, that it doesn't change the fact, that the elected president represents that large country with many opinions?
- danaris 1y ago
  I genuinely believe that, at this point, that starts to stretch the definition of the word "represents." It's readily apparent that no president for the past decade has clearly represented a majority of the country (as opposed to a plurality) in the sense that they voted for or supported him. But Trump has gone further, and openly declared that not only does he not consider himself to represent the people politically opposed to him, he considers them to be dangerous violent extremists. At what point do you admit that a fascist dictator no longer meaningfully "represents" the people he rules?
  - sfn42 1y ago
    When they stop voting for him, and when the people who are supposedly against him actually get off the couch and vote against him, how about that?
    - paulryanrogers 1y ago
      Please keep in mind many non-voters aren't laying around on the couch, but working multiple jobs trying to pay rent and healthcare. Our unitary president is talking about restricting mail in voting and taking other measures to ensure the desired outcome. He's already resorted to sending fake electors, demanding votes be 'found', and inciting violence to interrupt the results of elections he doesn't like. (And pardoning those found guilty of participating in such interference on his behalf.)
      - armitron 1y ago
        Trump is trying hard to get voter id passed (common sense in Europe) and he’s obviously not doing that because he wants to cheat in elections. Your characterization is therefore misguided in the extreme. We only need to look at states like California and their complete absence of voter id to realize where and for whom rampant election fraud takes place.
        danaris 1y ago
        > he’s obviously not doing that because he wants to cheat in elections No, that's exactly why he wants to do it. Requiring voter ID makes it much harder for poor people—disproportionately likely to be minorities, vastly more likely to be city-dwellers (who don't need a driver's license)—to vote. There is no rampant vote fraud. There have been many, many studies on this. Even the ones from Republicans prove that there are no more than a tiny, tiny handful of people who ever deliberately try to vote where they're not eligible (including multiple voting, etc).
        lisbbb 1y ago
        [flagged]
        lovich 1y ago
        He tried to overturn the results of the 2020 election with the false slates of electors in various states. We don’t have to theorize if he’s the kind of man who would cheat in an election when he has already done it before
        lisbbb 1y ago
        That's a mischaracterization of what took place. The alternate slates of electors were exactly what is prescribed legally and had to exist in case the courts ruled in his favor. If the alternate electors didn't exist, and the case was successful, too bad, so sad, original electors are sent to DC. That's why the electors who were charged with crimes had the charges all dropped. You were witnessing lawfare and media distortions of actual long-standing, but little used processes.
    - soulofmischief 1y ago
      The billions of dollars poured into post-industrial revolution, pro-capitalist propaganda in US politics mean we cannot simply blame the populace for being brainwashed or wrong. This is a concerted effort over many generations, people are born into the propaganda machine and biased media. Fixing this starts from the top.

soulofmischief 1y ago

No, I don't realize that, because it's laughably false. The president is not elected to represent me, that's what Congress is supposed to be for. A single man cannot possibly represent a country of 340 million people. It's understandably easy for people from smaller countries to not be able to fathom just how big and divided America is.

sfn42 1y ago
It's exactly the same thing man. 34 million people is pretty unfathomable too. One person can't truly represent all those just like one person can't truly represent 340 people. Unless of course those 340 people all self selected to follow that one person, but that's not how countries work. In all cases the members of the group choose whoever gets the most votes and everyone is never happy. The semantics of how the voting works may change but at the end of the day the people chose their president. And it just so happens the US chose a disgraceful orange clown twice. For all their biglyness and dividedness, that's who they managed to unite behind. You can explain it however you want, to me it definitely means something and it's not a good thing.
- soulofmischief 1y ago
  You are fundamentally misunderstanding the size and complexity of US politics, and harmfully oversimplifying what it means for a country to "choose" representation. America is extremely divided, and viewing it as a single country where the "losers" deserve the negative consequences of the "winners'" choices is just absurd and void of empathy.
zenlot 1y ago
> A single man cannot possibly represent a country of 340 million people. So how many presidents US have? 1 or many? I don't mind you're putting your opinion out, but it doesn't change the fact, despite that it sounds laughable to you.
- soulofmischief 1y ago
  It might seem like an opinion if you're uneducated about the American political system, but if you kill the negativity and actually go study how our government is balanced, you would realize that Congress represents the people, the president is a necessary function within our political framework, but the intention was never for a single person to represent the entire country, or we wouldn't have an entire legislative branch dedicated to just that.