This is normal in every election so you can use the same logic to dismiss any president. Do you only respect 100% sampling rates in other statistical situations?
At a certain point this line of thinking is just saying you don’t think elections work, or that there should be some non-democratic supervisor to undo bad ones.
There is also an older idea that getting people out to vote is part of the game. An election is when citizens back leaders from their community. It’s not taking a survey of every 18+ human life form with a pulse.
> This is normal in every election so you can use the same logic to dismiss any president.
A "president" who declared himself and any breaking the law "to save the country" as above the law.
That's the crucial difference here.
> If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.
-- John Stuart Mill
How un-democratic, huh?
Even if Trump had 99% of the votes, that would not justify his brown shirts. Call that un-democratic. If fascism is the same as a healthy society, as long as most people who were eligible at one point in time thought that's what they want (just take how Trump voters have no clue how tariffs work, and how saying "I want tariffs" means nothing as long as they don't), because "democracy", then that's just mob rule by the worst.
Why are you using a quote about censorship and free speech to talk about the outcome of an election? Those aren’t related things.
Nobody thinks majority vote makes truth, but majority of electoral voters does determine the president of the US.
> Even if Trump had 99% of the votes
It sounds like your previous comment expressing concern about the number of voters was in bad faith.
> Trump voters have no clue how tariffs work
I noticed this actually isn’t an argument against tariffs.
I don’t think it’s going to look pretty if we starting quizzing low class democratic voters on economic questions either. This has no bearing on whether the policy is a good idea or not.
> It sounds like your previous comment expressing concern about the number of voters was in bad faith.
Heh. Nope. A minority of Americans voted for a fascist, not half of them. That's a fact. 23%, 28%, doesn't matter in light of "half of Americans".
And in addition even if 99% voted for fascism it wouldn't give them the right to impose fascism on 1%. If you don't see how the quote relates to that, how it's an analogy, well.
> I don’t think it’s going to look pretty if we starting quizzing low class democratic voters on economic questions either. This has no bearing on whether the policy is a good idea or not.
It has a bearing on the legitimacy of saying "people want this". If I send you an email saying "click here to get a million bucks", it means you wanted a million bucks, not catch malware. Now you can say "but cybersecurity has nothing to do with elections" and tell me I'm arguing in bad faith because you're not even trying to follow ^^
At a certain point this line of thinking is just saying you don’t think elections work, or that there should be some non-democratic supervisor to undo bad ones.
There is also an older idea that getting people out to vote is part of the game. An election is when citizens back leaders from their community. It’s not taking a survey of every 18+ human life form with a pulse.