Ad blocker detected: Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors. Disable your ad blocker to continue using our website.
That link shows that Trump received less than 50% of the popular vote - so not a majority by my understanding of the terms. I agree he was legally elected, just not by a majority of the voters.
That link shows that Trump received less than 50% of the popular vote - so not a majority by my understanding of the terms. I agree he was legally elected, just not by a majority of the voters.
phyllo wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2026 7:38 pm
Look it up yourself.
This doesn't actually help. We need to know the status of "special military actions." That was the term that was used.
You asked what makes Trump's attack on Iran more wrong than what Bush, Obama and Biden did.
And I told you.
They got congressional approval in the form of AUMFs. Trump did not.
Actually, apparently not. Here's what Wiki says about that:
While Congress has only formally declared war 11 times in U.S. history (none since WWII), presidents have launched over 125 military actions without prior congressional authorization. Nearly every U.S. president has, to some degree, initiated military force without a formal declaration, particularly in the post-WWII era, often citing "national security" concerns.
These include such noteworthies as Obama and Biden, of course, and JFK. So apparently, the Dems do it when it suits them, and squeal when it doesn't.
But I'm not a big fan of Wiki, so let's take, instead, the Harvard Review on Biden:
On February 2, 2024, President Joe Biden ordered more than 125 bombs to be dropped on upwards of 85 targets in Iraq. This campaign came in response to an attack from an Iran-aligned Iraqi militia group and appears to have successfully deterred further attacks. However, the scope of Biden’s response—and the potential escalatory danger therein—raises questions about legislative checks on the executive in the context of such military actions. The Biden administration justified its actions by invoking:
The president’s Article II authority as Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces. Article II gives the executive authority to carry out military actions to defend the United States, as long as these actions do not rise to the level of war in actual or predicted nature, scope, or duration. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 limits this power, preventing the president from engaging military forces for more than 60 days without Congressional authorization.
The 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), which authorizes military action against entities that “planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons.”
The 2002 AUMF, which authorizes military action “to defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq.”
It seems US presidents generally declare "military actions" rather than "wars." So it turns out to be an issue of nomenclature and partisanship, more than anything, it seems.
That link shows that Trump received less than 50% of the popular vote - so not a majority by my understanding of the terms. I agree he was legally elected, just not by a majority of the voters.
Right.
Trump won by a plurality, not a majority.
Yes, and in 2016 won without either.
Actually, this probably isn't true. As you'll note, the percentages in the CNN poll do not total 100%. The reason for that is statistical, and has to do with what's called "margin of error," which is a feature of all statistics. Some ballots inevitably fail to be counted, or are voided by being incorrectly filled out, and so on. So assuming the same margin of error for both candidates (which, of course, CNN is doing), it would be clear that Trump had a majority overall, and a majority by way of the counting of votes by state. https://www.politico.com/2024-election/ ... president/
He won both ways, it seems.
So that brings us back to our topic: how is it possible to declare the winner by popular vote and by state process to have been elected "undemocratically"? In what way did "democracy" "fail"?
On February 2, 2024, President Joe Biden ordered more than 125 bombs to be dropped on upwards of 85 targets in Iraq. This campaign came in response to an attack from an Iran-aligned Iraqi militia group and appears to have successfully deterred further attacks. However, the scope of Biden’s response—and the potential escalatory danger therein—raises questions about legislative checks on the executive in the context of such military actions. The Biden administration justified its actions by invoking:
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2026 6:17 pm
I did not go for the full number of required cups. I would have been knee-walking afterwards...not the right state in which to celebrate Pesach, for sure.
According to the Orthodox, it is actually a mitzvah to get complely smashed on Purim. Really really drunk. These here just getting started.
Actually, this probably isn't true. As you'll note, the percentages in the CNN poll do not total 100%. The reason for that is statistical, and has to do with what's called "margin of error," which is a feature of all statistics. Some ballots inevitably fail to be counted, or are voided by being incorrectly filled out, and so on. So assuming the same margin of error for both candidates (which, of course, CNN is doing), it would be clear that Trump had a majority overall, and a majority by way of the counting of votes by state. https://www.politico.com/2024-election/ ... president/
He won both ways, it seems.
So that brings us back to our topic: how is it possible to declare the winner by popular vote and by state process to have been elected "undemocratically"? In what way did "democracy" "fail"?
These are the people who got the other votes. The exact number of votes each got is tallied.
Margin of error. LOL
Even that Politico link shows "other candidates".
For North Carolina it presents.... Trump: 51.0%, Kamala Harris 47.8%, Other Candidates: 1.2%. According to my maths, that makes for 100% in that state. I suspect doing the same maths in all the others will give a nice round 100% each time.
Actually, this probably isn't true. As you'll note, the percentages in the CNN poll do not total 100%. The reason for that is statistical, and has to do with what's called "margin of error," which is a feature of all statistics. Some ballots inevitably fail to be counted, or are voided by being incorrectly filled out, and so on. So assuming the same margin of error for both candidates (which, of course, CNN is doing), it would be clear that Trump had a majority overall, and a majority by way of the counting of votes by state. https://www.politico.com/2024-election/ ... president/
He won both ways, it seems.
The website gives the total votes cast for each candidate. Get out your calculator and do the percentages for yourself.
They can't count ballots that are bugged up.
If the errors are the same for each candidate, then a minority vote for a candidate can't turn into a majority vote for that candidate.
Actually, this probably isn't true. As you'll note, the percentages in the CNN poll do not total 100%. The reason for that is statistical, and has to do with what's called "margin of error," which is a feature of all statistics. Some ballots inevitably fail to be counted, or are voided by being incorrectly filled out, and so on. So assuming the same margin of error for both candidates (which, of course, CNN is doing), it would be clear that Trump had a majority overall, and a majority by way of the counting of votes by state. https://www.politico.com/2024-election/ ... president/
He won both ways, it seems.
The website gives the total votes cast for each candidate. Get out your calculator and do the percentages for yourself.
Well, somebody needs to, I suppose.
If the errors are the same for each candidate, then a minority vote for a candidate can't turn into a majority vote for that candidate.
By that reckoning, there are no majority elections if the election is within 6 points. (=/-3). So there haven't been any legit elections in America for quite some time, you'd be thinking...in fact, most US elections in history would have been illegitimate by that claim.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Apr 16, 2026 6:17 pm
I did not go for the full number of required cups. I would have been knee-walking afterwards...not the right state in which to celebrate Pesach, for sure.
According to the Orthodox, it is actually a mitzvah to get complely smashed on Purim. Really really drunk. These here just getting started.
Manischewitz also makes Matzo mix (hint hint).
Well, Pesach is considered a more sober holiday than Purim, of course, as we both know. Purim's basically a big victory party ("Sucks to be you, Haman!"). Still, my hosts told me that the rabbis sometimes get to theological wrangling late into the evening, while each slides gradually under the table as Maneschewitz achieves its purpose.
There's an old joke about rabbinical wrangling, that says that where there are three rabbis arguing there are four opinions present. I imagine the wine multiplies the opinions, too.
Actually, this probably isn't true. As you'll note, the percentages in the CNN poll do not total 100%. The reason for that is statistical, and has to do with what's called "margin of error," which is a feature of all statistics. Some ballots inevitably fail to be counted, or are voided by being incorrectly filled out, and so on. So assuming the same margin of error for both candidates (which, of course, CNN is doing), it would be clear that Trump had a majority overall, and a majority by way of the counting of votes by state. https://www.politico.com/2024-election/ ... president/
He won both ways, it seems.
The website gives the total votes cast for each candidate. Get out your calculator and do the percentages for yourself.
Well, somebody needs to, I suppose.
If the errors are the same for each candidate, then a minority vote for a candidate can't turn into a majority vote for that candidate.
By that reckoning, there are no majority elections if the election is within 6 points. (=/-3). So there haven't been any legit elections in America for quite some time, you'd be thinking...in fact, most US elections in history would have been illegitimate by that claim.
Maybe you're doing Trump math where he can reduce drug pricing by 1500%.
I have no idea what you think you are calculating without a sample calculation.
