Dear Democrats: It's Time To (Finally) Declare: If Anybody's A "Real American," It's Us

First topic message reminder :

Of course, every American citizen is a real American.

Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin kicked off the debate over whether some Americans are more "real" than others in 2008:



You don't have to live in a small town or vote Republican to love your country and be a "real American." Obviously.

But we see a strain of the same narrative in the most recent election -- "America has spoken." No, it hasn't -- nearly three million more real Americans voted for Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump.

But if we don't reject the narrative that some Americans are more "real" than others, and instead try to decide based on the available evidence which party is that of "real" Americans, what conclusion might that lead to?

Let's look at some social issues. The Democratic Party is the party of gay rights, racial equality, religious tolerance and government assistance for the poor. Are those values American values?

Gay rights:



Racism's a little harder to calculate, but generally a racist society disapproves of interracial marriages. So:



Religious tolerance (in this poll, "tolerant" means taking a live-and-let-live attitude toward other religions, "integrated" means respecting and seeking to learn more about other religions, and "isolated" means being intolerant of and incurious about other religions:



Government assistance for the poor:



So we see that on those issues, the Democratic Party reflects the attitude of most Americans. But what about other, perhaps more controversial issues?

What about universal health care, which Democrats favor?



What about stricter gun control, which Democrats favor?



What about abortion rights, which Democrats favor?



The Democratic Party is easily more in touch with the majority of Americans on all these issues, and more. But is there another way to judge how "American" a person or a party is?

Let's look at what the American people look like:



Now let's look at a Democratic political rally:



That looks about right. How about a Republican rally?



Finding a non-white person in that photo is like a Where's Waldo book.

It's time for Democrats to take back the narrative. If you buy into the silly notion that some Americans are more American than other Americans, supporters of the Democratic Party obviously more accurately reflect what America really is than the Republican Party does.

It is decided by winning regional areas... not by overall number of votes...

Tommy Monk wrote:It is decided by winning regional areas... not by overall number of votes...

Yes i know, it is, which is why I am reasoning easily how its flawed and undemocratic.
My position is the same no matter who is a Presidential candidate, no matter their political affiliation.
The vote should be based on who has the most votes nationally.
What you are saying is that there should never be any change to this, when its clear its flawed, which is absurd. As a minority can end up having their candidate in power over the majority wish of the people.

Thorin wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:It is decided by winning regional areas... not by overall number of votes...

Yes i know, it is, which is why I am reasoning easily how its flawed and undemocratic.
My position is the same no matter who is a Presidential candidate, no matter their political affiliation.
The vote should be based on who has the most votes nationally.
What you are saying is that there should never be any change to this, when its clear its flawed, which is absurd. As a minority can end up having their candidate in power over the majority wish of the people.

Gerrymandering worked for Hitler and Mussolini....

And now it's worked just as well for the Trumpster campaign...

No real surprise then, that three of our regular Far-Right Whinger commentators on here (i.e. Tommy, Devil's Breath, and No_Independent Thoughts..) are showing such strong support for such an un-democratic system..

And yet another good reason why voting in federal/ national level elections should be compulsory everywhere, for democracy to be seen to work.      

Trump won by the rules of the American electoral system.

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Yes i know, it is, which is why I am reasoning easily how its flawed and undemocratic.
My position is the same no matter who is a Presidential candidate, no matter their political affiliation.
The vote should be based on who has the most votes nationally.
What you are saying is that there should never be any change to this, when its clear its flawed, which is absurd. As a minority can end up having their candidate in power over the majority wish of the people.

Gerrymandering worked for Hitler and Mussolini....

And now it's worked just as well for the Trumpster campaign...

No real surprise then, that three of our regular Far-Right Whinger commentators on here (i.e. Tommy, Devil's Breath, and No_Independent Thoughts..) are showing such strong support for such an un-democratic system..

And yet another good reason why voting in federal/ national level elections should be compulsory everywhere, for democracy to be seen to work.      

And there is the main issue. Those proclaiming a democratic result based off the majority of the UK population in regards to the EU. Turns on its head on a vote by the US population for its national leader the President. That in fact in this instance the leader is elected based off a minority of the US population and not the majority. No matter who is up for the Presidential election, its quite simply. That it should be the one who has the majority support. In other words they are not concerned at whether something is democratic. They are only concerned at getting their way, no matter if this means forfeiting democratic values.

In other words they are showing the worst double standards

Tommy Monk wrote:Trump won by the rules of the American electoral system.

Yes. The rules need to be modernized. The year-2000 and 2016 elections are symptoms of the malady, not signs of normalcy.