"HE'S GONNA MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN"
the sheer fact a man didn't get the popular vote and yet still ended up in the white house is baffling to me. america needs to sort out its voting system cause the collegiate system looks like garbage
Elections Are A Mess
To really sum it up though, I think hes a poopy-head with really silly hair, and the idea of him having the nuclear codes terrifies me.
the sheer fact a man didn't get the popular vote and yet still ended up in the white house is baffling to me. america needs to sort out its voting system cause the collegiate system looks like garbage
Re: Trump tho, I feel like he would be a lot less scary if it weren't a republican dominated Congress too - I don't think he'll be as bad as the media makes out tho, he can't act on a lot of his extreme policy (e.g. making Mexico pay for a wall - that's just not going to happen). I think he'll be fantastic for the UK, however, in that he's already mentioned he wants to return the special relationship back to the Reagan(?)/Thatcher era. Plus given his business skills he will probably be good economically. I guess we just have to hope is questionable humanitarian policies are blocked by congress, or at least the more extreme ones.
So Drumpf is going to start a nuclear war? Interesting. Any particular reason you think this?
The reason the US has the electoral college is so that the most populous areas don't dominate US politics. If the vote was conducted simply by population, it wouldn't be representative of all areas of America and a few highly populous cities would decide the election. Does this sound fair?
He won't be anywhere near as bad as the media have told everyone he will be. Apart from the fact they were bought and paid for by the Clinton campaign, they spent the better part of a year demonizing Drumpf, throwing any journalistic integrity out the window in the process. There's a reason fewer than 10% of Americans trust MSM these days, and now they're calling any dissenting news 'Fake News'. Their backpedaling is a great source of amusement for me.
The reason the US has the electoral college is so that the most populous areas don't dominate US politics. If the vote was conducted simply by population, it wouldn't be representative of all areas of America and a few highly populous cities would decide the election. Does this sound fair?
So Trump is going to start a nuclear war? Interesting. Any particular reason you think this?
Hillary won the popular vote against Obama in '08. Guess who has been President for the past 8 years?Probably because the DNC in general has a really broken system with the superdelegate crap. The DNC primaries are a formality and I wish they would at least stop pretending that our vote matters, or reform the system entirely.
The reason the US has the electoral college is so that the most populous areas don't dominate US politics. If the vote was conducted simply by population, it wouldn't be representative of all areas of America and a few highly populous cities would decide the election. Does this sound fair?No, because it actually heavily skews voting. A number of people in California, New York, Maryland, or Texas for instance don't vote at all because they feel that their vote is useless and it's inevitable that their respective states will turn blue or red. Meanwhile, that also means all campaigning goings to key swing states and not historically red states, so instead of California or New York deciding our president, we have to rely on places like Michigan, Florida, Ohio, and Wisconsin. So it ends up being a rule of a bunch of random people in the middle of the country. There is nothing here that suggests that smaller states have a say because those four are medium sized states that determine the president.
He won't be anywhere near as bad as the media have told everyone he will be. Apart from the fact they were bought and paid for by the Clinton campaign, they spent the better part of a year demonizing Trump, throwing any journalistic integrity out the window in the process. There's a reason fewer than 10% of Americans trust MSM these days, and now they're calling any dissenting news 'Fake News'. Their backpedaling is a great source of amusement for me.
Just so you know, the Electoral College voted Trump instead of defecting to Clinton like many people hoped they would. I also heard that EC voters may've defected towards Trump, but I seriously doubt that's true.
Someone in Maine voted for Trump despite Clinton winning that state, but that's the only person to completely flip sides afaik. Quite a few defections overall, mostly from Clinton to other democrats, likely in protest re: establishment getting elected to be democrat candidate.that's because wrongly, democrats believe voting is to make a statement and republicans rightly believe its to gain power.
that's because wrongly, democrats believe voting is to make a statement and republicans rightly believe its to gain power."democrats fall in love, republicans fall in line"
because it sort of works anyway
in reality, i'm crying discrimination and all that crap, but the rust belt is a seriously depressing place to live
ideally the 2020 democratic nomination can at least preach an actual solution to fix their issue. I would suggest more training in technology and the sciences, like IT training or things to that effect
Who knows, though, maybe the way forward is trump burning the system to the ground with terrible decisions, so we can build a new system from the old ones ashes.
Maybe if people in our area would stop thinking that college is a waste of time and getting a factory job is the great, big thing then we could start moving forward. Until then, nothing will get done even if the government would push us forward. This is coming from someone who lives in the shadow of Timken Steel.
There's a reason fewer than 10% of Americans trust MSM these days, and now they're calling any dissenting news 'Fake News'. Their backpedaling is a great source of amusement for me.
In terms of international relations, it's why Obama evacuated Russian diplomats and is holding sanctions on Russia. The hacks of the emails (unverified) and funding propaganda overseas. This document is also a probable cause that shows that those were a more than symbolic gesture. If Trump is paying people to hack the email of his political opponents (as alleged in the document) then that is far beyond enough to get him impeached.
Is it because donald trump feels like a cartoon villain while mike pence feels like an actual real life villain? Because thats the way i feel and im not sure if thats fair. I mean, mike pence is a terrifying person with really frightening beliefs and who knows how much damage he could do? But then, so is trump, except hes more ridiculous and it makes people forget how awful he really is.
I feel like that Trump is honestly just a puppet for Mike Pence and that Pence is the one pulling the strings all along. I mean Trump was definitely more liberal than most democrats, yet all of a sudden he's going hyper conservative. Now who does that sound like to you here?Absolutely not true. Pence was only there for the evangelical vote, and he's not as crazy as his brethren in the party, nor was he their preferred candidate. Kasich is someone they prefer. It sounds like Pence is just kinda there, because Kasich is an American Moderate (which is still crazy right wing in every other country).
Right, so the only consequences election wise occur if Trump were responsible?
Seems insane for it to go to Vice President, given that's going from an unfairly elected president to a not elected president, and I feel that's significantly worse, but I guess short of a new vote there's no better way to do it =/
Part of me wants to say republicans planned this all along and new Mike Pence would struggle to get elected, but using Trump it'd be easier. But then I keep remembering if that were the case, Trump could've just stepped down on getting elected, doesn't need to get kicked out unless it's for theatrics I suppose.
What's also funny is that there are loads of people going "Aw, poor liberal snowflakes, Trump won- Deal with it" when it's Trump supporters that get triggered whenever anyone slags him off.
The difference between Pence and Drumpf is that none of the alt-right care about Pence. We also at least know where Pence stands on things - he's nothing if not honest. It's just he's also a scumbag, and it's not just because of his views on homosexuality, but because despite his (unironically) stellar education which taught these things, he denies evolution/climate change. His policies have led to Indiana's debt which resulted in an outbreak of AIDs due to a bad needles program, and abstinence based sex ed. Also, mothers of aborted and miscarried fetuses have to pay for cremation and funeral of those fetuses, which is being passed in Texas right now.
We don't know anything about Drumpf, but we know what we're getting with Pence and Pence won't inspire votes in 2020.
"An unidentified party began a semi-underground smear campaign against McCain, delivered by push polls, faxes, e-mails, flyers, audience plants, and the like.[14][54] These claimed most famously that he had fathered a black child out of wedlock (the McCains' dark-skinned daughter Bridget was adopted from Bangladesh; this misrepresentation was thought to be an especially effective slur in a Deep South state where race was still central[49]), but also that his wife Cindy was a drug addict, that he was a homosexual, and that he was a "Manchurian Candidate" traitor or mentally unstable from his North Vietnam POW days."
people are still arguing that trump should be given a chance but honestly he's already shown that he's willing to drive his country into the ground all to please some neo-nazis and fascists
Oh I am absolutely sick to my stomach about the Trump presidency and everything to come.
I've heard accounts of a number of people that really voted for him and thinking he was full of crap... and they're also completely sick now that reality is coming down hard on them.
this + people after brexit saying "weeehh i only voted leave as a joke" are why the vast majority of people should just not be allowed to vote
Since the end of World War II in 1945, few parties have openly described themselves as fascist, and the term is instead now usually used pejoratively by political opponents.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism)
Heh. I agree but for different reasons. Although the fundamental problem with democracy is how it allows the ignorant masses to outvote the so-called 'intelligent' classes. Yet believe it or not those who go to universities and consider themselves intelligent are also the most likely to be propagandized. The average citizen only cares about the survival of themselves and their family because it's most important to them.[citation needed]
Although it's kinda funny seeing everyone call Trump a 'fascist'. It's almost as if 'fascist' has become a term to describe people you don't like. Oh wait, it has;He gained power through nationalism and has authoritarian tendencies. This is pretty much textbook fascist; he is very Mussolini like as well. He's just ineffective.
Fascism /ˈfæʃɪzəm/ is a form of radical authoritarian nationalism[1][2] that came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe.
Y'all might not like to hear this, but all this name calling (fascist, racist, bigot, misogynist, etc, etc.) is why Trump got elected in the first place; people were sick of being called things they obviously weren't just because they disagree with the 'flavour of the month', whatever that may be.So they elected a racist/bigot/fascist/misogynist to prove them right? I don't understand this line of reasoning. Trump got elected because he promised coal jobs back throughout the rust belt, and to some he promised to tear down the establishment (which is... exactly what he's pandering to). Otherwise, he made a bunch of lies up, talked really loud, etc so he got elected. Also, party lines are generally kept the same, so Republicans only voted him in cause he had an R next to his name.
Now the solution is to continue calling people racists, fascists, bigots, etc? I hope you've started to like Trump because if you keep doing that, he'll only get re-elected in 2020. What you reap is what you sow.Ah, so you're saying I shouldn't call people as they are? Because that hurts their feelings too much?
[citation needed]
fyi the average person who goes to university also cares about stuff like that in the near future - but how are they more likely to be propagandized? Learning how to properly analyze statistics and facts is propaganda now?
He gained power through nationalism and has authoritarian tendencies. This is pretty much textbook fascist; he is very Mussolini like as well. He's just ineffective.
So they elected a racist/bigot/fascist/misogynist to prove them right? I don't understand this line of reasoning. Trump got elected because he promised coal jobs back throughout the rust belt, and to some he promised to tear down the establishment (which is... exactly what he's pandering to). Otherwise, he made a bunch of lies up, talked really loud, etc so he got elected. Also, party lines are generally kept the same, so Republicans only voted him in cause he had an R next to his name.
A very small minority of people were pissed about being called bigots, and even then they decided to vote to prove themselves right. This is not why Trump won.
Ah, so you're saying I shouldn't call people as they are? Because that hurts their feelings too much?
Your general point is correct, it's not healthy to just call someone a bigot, but you're arguing a point that is pretty vague and untrue and pretty much had overall very little to do with the election. The voter turnout was horrible as well (less than half of the eligible voters voted this past election, and there's plenty of voter suppression and there's plenty of issues with our two party system). As it stands, Trump's 35% approval rating and the constant failures of the Republican Party to do anything correct more or less indicates a shift the other way in 2020, not calling a bunch of people bigots for being bigots.
If you're arguing against an "SJW pro-politically correct" that probably hates Trump, you're arguing against a boogeyman that's very little in number and has zero influence on the electorate. I'm not sure what your point is here, but you're not really making a coherent point, because Trump seriously only won due to the rust belt and voting along party lines. He lost the popular vote by 3 million.
I like how you didn't even argue about the fake news stuff; you just came in and went on a tirade.
How about all the shootings still going on in public places in the US? Still think that they aren't forms of terroism NOT caused by Middle Easterners, Mr. Trump? What will you do about THOSE terrorists? Can't kick them out of the country if they are born citizens.
Here's (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2017/03/02/eight-ten-british-university-lecturers-left-wing-survey-finds/) one for you. Judging by some of the stuff I've seen US universities do (accepting a kid into Stanford who's application was literally '#blacklivesmatter' 100 times, although it probably had more to do with the fact he interned on Hillary's campaign), I'd say it's even worse there. It also heavily depends upon the subject you study, but you're ignorant if you think these left-wing professors aren't expressing their views to their students, and often only giving one side of the argument. In fact it very aptly explains why a lot of the UK students that actually bothered to vote (lol) in the EU Ref. voted to Remain. Thankfully at my university I'm only taught by one left-leaning professor and for not even a term (economics at my uni seems fairly apolitical thankfully, I don't like being told what to think) and she's a laughing stock for her warped views.How is this propaganda? Is it because you're right leaning that anything vaguely left leaning is propaganda? Calling me ignorant because professors are "left-wing" is not doing yourself favors. Didn't you already complain about labeling?
(accepting a kid into Stanford who's application was literally '#blacklivesmatter' 100 times, although it probably had more to do with the fact he interned on Hillary's campaign)Cherry picked and probably out of context. What are you even talking about? This isn't even an argument.
Pick one of 'fascist' and 'ineffective'; you can't have both. Or maybe 'impotent' is a better word. The notion of being a fascist leader (Franco, Mussolini, Hirohito, but not Hitler, NatSoc is different to fascism) implies that if you want something done it gets done, leading into one of fascism's criticisms of democracy, which is how it favours talk over action. An example of this is how a couple of years ago the US Congress couldn't even agree on setting a national budget, meaning they had to roll over last year's one.I can pick both. He's completely ineffective, but it doesn't mean his views don't lean towards fascism. You don't have to be effective at being a fascist to be a fascist. I'm not sure how these words are mutually exclusive.
No, they elected a 'racist/bigot/fascist/misogynist' as you describe him as simply to give the middle finger to all these Democrats whose modus operandi was to pander to minorities and name call and strawman everyone who has the audacity to disagree with them.You are invoking a strawman then complaining when I do the same. Again, this is not why trump one; this is a minority of voters, and Clinton won the popular vote. You've yet to show me any compelling argument that what you describe is not a boogeyman.
I guess if you want to get to the truth of the matter, maybe Trump won because Hillary spent all her time pandering to minorities and neglected to even think about the biggest voting block in the US, white men? I remember reading she didn't even visit one state she thought was a sure win, well guess what, that state turned red. I guess the Dems thought that their name calling would scare white people into voting for their candidate.What name calling? Are you talking about the "basket of deplorables" speech where people didn't even bother reading after the first line? The rest of the democrats didn't even name call - that was pretty much the only instance of name calling. Besides, Clinton's campaign was a failure because she didn't appease a particular subset of states, not white men - white men have gone Republican for a long ass time, and she's not winning a good chunk of them over.
Ignore the fact that Hillary has a history of screw ups (Benghazi, those damned emails) and is pretty much a mouthpiece for Wall Street, as well as one of the richest people in the world with her husband. But no, Trump said something mean about someone of a different race/gender therefore he's a racist/sexist and you're also a racist/sexist if you vote for him.a) Bill Clinton is one of the richest men in the world?
To use the terms of the day, that's a problematic line of thinking, if we were all allowed to call people 'what they are', does that extend to 'hate speech' as well? If it's what they are then it must be fine, surely? /sYou are equating calling someone racist - which means that they have a fault where they see people and treat them like crap for external reasons - to calling someone, say, an n word - which is historically used to tell someone they are inferior because of the color of their skin. The difference is that the n word is pejorative, whereas racist lacks the historical connotation and that there hasn't been a history of oppression towards racists that lends much weight to the word. Besides, the only time most people have been called racist in their lives is by saying legitimately racist stuff, not SJW-cherrypicking-boogeyman racists.
Take an example that I've literally seen happen; guy and girl in relationship, everything is going great until the girl starts accusing the guy of cheating, even though he hasn't, but she doesn't stop. She keeps going, eventually the guy gets sick of it and cheats on her. Who's fault is it? Is it the guy's fault for cheating, or the girl's fault for constantly accusing the guy of cheating? Thought experiment, the answer doesn't matter. But maybe, just maybe, if the girl hadn't accused the guy of cheating, then he wouldn't have even thought about it?Okay, so the guy does the idiot thing and proves her right instead of breaking up with her. They're both stupid and their relationship is meaningless. This is not comparable to "Oh you're gonna call me a racist you stupid n word?" The guy is ultimately the one at a greater fault because he did cheat in the end - and cheating is worse than being accused of cheating according to many people.
Also where does that approval rating come from? Don't tell me it comes from the media, you know, the same media who said Trump would never run, Trump was a joke candidate, Trump would never win the election, Trump has ties to Russia (with literally zero proof lol), etc, etc?"Literally zero proof" lol someone hasn't been following the news. There's a lot of currently circumstantial evidence, and there was definitely election interference from Russia. The collusion with Russia is something that is not to be discounted.
The same media who have been proven and admitted to oversampling Democrats in their polls?[citation needed] (https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/10/the-clinton-polling-conspiracy-that-doesnt-exist/505211/)
The same media who predicted a 99% chance of Hillary to winNate Silver gave her a 70% chance to win much closer to election time, and he was actively saying "you need to go out and vote and not take your state for granted if you actively do not agree with Trump." It's not the media's fault you don't pay attention to multiple different sources.
The same media who, time and time and time again, have been proven wrong?[citation needed]
An estimated (they'll never know the true figure) 3 million illegal immigrants voted in California. Obviously they would vote for the candidate who offers them a 'path to citizenship' rather than the one that will deport them for being illegal immigrants. That on its own invalidates the popular vote, and think how many more non citizens voted in other states?[citation needed]
They discovered non citizens on the electoral roll in Pennsylvania and Virginia, and the only thing they have to stop illegals voting is a tick box on the ballot saying 'are you a US citizen?' which, of course, does nothing. I also heard that a lot of Democrat votes came from dead people, which is about as blatant as you can get with regards to electoral fraud.[citation needed]
Fake News was a term coined by Hillary and her ilk to explain why they lost the election. Notice how the term only entered common usage after Nov 8.You clearly don't live in America. Fake news was literally news that wasn't real, and news shows that satirized news shows. It entered the conservative lexicon after Clinton became president, but it was a real term used during the election. And it was a very real phenomena, which I talked about in great detail earlier, as did an article I posted.
It's funny because they are more guilty of that than Trump ever was. They're now saying 'alternative facts' too, whatever that means.Alternative facts is a term coined by Trump's own campaign manager, what the hell? She said that Sean Spicer's claim that there were more people at Trump's inauguration (a blatant lie if you look at every conceivable way of proving this possible) was an "alternative fact" as opposed to a "lie." It's more or less making fun of Kellyanne Conway.
Although I do find it rather humorous that there are only 5 or 6 'real' news outlets and everything else is deemed 'fake news', despite the fact these media outlets are all owned by the same people.[citation needed]
They pretty much all happen in 'gun-free' zones. Think, would a potential spree killer start shooting in an area where they're likely to be killed before they've even killed anyone, or an area where they can go ham and the police will have to be called to stop them? And nah they don't kick them out of the country if they are citizens, they just put them in jail where they belong.What are you talking about?
The guy is ultimately the one at a greater fault because he did cheat in the end - and cheating is worse than being accused of cheating according to many people.
Anyway, Steve Bannon removed from the NSC - thank god.
I'll just address both parts in one quote.
Part 1: I agree the guy is more at fault. Though accusing him is a really crappy thing to do and he may not have thought of it before being accused, should he have honestly done it? I could be accused of shooting some random guy on the street and not have, then go and shoot someone. That doesn't mean i'm not at fault because 'I didn't have the thought until you accused me'. So I agree wholeheartedly here
Part 2: Faith in humanity TEMPORARILY restored.
I'm having a schadenfreude high right now watching the idiot's voters and supporters realizing the horrible mistake they made of letting a crazy sexist racist egotistical loudmouth become President. I'll enjoy looking at their faces as they walk down the street thinking, "Good lord, what have I done?!" and laughing silently at them. And the best part is that they can't blame me because I didn't vote for the guy! But I also refuse to protest because I know that is a lost cause because it won't change a thing and I know when I have lost and accept it.Protests are making the Republicans feel helpless. They pulled the healthcare bill, they realize now they don't drive the debate.
while i dunno why people even entertained laprabi's weirdly specific ">accuse le gf of cheating >be le epic cucked by gf >mfw" thought experiment, on what side do you reckon steve bannon stood regarding the very recent Bomb Strikes on syria and whether that played into his sudden loss of jobSteve Bannon stood on his own side and possibly told him to do the strike. At any rate, the point isn't to convince him, that was never the point of debate.