What? They don't count as white males anymore?
Are the reactions to Trump winning rational?
- Thread starter DangerousK
- Start date
What? They don't count as white males anymore?
What about the jews that aren't white. Or males?
Jews became white when they became successful.
Nice try. Show me a Jewish female that's the head of a Hollywood studio, director of a hedge fund, etc.
Better yet show me a non white jew that's any of those things. Israelis count I guess.
You're starting to post like Norton. Are you ok?
The protests and aren't rational, and neither is the gloating from Trump and his supporters.
If the protesters really want to complain about the result that badly, they should be organizing a nation-wide boycott on coal and directing their anger at Hillary and the DNC. Attacking Trump and those who voted for him makes absolutely no sense.
As for the right-wingers, they have nothing to brag about. They didn't win anything. The election result had practically nothing to do with them. The liberals lost because that's what they asked for by making Hillary the candidate, and by millions of registered democrats opting not to vote at all.
There is nothing wrong with the electoral college. It's the only way for conservatives to stand a chance in major elections, and it serves as a constant wake-up call to the democrats when they choose not to listen to the voices of their supporters.
If the protesters really want to complain about the result that badly, they should be organizing a nation-wide boycott on coal and directing their anger at Hillary and the DNC. Attacking Trump and those who voted for him makes absolutely no sense.
As for the right-wingers, they have nothing to brag about. They didn't win anything. The election result had practically nothing to do with them. The liberals lost because that's what they asked for by making Hillary the candidate, and by millions of registered democrats opting not to vote at all.
There is nothing wrong with the electoral college. It's the only way for conservatives to stand a chance in major elections, and it serves as a constant wake-up call to the democrats when they choose not to listen to the voices of their supporters.
You don't have to organize a nation-wide boycott on Coal.
Coal is dead.
If you really want to take aim at the upper mid west "Nascar Dads", just shut off the supply of Naloxone.
Coal is dead.
If you really want to take aim at the upper mid west "Nascar Dads", just shut off the supply of Naloxone.
Last edited:
totally! TRUMP is going to empower rascists and stuff
but wait... theres laws on the books for them and they are getting shot everyday(those rubber bullet wounds look terrible) somebody got their arm blew up or something from a concussion grenade and now water cannons since it got cold.
who is really in charge anyhow...
What a skewed vision of reality.
If anything, my faith in the electoral system has been slightly restored after being whittled away to zero after GWB's two (suspicious) wins. Because nobody EXCEPT Trump's deranged followers wanted him to win. The Democrats obviously didn't want Trump, but neither did the Republican Party...and the media presented a nearly completely-unified front to blast him continuously, making him look as stupid and evil as possible for the entire time he ran. The fact Trump won in spite of all that is almost completely down to his supporters.
And liberals did not make Hillary the candidate. We got her force fed to us by borderline criminal means.
Last edited:
There is nothing to skew. The numbers speak for themselves. Just look at the results of the past few elections: the only times liberals lose, is when they don't care about winning. Trump "won" in spite of losing the popular vote because millions of registered democrats chose not to vote at all. It's clear they chose not to because the candidate they were given wasn't one they could believe in, and the onus was on Hillary to do something about that. For those who feel like their lives wouldn't change much regardless of who got elected, there is little point in voting. Other than that, most everyone who actually voted at all did so along party lines like they almost always do no matter what. Both the democrats and republicans each have about 60 million supporters who will vote for whatever major candidate that's presented to them, no matter who they are or what they say.
As for that part about Hillary's candidacy, I thought context offered by the rest of my post would have made it obvious where the distinction between the establishment and the voters was supposed to fit.
Firstly, don't overstate Hillary's win of the popular vote. It's not like it was a landslide or something.
And secondly, what you are saying is six of one/half-dozen of the other. Trump's supporters won him the election because they supported him and voted when liberal voters failed to turn out for Hillary. But I've never seen the entire political machinery on both sides, the special interests who own them, and pretty near the entire media all turn against one man, and then have that man win anyway. Out of all the people and groups who usually engage in shenanigans and try to subvert the voting process, none of them seemed to want Trump. That's kind of incredible and makes me think, hey, maybe our electoral system isn't quite as worthless as I thought.
Well, she did win it by ~2 million votes, which isn't an insignificant number in my opinion. It's certainly not on the same level as Bush/Gore.
And I agree that it's nice to see that the dog still wags the tail.
Last edited:
You also can't discount voter suppression.
My good post to shitpost ratio is much higher than yours. You're like an old timey pitcher. Has the most wins and strikeouts, but also the most losses.
You are noob trash. 2012. You don't even know what this place is, shitlord.
I keep seeing this…and I still cannot fathom how people do not understand how the US election system was designed.
Does this like a one sided victory to you? Because it does to me.
We're not the "United Large Cities of America" or the "United People of America", we're the United States of America. Which means all STATES have a say. Just because one city in one state has more people in it than Montana doesn't mean Montana doesn't have a proportional say in things.
God, why can't people grasp this?
I keep seeing this…and I still cannot fathom how people do not understand how the US election system was designed.
Does this like a one sided victory to you? Because it does to me.
We're not the "United Large Cities of America" or the "United People of America", we're the United States of America. Which means all STATES have a say. Just because one city in one state has more people in it than Montana doesn't mean Montana doesn't have a proportional say in things.
God, why can't people grasp this?
Why are you bringing this up in response to a conversation that was specifically about the "popular" vote? Besides that, I already stated that the electoral college is perfectly fine as it is. It seems to me that you just want to argue for the sake of it.
You mean the 3/5 clause? Or state legislatures choosing electors?
Does this like a one sided victory to you? Because it does to me.
We're not the "United Large Cities of America" or the "United People of America", we're the United States of America. Which means all STATES have a say. Just because one city in one state has more people in it than Montana doesn't mean Montana doesn't have a proportional say in things.
God, why can't people grasp this?
Actually, the county map with shading based on vote % would look more like this.
and we do have a check on large population centers. It's called the senate.
Last edited:
Who would want to? It pays for itself almost immediately.
I keep seeing this…and I still cannot fathom how people do not understand how the US election system was designed.
Does this like a one sided victory to you? Because it does to me.
We're not the "United Large Cities of America" or the "United People of America", we're the United States of America. Which means all STATES have a say. Just because one city in one state has more people in it than Montana doesn't mean Montana doesn't have a proportional say in things.
God, why can't people grasp this?
If you're in a car with 3 broke drunks, and you're the only one who makes money, should you each have the same vote?
And if you don't like the odds, should you be allowed to leave?
Working off the OP, Is Trump rational?
Funnay! http://americablog.com/2016/11/trump-already-handing-presidency-pence5.html
Bet that makes Poppy happy!
Bet that makes Poppy happy!
Hmm that article reads like a load of shit.
*scrolls further down
"With the election of Donald Trump, AMERICAblog’s independent journalism and activism is more needed than ever.
Please support our work with a generous donation. We don’t make much on advertising, we need your support to continue our work. Thanks."
I liked that article because it linked the two together. I bet I can find 20 articles from major credible sources talking about the Kasich job offer and another 20 about how Trump hasn't gone to any briefings but has been making Pence.
Kasich happened around Feb/March the Pence one is ongoing right now.
Here:
https://www.google.com/#q=trump+kasich+vice+president
https://www.google.com/#q=trump+pence+security+briefings
Last edited: