I know the oath I took it when I served. But what do you think the military is full of? Hipsters and gangsters. Military is primarily Republican and alot of Red Neck white guys. :)
Printable View
I know the oath I took it when I served. But what do you think the military is full of? Hipsters and gangsters. Military is primarily Republican and alot of Red Neck white guys. :)
1. How do you think an armed take over of the government works? You think you just show up in Washington, flash the sight of your gun, and everything will be turned over to you? Lol. You have to shoot and kill a lot of people for an armed revolution, just FYI.
2. Who said anything about Republicans not believing in democracy? The only thing anyone said was that the majority vote didn't win the election.
3. I have to assume the "label all Republicans as racists" thing is directed towards Dharan because I've only person I've accused of being racist is Trump and that's backed by lots of evidence.
4. Did they conduct some sort of poll among looters as to what political party they were affiliated with? Or are you just assuming they're Democrats because they're black men and women? Last time I checked the Republican party wasn't a whites only club.
5. Lol @ no reason
Well I think it depends a lot on which state you send the troops from. Also there's probably enough officers/troops who are more loyal to their country and their superiors than their political party.Quote:
Originally Posted by handofthrawn
Well, the Oklahoma bomber was a Republican, as was the Waco people, as where the Malheur National park occupants, so...Quote:
Originally Posted by handofthrawn
The police force has been significantly militarized during Obama's term in office, so an outright armed rebellion would be fairly difficult to organize and just march on Washington. No it'd very much have to be an extensive guerilla conflict. You also can't just take the capital either, would have to simultaneously seize control of communications and spread your message/propaganda over MSM to rally support for the cause.
Also the Trump victory should at least speak volumes towards the level of contempt held by the American people towards Hillary. I mean as one so blindly put it "unabashed misogynistic, xenophobic, racist fear monger" beat a 30 year experienced politician. There's more to the story than what people are leading on as to how this occurred. For one this was a change election as people loudly made themselves clear were unhappy with the way things were going in the country and felt that they were being left behind. Hillary was prominently trotted out, and pushed through a grassroots movement in her own party preaching the same discontent, promised to maintain the status quo and proudly denying there was anything wrong with America while pointing to some statistics. If you check out some exit polls it showed something like >70% wanted something to change in Washington. Donald Trump was far from the perfect messenger, but he was the only one acknowledging the emotions of those feeling disenfranchised by corrupt politicians and an economy leaving them behind. Jobs have gone overseas and we know that a large amount of the workforce has been replaced by automation, but these are people that want to work and not tax the **** out of the rich to support the poor class, so on some level there had to be a discussion on this topic that Hillary was just ignoring. There's so many other reasons as to why he earned a vote or Hillary lost a vote than people looking at this guy and seeing a direct representation of themselves.
Just to make myself perfectly clear, I'm not saying that if you voted for Trump, you are yourself a racist. I'm saying if you voted for Trump, you supported his racism (and other awful qualities). You elected to make this man, quite possibly, the most powerful man in the world.
Also, to say that Clinton was telling people there is nothing wrong in America is just silly and obviously untrue. Claiming that America is already and never stopped being great isn't the same as saying there are literally no issues to be fixed.
That would also be a misleading conjecture. We were given two candidates both with a staggering amount of baggage, so I'd say he was supported despite his racism. You can be in favor of a candidate while disagreeing with parts of their belief or positions, just look at Bernie supporting Hillary while simultaneously saying he was going to fight her on a lot of things.
Well this is why the US election system is completely bat**** crazy. Switch to something like a 2-3 stage election or a Single Transferable vote system. In the initial stage you also need to ban the 2 big parties from having their own primary election to select a single candidate and also from putting more funds into the campaigns than the smaller parties. Then force the media include every "major" candidate in the debates and then let the people vote between something like 10-15 candidates instead of 2, and with an STV system that'd ensure that the candidate with the greatest actual popular support and least detractors would actually win. If you want to retain some power with the states(in order to prevent the urban areas from having complete and total domination over who is elected) let the states each nominate 1 candidate based on state primary elections or smth.Quote:
Originally Posted by natebane
The problem is essentially this:Quote:
Originally Posted by Palem
http://static4.businessinsider.com/i...percent%20.png
50% of the population lives in the blue area and the other 50% in the grey.
In a small nation like the Scandinavian countries this is less of an issue but in a huge nation like the US this creates an actual problem where the people in the rural areas are left with essentially zero influence.
So some disparity seems reasonable but in the US you can technically win with the support of just ~21.9% of the population, ie 78.1% voted against you
A few interesting videos from CGP Grey, which shows just how bat**** insane the whole electoral college system is:
How the Electoral College Works
The Trouble with the Electoral College
Re: The Trouble With The Electoral College – Cities, Metro Areas, Elections and The United States
What If the Electoral College is Tied?
Guess what is funny, who is the only person who even talked about fixing our rigged election system that ran for president. Donald J Trump. Maybe he will fix the very thing alot of democrats are complaining about. :)
You were given more than 2 candidates. I know for a fact that Johnson was on the ballot in all 50 states. That's getting away from my point though. When you cast your vote, you're voting for that person and all of the policies and attributes of that person. There's a difference between these two statements:Quote:
Originally Posted by natebane
"I voted for Clinton, but I do not support her wishes to preserve the ACA."
And
"Despite my disdain for the ACA, I voted for Clinton."
The first sentence just isn't true. You gave her the support on her stance by voting for her. I'll give another example.
Say in 2020, someone comes forward who is like 90% my absolute perfect candidate. Pretty much all of proposed policies allign with what I believe to be best for the country. However, he is a neo-nazi who also intends to purge the country of any non-whites. Now, despite having these great policy ideas I could and would never vote for this person because you don't get to cop out behind saying something like "look, I voted for the policies that I liked. I didn't vote for an ethnic cleansing" because yes you absolutely did vote for an ethnic cleansing.
Getting back to Trump, my point is that in the face of policy you support, there are deal breakers and you can't just ignore it. If you voted for Trump you gave him permission to bring everything he's bringing to the white house.
A vote for Trump meant that disrespect of POWs wasn't a deal breaker for you. It meant that the mockery of the disabled wasn't a deal breaker for you. It meant that banning all Muslims from entering the country wasn't a deal breaker for you. This is what the problem is.
But that's not true. You have the exact same influence and power as everyone else. Your vote carries the exact same weight as my vote or as John from New York or as Jane from a town of 1500. I still don't have an answer of why where you live should dictate how important your vote is. I'm willing to bet that if we switched to popular vote we'd have much better voter turnout. As it is now, if you're a Republican that lives in California or a Democrat in Texas, you don't have much reason to go out and vote (for the president, obviously you can still be influential in local ballot stuff). If we switched to popular vote, those people have reason to out and vote because their vote actually does matter now. It's now officially a vote in favor of their candidate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Elldallan
You attack the issue from the wrong angle. Each invidual sure has the same power but if you watch it as a group of people, ie urban and countryside, the urban side has for sure more power than the countryside.Quote:
But that's not true. You have the exact same influence and power as everyone else. Your vote carries the exact same weight as my vote or as John from New York or as Jane from a town of 1500. I still don't have an answer of why where you live should dictate how important your vote is. I'm willing to bet that if we switched to popular vote we'd have much better voter turnout. As it is now, if you're a Republican that lives in California or a Democrat in Texas, you don't have much reason to go out and vote (for the president, obviously you can still be influential in local ballot stuff). If we switched to popular vote, those people have reason to out and vote because their vote actually does matter now. It's now officially a vote in favor of their candidate.
But why is that a problem? We're all Americans. The urban side has more "power" because there is more people. The government is supposed to represent the people
I will point out the obvious country people do not need help of the big city people. But City people depend on country people for almost everything. So really country people should have the only say. ;)
LMAO this was a hilarious post. Republicans may have the most guns, sure, but I don't see how every hillbilly will use all of their 20 gun stash with just two hands. I assure you there are plenty of gun owning liberals in America, we're just not idiots and support background checks and more controls for the right to do so.Quote:
Originally Posted by handofthrawn
And "take back" your country from who? Anyone who is different than you? This stage of the Republican Party is on the wrong side of history and will be nothing more than an embarrassing old scar on a future more civilized society. The slaughter of American Indians, slavery, and the election of Donald Trump. If you think progress will stop because you got this clown in the White House, you are sorely mistaken. The majority of this country still believes in equality and real change.
You mean like a foreign government getting directly involved in one campaign to skew an election result? You elected who the Russian people wanted, not the American people. And the only thing that needs fixing is to abolish the electoral college so the true majority decides our President. Without the college we'd have had a peaceful and prosperous 20 years of democratic leadership without Republicans starting multiple wars, destroying the economy, and fueling massive racial and social divides in our own borders.Quote:
Originally Posted by handofthrawn
If you switched to a strictly popular vote system, then you are going to see all major candidates strictly campaigning in densely populated rural areas due to efficiency of dollars spent per vote gained. All policy proposals and issues will be geared towards winning the favor of the urban block of voters with some slight nods towards people living in the countryside. A candidate might go visiting the capital of Wyoming or some other rural state saying vote for me because I was the only one that gave enough ****s to come out here after campaigning in New York, LA, whatever other major metropolitan.
As if campaign locations had anything to do with who won this election. It's all about what you see on TV, which is why the average voter is completely uneducated on actual issues and policies and vote on nothing more than "walls" and "emails".
Oh, so all those silly Constitutional Amendments we have don't count? Strange, I thought some of those were pretty important.....Quote:
Originally Posted by Wilmington
There are absolutely issues with the electoral college system. It's ridiculously archaic in a number of ways.
That being said, there's some value in weighting against population density a little bit. If we were looking at electing a president strictly on the basis of popular vote, then your average Dem would barely step outside the top 10 big cities when campaigning. Consolidating the urban vote would be far more important and far more valuable than reaching out to swing states, needing to broaden your appeal a little bit more to attract a bit more of the rural crowd, rather than simply pandering to the big cities. It's the same reason each state, regardless of size or population, gets equal representation in the Senate.
Frankly, I think that the people crying for electoral reform because Hillary lost should look more at the value of an instant runoff (i.e. 'ranked') ballot as opposed to scrapping the electoral college. (Not to say the EC doesn't need reform, but that's more complicated.) An instant runoff ballot allows one to escape from the mess of a 'two party system' without raising the specter of vote-splitting, and there really are no down sides in terms of a presidential election - well, unless you LIKE a two-party system, and the way it consolidates power in a small political elite.
Quite frankly, if President Cat-Grabber seriously wants to undermine the establishment behind the two main parties, he'll press hard for an instant runoff ballot in future elections. That's how you empower alternative ideas, and the weakening of the entrenched powers, by allowing people to actually vote for third party candidates (and thus giving the third parties reasons to field more serious candidates than the nutbars they did this time around) without being afraid that "A vote for a third party is a vote for the guy you like least".
If it was all about what you see on television, then Hillary should have won hands down. Her total general election ad spending was $211million to his $74million while outside groups supporting either candidate spent in the same ratio. It was a complete propaganda machine on Hillary's part if you take into account publications like the New York Times saying Donald didn't deserve fair treatment in reporting; however, despite the massive bias against Donald it was hard to hide her corruption.
Scrapping the college is easy and logical to suggest when the only two times in the last century the college has overridden the popular vote has given us Bush and Trump. Overriding the popular vote gave us two wars, a major economic collapse, and now widespread racism, harassment, and hatred.
THERE ARE SWASTIKAS BEING DISPLAYED ALL OVER AMERICA RIGHT NOW. HOW DAFT CAN YOU BE TO SUPPORT THIS ELECTION????
You're missing the point. Trump thrives on television, Clinton does not. And what exactly was biased against Trump? He lied 75% of the time, reporting those lies is not biased. And what is corrupt about Clinton other than you hearing Trump call her "Crooked Hillary" 10,000 times on TV? Trump, who uses charity funds for his own personal use, calling someone else crooked is beyond hilarious.Quote:
Originally Posted by natebane
If a certain people get to decide the votes cause they live in a highly populated area thats not really a fair represenatation of democracy imo. It does work in Sweden as Eldalllan pointed out but as a country like USA its not so sucessfull for popular vote only. Some people get screwed over just cause they live in low pop area.Quote:
Originally Posted by Palem
I can't get past the nonsense of this being rural vs urban issue when everyone knows it was mostly about race.
Jobs? Factories/farms/mines, etc will continue to be automated, those jobs are never coming back.
Immigration? There will be no wall, and everyone knows it. Also affected are the millions of foreign students who will decide to study elsewhere. We just lost countless doctors, engineers, and scientists because a racist clown was voted in as President.
Healthcare? Yes, let's just rip health insurance from 20 million Americans with no substitute ideas, brilliant. There will be no effort to correct the flaws and reduce costs, cuz we can't have a healthcare system named after a black guy obviously. So we'll just repeal!
Economy? Trump filed bankruptcy four times, lol. He can't run a business, let alone a country.
Media had countless opportunities to say, "this man is nothing but a con artist and a liar", but because the media is a con itself it could never articulate that message. The best they can do is Pussygate.Quote:
Originally Posted by DHaran
Neoliberalism just ate itself.
Knowing what the Clintons represent and what they'd likely do with the presidency, I can't say we miss out on much good. The only thing they had to motivate me to vote for them is that Republicans are even worse, and a Trump reich will run this country into the ground 100%. What's sicker is that, in a couple of decades, Republicans will proudly call themselves the Party of Trump, just like with that senile sack of **** Reagan.
The system in this country and the nature of politics rewards politicians for ****ting on the people. It worked that way for Obama, who was nothing but a poverty pimp and pushed a privatized health care boondoggle that is running into the ground. ****, they still have a favorable view of the man. If Obama actually delivered socialized health care, do you think people would appreciate it? It's better for Democrats to keep conditions miserable enough that people fear Republicans, rather than build systems that Republicans can't tear down without an uproar.
It was discussed in the media plenty, just not on red-run Fox News, which is where the uninformed masses get their one-sided information. The "biased" other news outlets aren't biased at all, they just report facts that people don't want to know. Ignorance is bliss.
You do realize that CNN was proven to be conspiring to help get Hillary Clinton elected right? That they even helped her beat Bernie Sanders by giving her debate questions, not covering anything negative about her and being extremely biased against her opponents Bernie or Trump.Quote:
Originally Posted by DHaran
False. The DNC interim chair leaked the debate question. I'm sure Fox News reported it differently.Quote:
Originally Posted by handofthrawn
She worked for CNN at the time, hence how she got the questions.Quote:
Originally Posted by DHaran
CNN suspended her contract when she became DNC chair, it's not like the company leaked the questions, lol.
from Skank: funny stuff grrrl,
The real Billionaires of Washington D.C. aka Trump This!
Its a downgrade for Trump from Penthouse to Whitehouse.
Only time in US history a Billionaire family has moved into Public housing while moving a black family out.
Negros and Mexicans did not vote. Caucasians voted in RECORD numbers.
Each year is record year because of population growth, DUH!
Republicans will control the Presidency, Senate, and House.
Trump will nominate the next 3 supreme court justice.
Obama care is history in 2018
The world is doomed. It was just handed over to big business.
Lets see the worthless obfuscating Republicans put up or shut up and abolish abortion like their platform states.
Let all of the poisons that lurk in the bog... hatch out.
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/NY1IXOg7ac8/hqdefault.jpg
Most of what CNN, MSNBC said were just retreads of Hillary's anti-Trump talking points, rather than explicit explanations of "this is why Trump is wrong" or "this is why Trump is lying his pants off", or even "this is why Trump is part of the establishment, despite his claims to the contrary." Such criticism would require the establishment media to acknowledge their own part in the game. This is why, instead of actually talking about wikileaks, CNN tried to tell people that it's illegal to read them, and started beating the war drums about Russia. **** like that is what inspires people to ask themselves, "why the hell am I voting for this woman?" - and if they're working a job on election day (an increasingly precarious job), they're going to have problems reaching the polls and decide to bag it rather than wait hours to vote for someone they don't like or want.Quote:
Originally Posted by DHaran
It happened with the presidential debates too - Hillary made a choice not to run on substance but style, and she doesn't have style. It worked for Obama, her team must have thought, not remembering that Obama had far inferior opponents and there was no way in Hell a Republican could win '08. That she had more substance didn't show, when she gets sidetracked and goes off on another Russia conspiracy theory.
Trump got a crazy amount of free air time. Every time he said something crazy - which was basically every other day for the last 17 months - it got played endlessly on all the mainstream media outlets. Yes, the editorials were all critical, but it gave Trump the air time to get his message out that normally you need to pay a lot of money for.Quote:
Originally Posted by natebane
People claim Trump is reckless but Hillary Clinton throws out reckless claims about Russia. They had absolutely no evidence Russian government was involved but yet spread propaganda that could have led to war all in the quest for more power. You really want a president like that? Anyone following the wikileaks knows someone leaked them from inside the DNC.
https://media.giphy.com/media/H5k10tl3FPuKc/giphy.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by handofthrawn
This explanation doesn't make any sense. It's not "certain people" deciding the election with a popular vote. It's all people. About 50% of Americans live in big cities and about 50% of Americans live in suburban/rural America. There's also the fact that the media exists to spread candidates messages and also the Internet, which covers just about every American.Quote:
Originally Posted by Korp
I still don't have an explanation of how inflating anyone's voting power over other people's voting power is a fairer system then everyone's voting power being exactly the same.
There is no explanation; the college is outdated and doesn't work anymore. The popular votes of 2000 and 2016 prove it needs to be abolished. A popular vote may not be the BEST system, but it's certainly been proven to be better than the college.
While California may possess a larger voting block, the will of the people they represent is at max the 38 million people within their own state and cannot speak beyond those borders for the will of Ohioans. We're not some homogenized state like the European countries. A collection of separate individual states with their own congress and sets of laws joined together with the presumption of representation granted to their state.
Aye the Electoral College system is bat**** insane and needs to be abolished.and yes popular vote. preferably single transferable vote,to allow people to vote for the candidate they want rather than vote against whatever is running against the candidate they don't want without actually helping to put that other candidate in power.Quote:
Originally Posted by DHaran
Just the fact that the electors aren't by law required to vote for the candidate their state elected is another reason it needs to go, so technically Trump isn't the president elect until the electors have voted.
Although I think that somewhat skewing the voting power away from urban areas is a good thing to prevent the ever increasing urbanization from making cities the only ground worth fighting over.
If we went with a popular vote instead of the Electoral College, then CA, and the states with the larger presence of population would drown out the voices of the rest of the world. If we were to get rid of the electoral college, then why don't we go back to when only Landowners voted, or only men aged 30 and up who were white for that matter. It would be JUST as fair...
The angry masses have spoken and the riotous behavior right now is being staged by George Soros and the media elite. There are many false flags flying right now calling hatred by Trumpers and by Clintonites as well. Guess what, the system was not made to be fair.