I hope so, it's just that I thought it would be impossible the first time around and look what happened. At least we'll have a choice other than Hillary
I'm pretty sure he only got as far as he did because people thought it would be funny. A shit ton of people put their votes toward a dead gorilla if that doesnt help explain how much of a joke 2016 was
well its a thing of, any vote not for hillary or trump was a throw away vote whether that is a nice comfy cozy fact or not and hella people didnt trust Hillary more than a lick of a dog's ass. There are still people that would argue that trump still did better than Hillary would have. There is also not a small amount of people that believe that hillary was placed as the opposition to trump specifically to get him in office. One thing that is of note is the fact that the pollsters predicted hillary winning by a landslide because trump voters lied to them about who their vote was for because trump wasnt the socially acceptable choice.
I hate to break it to y'all, but a lot of us actually do like him and what he's been doing. Overall, we're doing pretty well as a nation, in spite of the media's and Antifa's best efforts.
Frankly, the Democrats' only real chances of attracting moderates or RINOs is Biden or Gabbard, but it doesn't look like the Party is willing to back them over the open-border, gun-grabbing, free speech killing, fiscally illiterate lunatics that Twitter likes.
In conclusion, Trump 2020, and Haley 2024.
If the Democrats would have a come to Jesus and realize why so many people backed Trump, things might be different. But everywhere I look it's just more ridicule, mocking, insulting, threatening, and otherwise dismissing anyone Right of center.
You realize that you ridicule, mock, and insult people that don't agree with your political beliefs all the fucking time on this site? Are you being fucking serious right now!?!
"a lot of us...."
thats not really accurate anymore. Even the republicans are starting to get fed up with him which is fucking rare for there to be a noticeable republican outcry against a republican president
People tend to defend a president based on “how things are doing” which never made much sense to me. Large operations tend to move slowly unless you do something almost reckless. It often takes decades to see the real effects of social change and economic policies- and like many “management” positions you often don’t see the last guys work start to bloom until the next guy is in office- which is why so many “leaders” can step in and see “immediate results” and then Peter off- because those results were crips planted long ago that fruited while they were in a chair.
The establishment Repubs never liked him in the first place. Didn't stop him last time. Even then, who would ditch an aggravating President in favor of one who is against everything them and their constituents support? We vote for policies, not personalities.
And the little outcry there is from the right is only noticeable because the media's putting it on blast to drown out his supporters, much like how they said Clinton would win in a landslide before, their biases are hurting them. Most of those I know who've been polled either ignored the pollster or outright lied, just because it's such a joke to us. We don't trust them, why would you?
Are Trumps policies good or bad? Likely some of both- but we won’t know just yet. In fact- many experts and arm chair experts have pointed out that many of his policies ARE effective... short term... and likely destructive long term. When he’s made moves experienced experts have said “shouldn’t be done” etc, and those moves haven’t immediate blown up in his face, he and supporters have pointed to these as examples of nay sayers and fools picking at his expert skills...
But they weren’t saying it can’t work- they were saying one should know better because like maxing a credit card and then paying it off with other lines of credit while buying more things- it WILL make you short term financially ample but eventually the stop gaps can’t keep up and you’re in trouble. Will that happen? Who knows. But he’s set up contentious international relations and potential trade issues that will likely be left for the next administration to work out, all to cries “Donald would have done better!” “Under Trump things were good for me and now they aren’t...!” Like cursing the rehab doctor because you have crashed after your last doctor just kept prescribing more cocaine to make you feel good. Maybe it doesn’t go that way. We will see.
But wether the people want him or not doesn’t really matter does it? He isn’t the president right now because he won the popular vote is he? So what will matter is wether political elites still want him in office or not.
The same experienced experts who got us into this mess in the first place? Fuck 'em.
The world got too used to us solving their problems for them. Free money, free security, free blood. And what in return? Uneven trade, inconsistent support, deals with our rivals, and little to no thanks throughout.
We've been on opioids, now it's high time we make like Audie Murphy. Get off the shit and do what's good for us, no matter how much it hurts.
Pain is not bad. Hunger is not bad. But fearing either so much that we'll tolerate being used and abused like an addicted whore instead of maintaining ourselves like a high-class escort? That is bad.
That whole "landslide" argument is bogus. Yeah, a month out the polls were showing a landslide, but in a week and a half before the election nearly every poll had them within 4 points of each other, easily within the margin of error.
And if electors voted like the people vote, they'd slice up the % of electoral votes to each candidate. What, one or two states do that? With electors it's all or nothing, it doesn't really represent the will of the people, which is why the last two republicans have won the electoral vote but lost the popular vote.
Are we still talking about that tweeting racist who promised to end national debt within 8 years? The guy who said that if national debt would rise over $21 Mrd under Obama, the country was broke? And who now currently in an atmosphere of lowered unemployment and economical growth is making 4 billion new dues a *day*? And has easily jumped the 22 Mrd bareer?
That's gonna be a heavy package to carry for following generations, especially as they don't want to pay taxes, because that means "enslavery".
I'm not in this thread to argue about policy, my original statement is that too many of our friends on the left don't seem to understand that the people who disagree with them exist, understand the issues, and have very different lives and priorities.
Also, Europeans need not interject, we've got nothing to prove to you.
I'm not here to argue either, well, at least not with you as it is impossible to have you admitting that maybe, perhaps, eventually there is even one tiny thing Trump or any other far right nationalist could do wrong whilst all others definetly do as per your comment under every post critisizing even the tiniest but most obvious mistakes done in your country. And whatevs, yes, you have to prove you're still a reliable commercial partner. Which is being doubted more the longer Fuckface von Clownstick is on duty, as he thinks he could e.g. "win" against China and Europe. there's nothing you can win when fighting partners you're depending on.
There's plenty President Trump has and hasn't done that I don't like or approve of, it's just that y'all seem to hate everything.
Now, keep telling us what we're doing wrong, Americans just love a Euro telling us what to do, that's why we became a country, isn't it? So Europe could better control our money and our blood?
Now, how about an American steps forward to explain why Trump was a fluke and how CNN or MSNBC knows that self-reliant Americans in rural communities really just want to be disarmed and have all their money given to illegals and Europeans? Or is that not what the Democrats are campaigning for?
I’m not going to endorse EVERYTHING famousone has said- but I do believe that it’s valid to say that there are Americans living in situations where they feel Trump is guarding their interests and priorities. It isn’t fair to automatically label people racist for acting in their self interest- that which is in ones self interest just quite often happens to be against the self interest of others. It’s a fine distinction but important. A lot of people just care much more about themselves than others. It’s rather simple.
That is the nature of a thing like slavery or bigotry from a practical point of view. For instance- even if one doesn’t feel prejudice against a certain group- where the subjugation of that group is to self benefit- one can be complicit or advocate it for economic or personal gain without hate towards another human being- it’s just for most people psychologically hate either develops out of the nature of such a relationship or as a justification for what they can treat another human being that way. Much like in war- dehumanizing aids the human mind in reconciling self image with actions we wouldn’t tolerate to “equal humans.”
It doesn’t even have to be so deep. It can simply be a total lack of thought towards others. If one focuses solely on their own needs- they don’t consider the consequences to others when making decisions. One might question the morality of such actions but can’t question they tend to e effective at getting a person what it is they want, and if YOU and what YOU want are of chief concern to you then that is generally sufficient for a person in such mindset.
Simply put, urban centers house most of America’s population. If we truly had a “majority vote” by the people, without shenanigans like gerrymandering and “swing states” and the like- just everyone got a vote and voted for what they wanted and that happened- most elections would be very predictable and follow whatever the politics and needs of urban centers dictated. While we can argue that the current system unfairly gives smaller population groups votes more weight per person- but it would also be unfair to say anyone who doesn’t live in a population dense area effectively doesn’t get a voice.
You simply need 270 electoral votes to win. There is no constitutional provision requiring electoral voters to vote according to their state. That said- many states have laws that will default all electoral votes for the state to whichever candidate wins the popular vote there. This is problematic for several reasons....
But as you point out- because of things like districting and the like- one can not only target key spots but one can “hide” votes so that those votes don’t actually count, and with all the states elective votes going to the majority winner- whoever did their districting better and hit the targets right wins the day. So theoretically one could actually win with even LESS than that.
deleted
· 4 years ago
... mainly for the reason you're getting shitty presidents who got mainly elected by country bumpkins
It’s critically important to understand that the vote of voters in low population states counts more than the vote of those in high population states- it can be more than 10x as much. That means that by targeting states with low populations but high electoral votes, a candidate can theoretically seize the presidency even though only a small percentage of the population votes for them. In states where lines are drawn to ensure that a “preferred” party will tend to be a majority for the precincts in most districts- one can completely remove opposing parties voters from the count and this secure the state electoral votes.
Brilliant in the sense that it’s unique. We insult people with words that are so overused that no one cares if they are called a bitch anymore. But call someone a fuckface von clownstick and if nothing else you’ll leave them a little speechless
3
deleted
· 4 years ago
Part of it. dictionary. com/e/pop-culture/fuckface-von-clownstick/
It's been coined by Jon Stewart which is nice, cause Bill Maher turned into a bit of a tool the last couple years.
Frankly, the Democrats' only real chances of attracting moderates or RINOs is Biden or Gabbard, but it doesn't look like the Party is willing to back them over the open-border, gun-grabbing, free speech killing, fiscally illiterate lunatics that Twitter likes.
In conclusion, Trump 2020, and Haley 2024.
thats not really accurate anymore. Even the republicans are starting to get fed up with him which is fucking rare for there to be a noticeable republican outcry against a republican president
And the little outcry there is from the right is only noticeable because the media's putting it on blast to drown out his supporters, much like how they said Clinton would win in a landslide before, their biases are hurting them. Most of those I know who've been polled either ignored the pollster or outright lied, just because it's such a joke to us. We don't trust them, why would you?
The world got too used to us solving their problems for them. Free money, free security, free blood. And what in return? Uneven trade, inconsistent support, deals with our rivals, and little to no thanks throughout.
We've been on opioids, now it's high time we make like Audie Murphy. Get off the shit and do what's good for us, no matter how much it hurts.
Pain is not bad. Hunger is not bad. But fearing either so much that we'll tolerate being used and abused like an addicted whore instead of maintaining ourselves like a high-class escort? That is bad.
That's gonna be a heavy package to carry for following generations, especially as they don't want to pay taxes, because that means "enslavery".
Also, Europeans need not interject, we've got nothing to prove to you.
Now, keep telling us what we're doing wrong, Americans just love a Euro telling us what to do, that's why we became a country, isn't it? So Europe could better control our money and our blood?
Now, how about an American steps forward to explain why Trump was a fluke and how CNN or MSNBC knows that self-reliant Americans in rural communities really just want to be disarmed and have all their money given to illegals and Europeans? Or is that not what the Democrats are campaigning for?
It's been coined by Jon Stewart which is nice, cause Bill Maher turned into a bit of a tool the last couple years.