nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

El Presidente Trump

Kermit.de.frog

It's happened folks. You are only waking up but it has happened. A genuine unstable idiot has become president of the US.

I will be asleep as you wake. But I will wake too and I will also think of the consequences and wonder is it a dream:eek:

It's not a dream.

It's real.

F**k

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

osarusan

Manic Moran wrote: »

It's an idea which has been proposed, and I'm not sure what the practical effect would be, but I'm not sure I can see how it would actually pass.
Let's take my State of California. It is basically run by Democrats. Every now and then we have a Republican governor or treasurer or something, but we're very solidly and definitely 'blue.' Given its current 55 EC votes, our one state alone provides almost 20% of the votes needed to win the presidential election. Further, given that it is basically solid blue, this means that as long as Democratic-run California can eke out even a tiny majority in favour of the Democratic candidate, that's a huge boost that can be given to 'their' candidate for President in the national contest. What is the incentive for the Democratic government of California to split its EC vote and then reduce the chances of their Presidential candidate winning? You'd basically be asking them to voluntarily give a significant portion of their votes to the opposition. I just don't see that happening.

Sure, I agree.

My expectation though is that the opposition to it would likely be based on political expediency (who would it benefit more, and then why would the other party vote for it) rather than feasibility. Obviously the Democrats would lose EC votes in California, but they'd pick up EV votes elsewhere also.

For that matter, has the idea of adding up all the state percentages for each candidate and then dividing that total by 51 to reach an 'overall average percentage' ever been considered?

beach_walker

Depp wrote: »

also find it strange that a candidate so deeply funded by the saudi royal family is so well supported in the lgbt community.

bearing in mind that for the saudis the ''party line'' as regards homosexuality is still to throw them off the roof of a tall building.

Nah, couldn't be. Katy Perry, Lady Gaga and Beyonce told me that Clinton was the best choice.

Depp

TheOven wrote: »

The GOP supports parents using conversion therapy, a practice which is ineffective and is just abuse, on their children. It won't be mandatory but they support the choice of parents to abuse LGBT minors.

The democrats have no mention of throwing gay people off buildings in theirs.

then really your problem is with said parents, not trump, find me where trump has said he supports or encourages conversion therapy and i'll listen to your argument but simply saying pence has supported it in the past isnt really good enough, trump is the president not pence.

lawlolawl

TheOven wrote: »

The GOP supports parents using conversion therapy, a practice which is ineffective and is just abuse, on their children. It won't be mandatory but they support the choice of parents to abuse LGBT minors.

Really? Oh look, the actual wording of the document:

The plank, pushed by Family Research Council president and convention delegate Tony Perkins, reads, "We support the right of parents to determine the proper treatment or therapy, for their minor children."

Looks like it doesn't mention conversion therapy at all but let's not have that get in the way of a good rant.

beach_walker

Gael23 wrote: »

At age70, is it reasonable to expect him to be a one term president?

At age 69, would it have been the same to expect of Clinton? Serious, I don't think either of these ages are suitable for El Pres.

Depp

Gael23 wrote: »

At age70, is it reasonable to expect him to be a one term president?

one would assume so...also one would hope the dems have learned their lesson and can come up with a decent candidate by 2020

retro:electro

Hopefully the days of the celebrity endorsements are over. Like I give a sh1t who multi millionaire pop stars are voting for. That does nothing only to create more divide. It actually made Trump look like a man of the people and totally worked to his advantage

Dick phelan

It's a bit farcical a country can call itself a democracy and yet the person with the most votes doesn't win, what the hell is wrong with whoever get's the most votes wins, the electoral college system is complicating something that could be very simple

Bongalongherb

Fair play to Trump, his win at least removed a corrupt and dangerous person from presidency. He'll do a lot better for his country than Obama and the clinton-wall-street bunch.

I see that the whingers of Clintons army are out now smashing the place to pieces over their Clinton loss, with no respect for the democratic decision. I never saw so many violent and distructive women/feminists in such action all at once.

Give the man a chance, he might just be able to improve things for everyones benefit.

lawlolawl

TheOven wrote: »

Sorry, I didnt realize I was supposed to provide you with everything you wanted while ignoring everything I asked.

Pigeons and chess come to mind. Enjoy abusing LGBT minors.

Yeah, why would you provide evidence for the claims you are making?

What sort of a fool does that?

[Deleted User]

wrote:

Trump with no political machine, with no right to win the GOP primary's, never mind a presidential race, beat the Republican and then Democratic establishments. Fighting off a hostile media he eventually won the US election and defeated the might of the entire Clinton machine with a cooms strategy that involved spending little in advertising, alienating women and insulting minorities.

Remarkable.

Hitler also bet off the establishments of both main parties in Germany between 1932 and 1934 in the process alienating socialists, Jews, minorities....

Sure didn't the billionaire, tax-dodger beat the "establishment". Ipso facto, he must be a great man!

Why are people being so obtuse?

beach_walker

Dick phelan wrote: »

It's a bit farcical a country can call itself a democracy and yet the person with the most votes doesn't win, what the hell is wrong with whoever get's the most votes wins, the electoral college system is complicating something that could be very simple

It's not too hard to understand really. Apply your thinking to the EU and ponder on why it wouldn't fly.

learn_more

Gael23 wrote: »

At age70, is it reasonable to expect him to be a one term president?

Not so much because of his age but because he won't deliver what he promised.

G1032

Are the Electoral College electors legally and constitutionally bound to vote in accordance with the popular vote?

Depp

learn_more wrote: »

Not so much because of his age but because he won't deliver what he promised.

can I have a lend of your crystal ball I want to get the lotto numbers for saturday!

Outlaw Pete

Arturo Bandini wrote: »

I don't get how these people can rationalize their opinions.

I read one of that crowd earlier today say the election result made them feel the same way they did when the first plane hit the twin towers. You couldn't make it up. They are a parody of themselves at this stage. Most of them have spent the guts of two decades manipulating certain sections of society into seeing them as a victims and into seeing their 'issues' as being hugely important, when in reality, they are not and so when someone like Trump wins (who is pretty much the antithesis of everything they believe in and stand for) it blows their mind as they have had their fingers in their ears the whole damn time. Their facebook and twitter likes is what they have come to use as a barometer for whether they are wrongheaded or not. If an opinion wasn't expressed in their echo chamber and then back slapped by their followers / friends .. then they see it as beneath them to even acknowledge it with anything more than a sneer.

These people don't just disagree with those that voted for Trump, they arrogantly don't even feel their views should be allowed to be aired. Look at how many Trump rallies were protested over the past year and how safe spaces were demanded when anyone was to lecture at college campuses that had a pro-Trump message. Milo Yiannopoulos (the most prolific of those perhaps) ended up kicked off Twitter for his support of Trump. Anyone who thinks the Leslie Jones debacle was what was the reasoning for that, wasn't really paying attention. They just used that as a stick to beat him with.

Even now, even after Brexit and Trump winning these people are still trying to control the narrative by attempted to police what is allowed to be said on our airwaves, as I see that tonight there a campaign has been started to remove Katie Hopkins from this weekend's Late Late Show guest list. Don't have much time for her myself (an annoying bint at the best of times) but why are these people so intent on silencing opposing opinions. Surely someone like Hopkins hangs herself with her own words. From memory the last time she was here she made a show of herself and wasn't even applauded as she left.

https://twitter.com/SiobhanFeely/status/796466043732586496

https://twitter.com/nigelmconnor/status/796437910983757824

https://twitter.com/griffski/status/796453688575401984

You would hope (naively perhaps) that the liberal left would start to examine the way in which they conduct themselves. How many more election results flying in the face of their self indulgent pompous narratives will it take before they begin to wonder if maybe it's at all possible that someone outside their echo chamber could be right about something? Or is it much too late for that. Perhaps so as these people are no spring chickens, even if they behave so.

lawlolawl

learn_more wrote: »

Not so much because of his age but because he won't deliver what he promised.

The same way as he wasn't going to win the nomination and then the presidency?

"Won't" doesn't mean much to the man by the looks of things. I see that as a positive quality in a leader.

osarusan

G1032 wrote: »

Are the Electoral College electors legally and constitutionally bound to vote in accordance with the popular vote?

No, they can vote as they please, but not voting as they have pledged to do is extraordinarily rare. In some states they can be punished for breaking the pledge.

TheOven

G1032 wrote: »

Are the Electoral College electors legally and constitutionally bound to vote in accordance with the popular vote?

Some states can have faithless electors.

G1032

osarusan wrote: »

No, they can vote as they please, but not voting as they have pledged to do is extraordinarily rare.

It'd take a fair few rogue electors so to vote Hillary in but technically possible?

Gael23

Depp wrote: »

one would assume so...also one would hope the dems have learned their lesson and can come up with a decent candidate by 2020

Agreed, but they are going to be so bruised that may prove difficult

learn_more wrote: »

Not so much because of his age but because he won't deliver what he promised.

For the sake of the World I hope he doesn't do what he promised.

retro:electro

Odds on him making it through his presidency without being assassinated? The secret service have their work cut out for them

Ulysses Gaze

anna080 wrote: »

Odds on him making it through his presidency without being assassinated? The secret service have their work cut out for them

People said the same about Obama.

Christy42

Depp wrote: »

never said she would was merely saying its interesting to see where the money is coming from!

also dont see how you're getting at me defending conversion therapy? havent said anything of the sort and for the record its a disgusting practice.

similar to the opening line of your post, do you believe pence is going to try and introduce mandatory conversion therapy?

One has received money from a place with horrific laws. One has someone on the ticket who will serve in office itself who has helped along (less) horrific laws. How are you not getting that having the hatred in the office is worse. Hillary won't be enacting or encouraging any of the Saudi laws. Trump/Pence will encourage their own horrific practices. It is a ridiculous stretch to say that Trump isn't far worse for the last community.

There is one thing I agree with Trump on. The Electoral College has been a disaster for democracy.

[Deleted User]

It's all downhill for Trump from here. All those inevitably broken promises are going to lead to much disillusion with him from the alienated fringes that voted for him.

He should be afraid of the reaction of at least some of these people when it dawns on them that Trump, too, is a fraud. The bigger they are, the harder they fall.

beach_walker

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Don't have much time for her myself (an annoying bint at the best of times) but why are these people so intent on silencing opposing opinions.

No platform. It's their mantra. No descent, no opposing viewpoints. Just look at the profiles of those to fill in the stereotype.

These SJW tossers haven't the slightest idea why people turn against them. Yeah the Late Late Show, this is where ye'll make your stand

Bonaparted

tomwaterford wrote: »

Tbf....you couldn't make it up and if saw it in a film....youd dismiss it as stupid and unrealistic :pac: :pac:

You're dead right! A lot of the highlights of 2016 have proven to be stranger than fiction.

Ulysses Gaze

Bonaparted wrote: »

You're dead right! A lot of the highlights of 2016 have proven to be stranger than fiction.

A politician like Trump has already been depicted in a film

Christy42

beach_walker wrote: »

No platform. It's their mantra. No descent, no opposing viewpoints. Just look at the profiles of those to fill in the stereotype.

These SJW tossers haven't the slightest idea why people turn against them. Yeah the Late Late Show, this is where ye'll make your stand

Yeah stopping someone getting on the late late is really stopping free speech. People are free to complain how their taxes are spent. Not everyone can get on TV and so cuts have to be made and her career is passing people off and saying dumb things. Nothing special.

mikeym

Watching Fox News just now and the news presenters are feeling ecstatic.

When a Democrat is in charge he gets constantly get slated by Fox News.

When a Republican is in charge he gets no criticism from Fox News.

Fox News is a toxic biased news station.