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

Butters1979

kunst nugget wrote: »

He never made that distinction in his original post.

Sovereign countries have the right to restrict immigration into said country, especially if that immigration negatively impacts the people of that country. You do not have some undeniable right to go wherever has the best benefits system.

The irony of you worried about been unemployed yet condoning free immigration of cheap labour into the country is confusing.

Anyway, this is going off topic.

conorhal

humanji wrote: »

Most of that is even debatable, but assuming it's true (sure who'd put it past her?), that's still nothing compared to the republicans. They actually rigged the election. They colluded with the FBI. Jesus, they tried to pretend Clinton was a baby eating devil-worshipper. What the dems did was nothing compared to all that.

For somone casually dismissing well documented accusations of dirty tricks by the Clinton campaign, that's some impressive amount of hysterical hyperbole right there.

Jelle1880

Quite a lot of 'woe unto us poor white people' in this thread.

Nift

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

This wonderful lady has it spot on about the "protesters" Laura rocks

No she's a f**king idiot

wes

Widdershins wrote: »

Someone said of the 'protests' against the election result: We are raising a generation of emotional hemophiliacs.
I have to agree.

Its pretty funny, that for people who are saying you shouldn't sneer at people, then turn around and do exactly that. If the idea that such sneering will back fire, then once the generation you denigrate so much are eventually in charge, then your in for a hell of a time

midlandsmissus

How is the Electoral College vote fair really.

If more people in the largely populated areas, e.g. New York and California voted for Hillary, and more people overall voted for Hilary. But the E.C.V wanted to make sure the sparser states were represented.

But hasn't the E.C.V introduced bias in one way - that what the overall majority want, is not reflected?

My male American friend posted on line that Trump won due receiving huge votes from the group, 'un college educated white men'. When another poster asked him why it was relevant pointing out their level of education, he said that we learn more about diversity in education, and I agree.

Trump is now representing one section of the country that voted for him, and a large number of votes for Hilary have been disregarded. Isn't this what the E.C system was meant to prevent? Lack of representation of certain States of America.

There is also the issue of winner takes all, where if a candidate wins by a tiny margin in one state, all of the votes for the other candidate are disregarded.

What do people think of the E.C.V system?

jimgoose

midlandsmissus wrote: »

How is the Electoral College vote fair really...

Oh, I'd say it would be perfectly fair if Mrs. C. had won, somehow! :pac:

Akrasia

Jelle1880 wrote: »

Quite a lot of 'woe unto us poor white people' in this thread.

quite ironic considering that they keep calling others 'snowflakes'

Jelle1880

jimgoose wrote: »

Oh, I'd say it would be perfectly fair if Mrs. C. had won, somehow! :pac:

If she would have also won the popular vote then it would have been absolutely fair.

I don't know her stance on it but Trump has been critical of the system for a while now.

_Jamie_

Gael23 wrote: »

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

Lt Dan wrote: »

That is the only saving grace had either being elected.

Reagan served two terms beginning at age 70 (well, just shy of it). So if he remains in good health, two terms is a possibility.

kunst nugget

Akrasia wrote: »

quite ironic considering that they keep calling others 'snowflakes'

You're only a snowflake if what you're upset about isn't the same as what they're upset about.

jimgoose

Jelle1880 wrote: »

If she would have also won the popular vote then it would have been absolutely fair.

I don't know her stance on it but Trump has been critical of the system for a while now.

It can happen, that's the setup over there and most everyone understands it. John Quincy Adams, Rutherford Hayes, Ben Harrison and George W. Bush were also elected president despite losing the popular vote.

VinLieger

Okay but do you honestly think that if hillary had won the hardline republican trump supporters wouldnt be protesting just as much?

One of the main things that you can take away from the election results and the entire campaign is trumps supporters were far more passionate and dedicated than the vast majority of people who voted for hillary. So if people who voted for hilary are this energised about the result theres no way it wouldnt have happened similarly if trump hadnt won.

Protests were gonna happen either way due to how polarising and divisive this election was. Trying to single out the liberals and lefties as the problem is just scapegoating the real problem of populist politics and fear mongering used by BOTH sides.

midlandsmissus

Jelle1880 wrote: »

If she would have also won the popular vote then it would have been absolutely fair.

I don't know her stance on it but Trump has been critical of the system for a while now.

They are the only 1st world country that doesnt have a popular vote.

I'm not arguing that Trump won, I've just been reading up the system out of my own interest over the last few days. And I was wondering what other people thought of it. It's vast and complicated, and has been criticised for influencing a 2 party system.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

jimgoose

VinLieger wrote: »

Okay but do you honestly think that if hillary had won the hardline republican trump supporters wouldnt be protesting just as much?...

Of course, I wouldn't suggest otherwise for a nanosecond - some of those people are nuts! :pac:

Jelle1880

midlandsmissus wrote: »

They are the only 1st world country that doesnt have a popular vote.

I'm not arguing that Trump won, I've just been reading up the system out of my own interest over the last few days. And I was wondering what other people thought of it. It's vast and complicated, and has been criticised for influencing a 2 party system.

What I meant with that is that when it comes down to sheer numbers more people voted for her. There's plenty of other 1st world countries that don't have a genuine popular vote system where you get elected simply based on the amount of people that vote you in.

Butters1979

midlandsmissus wrote: »

How is the Electoral College vote fair really.

If more people in the largely populated areas, e.g. New York and California voted for Hillary, and more people overall voted for Hilary. But the E.C.V wanted to make sure the sparser states were represented.

But hasn't the E.C.V introduced bias in one way - that what the overall majority want, is not reflected?

My male American friend posted on line that Trump won due receiving huge votes from the group, 'un college educated white men'. When another poster asked him why it was relevant pointing out their level of education, he said that we learn more about diversity in education, and I agree.

Trump is now representing one section of the country that voted for him, and a large number of votes for Hilary have been disregarded. Isn't this what the E.C system was meant to prevent? Lack of representation of certain States of America.

There is also the issue of winner takes all, where if a candidate wins by a tiny margin in one state, all of the votes for the other candidate are disregarded.

What do people think of the E.C.V system?

The ECS was supposed to discourage smaller states from feeling under represented and looking to leave the union. It's not necessarily supposed to be fair at a national level. It was because when the US was first founded it was a much loser union which they were worried could fall apart quite easily, especially with European influence. The legislative branch is also weighted towards the lower populated states.

I agree it's unfair, it's archaic.

Not only does it allow for a president to be elected by getting less votes, it also can allow for situations where the presidential race will be decided by a few 'swing states' and most of the countries votes don't matter. For example, if you are a democrat in Texas or a Republican in California, there's no point getting out of bed on election day. This is the responsible for the low voter turn out in those states and over focus and pandering by both parties to certain states like Florida and Ohio.

It's a system with lots of flaws.

jacksie66

This post has been deleted.

ColdTurkey

Just dawned on me they have just elected Donald and Mickey

Jelle1880

It's weird how such a polarised election apparently got less people to the voting booth than previous ones.

Clinton had 6 million fewer voters than Obama in 2012, Trump won with less votes than Romney or McCain.

Jelle1880

jacksie66

This post has been deleted.

Lamentabli sane

Republican president, republican Congress and Senate. Hopefully some Republican appointments to the Supreme Court in the near future.

Its time to DRAIN THE SWAMP.

Lamentabli sane

Republican president, republican Congress and Senate. Hopefully some Republican appointments to the Supreme Court in the near future.

Its time to DRAIN THE SWAMP.

Lamentabli sane

:D:D:D

Jelle1880

Lamentabli sane wrote: »

Republican president, republican Congress and Senate. Hopefully some Republican appointments to the Supreme Court in the near future.

Its time to DRAIN THE SWAMP.

You actually believe that

osarusan

I think the Electoral college system could do with reform alright, but there's no point blaming it for the result.

Both sides knew the system and played the system.

Butters1979

Jelle1880 wrote: »

It's weird how such a polarised election apparently got less people to the voting booth than previous ones.

Clinton had 6 million fewer voters than Obama in 2012, Trump won with less votes than Romney or McCain.

I think at least some of that is due to the system they have. Unless you're in a swing state your vote doesn't feel as important.

PopePalpatine

Lamentabli sane wrote: »

Republican president, republican Congress and Senate. Hopefully some Republican appointments to the Supreme Court in the near future.

Its time to DRAIN THE SWAMP.

You'll be deeply disappointed.