Brilliant Trump tweet

[Google Expert]

Trump's right, you know.

[Relic]

lol and that's why he's president.

[Bladewire]

[~Ray]

Brilliant

[noshit]

What do they call a Landslide that could have been even bigger: God Like

God Emperor Trump has Mercy on Inferiors

.

[Relic]

Originally Posted by noshit

God Emperor Trump has Mercy on Inferiors

Nor should he.

[bronco67]

It's a fucking circle jerk of stupid up in here, starting with that "brilliant" tweet.

[Bladewire]

Originally Posted by bronco67

It's a fucking circle jerk of stupid up in here, starting with that "brilliant" tweet.

They are dark little trolls throwing poo in their baby hand sized sandbox as all their hate spewing Twitter & Facebook accounts have been suspended.

[2MuchMark]

LOL! He campaigned in Florida, alot. Maybe Trump should be tested for Dementia.

Could Trump Be Suffering From Dementia?

Crazy? Or does Donald Trump exhibit signs of early dementia? Seriously.

Is Donald Trump Hiding Brain Damage? | The Huffington Post

Donald Trump Family History of Alzheimer's Returns as Campaign Issue

Could It Be Alzheimer’s Or Senile Dementia? | From the Recesses of My Mind

http://www.inquisitr.com/3048296/doe...fitness-arise/

[TheDynasty]

Originally Posted by **********

LOL! He campaigned in Florida, alot. Maybe Trump should be tested for Dementia.

Could Trump Be Suffering From Dementia?

Crazy? Or does Donald Trump exhibit signs of early dementia? Seriously.

Is Donald Trump Hiding Brain Damage? | The Huffington Post

Donald Trump Family History of Alzheimer's Returns as Campaign Issue

Could It Be Alzheimer?s Or Senile Dementia? | From the Recesses of My Mind

http://www.inquisitr.com/3048296/doe...fitness-arise/

[kane]

Isn't his tweet a perfect example of why we need to do away with the electoral college? People who are for the electoral college say that we need it otherwise some states will be ignored, but here we have Trump saying outright that he ignored some states because he knew he couldn't win them, however, if there were no electoral college he would have campaigned in those states.

[Joshua G]

Originally Posted by kane

Isn't his tweet a perfect example of why we need to do away with the electoral college? People who are for the electoral college say that we need it otherwise some states will be ignored, but here we have Trump saying outright that he ignored some states because he knew he couldn't win them, however, if there were no electoral college he would have campaigned in those states.

no. its self evident that scrapping the electoral college will change campaign tactics. why should an honest observation be an argument to scrap it?

why should pols only have to visit new york city, chicago, miami & LA in order to be elected? would the agenda of the federal government naturally be biased towards urban issues? that was the whole problem in 1790, & it remains to this day.

if you want a government for the city folk, instead of the whole people, & revert to direct democracy, the thing our founding fathers were avoiding, on purpose, for sound reasons...maybe people should review why the founding fathers had a problem with mob rule...

liberals sound regressive when they want to scrap the electoral vote. too busy sitting in victimhood class & not enough history class.

next time try to appeal to the other side. dont just campaign in cities & black colleges. donald did it, got the reagan dems back. now you libs gotta get the center back. good luck with all that PoC extremism running amok in your party.

[kane]

Originally Posted by Joshua G

no. its self evident that scrapping the electoral college will change campaign tactics. why should an honest observation be an argument to scrap it?

why should pols only have to visit new york city, chicago, miami & LA in order to be elected? would the agenda of the federal government naturally be biased towards urban issues? that was the whole problem in 1790, & it remains to this day.

if you want a government for the city folk, instead of the whole people, & want to scrap the power of states in our federalist system, & revert to direct democracy, the thing our founding fathers were avoiding, on purpose, for sound reasons...

liberals sound regressive when they want to scrap the electoral vote. too busy sitting in victimhood class & not enough history class.

next time try to appeal to the other side. dont just campaign in citites & black colleges. donald did it, got the reagan dems back. now you libs gotta get the center back. good luck with all that PoC extremism running amok in your party.

The thing is, the people of this country are now spread all around it. In 1790 most of us lived in cities and those outside the cities were often left in the dark and didn't have a voice. That isn't the case these days.

In the last election, the popular vote was very close. Meanwhile, the census tells us that 80% of the people in this country live in urban areas. So why aren't Democrats getting 80% of the vote? The reason is because with TV, radio, print, the internet, and communications improvements in general, everyone can access candidates information and information about the government as a whole and they can form their own opinion.

I don't want to scrap the electoral college so Hillary could win. I don't give a shit about Hillary. I just think the electoral college is outdated, it gives too much power to some voters and not enough to others, and it encourages voter fraud.

Also, the reason his observation is a good reason to scrap it is because he admits to ignoring areas of the country because he doesn't think he has a chance of winning there. People argue for the electoral college saying that without it parts of the country would be ignored, but that is exactly what is happening with it.

[CaptainHowdy]

Originally Posted by **********

LOL! He campaigned in Florida, alot. Maybe Trump should be tested for Dementia.

Could Trump Be Suffering From Dementia?

Crazy? Or does Donald Trump exhibit signs of early dementia? Seriously.

Is Donald Trump Hiding Brain Damage? | The Huffington Post

Donald Trump Family History of Alzheimer's Returns as Campaign Issue

Could It Be Alzheimer?s Or Senile Dementia? | From the Recesses of My Mind

http://www.inquisitr.com/3048296/doe...fitness-arise/

Let it go, Mark ...

[bronco67]

The bottom line is, Hillary was beaten by all the morons, shitkickers and racists between the left and right coasts. Democrats need to do some soul searching. You know....to get in touch with those morons, shitkickers and racists.

[NewNick]

Would you not rather have a more dignified POTUS ?

Should he really be tweeting ?

[C H R I S]

LOL, he can barely form a complete sentence.

[Vendzilla]

Originally Posted by bronco67

The bottom line is, Hillary was beaten by all the morons, shitkickers and racists between the left and right coasts. Democrats need to do some soul searching. You know....to get in touch with those morons, shitkickers and racists.

You sound like a whinny little bitch loser!

[Fetish Gimp]

Originally Posted by kane

In the last election, the popular vote was very close.

2012 election results:
Popular vote
Obama 51.06%
Romney 47.20%

Electoral vote
Obama 61.71%
Romney 38.29%

2016 election results:
Popular vote
Clinton 47.73%
Trump 46.72%

Electoral vote
Trump 56.88%
Clinton 43.12%

The numbers show that this election's popular vote was much closer than last election's.

Obama won by a larger percentage difference in last election's popular vote compared to this election, and by a far greater margin by electoral vote.

I have no dog in this fight, I'm just pointing out that the numbers don't back up that statement.

[2MuchMark]

Originally Posted by CaptainHowdy

Let it go, Mark ...

Someone's gotta give a shit.

[Scott McD]

Originally Posted by Google Expert

[escorpio]

Originally Posted by bronco67

The bottom line is, Hillary was beaten by all the morons, shitkickers and racists between the left and right coasts. Democrats need to do some soul searching. You know....to get in touch with those morons, shitkickers and racists.

Not referring to them as "morons, shitkickers and racists" would be a good place to start.

[flashfire]

Hillary not going to jail
no wall
Obamacare not being repealed

congrats on being duped...he pandered to the uneducated to win an election

congrats on being uneducated and taken advantage of

[BlackCrayon]

Originally Posted by escorpio

Not referring to them as "morons, shitkickers and racists" would be a good place to start.

the way people act these days will just result in more division.

either you're a redneck racist or you're a cuck libby.

in the end no one gets anywhere

i'm not sure how things are becoming so black and white..

you're either a democrat or republican, you either believe climate change is real or you don't, etc. its not a healthy political environment of many different opinions.

[JesseQuinn]

Originally Posted by BlackCrayon

the way people act these days will just result in more division.

either you're a redneck racist or you're a cuck libby.

in the end no one gets anywhere

i'm not sure how things are becoming so black and white..

you're either a democrat or republican, you either believe climate change is real or you don't, etc. its not a healthy political environment of many different opinions.

^^gracias for this

I honestly feel like I'm living in some weird parallel universe these days, one where grown adults find it acceptable to rant/debase/insult/threaten peeps who have the temerity to be and think, gasp, different from themselves

I really don't spend that much time online except to work. I check in here and a couple other forums, perform the bare minimum of social media to keep my name/biz out there but fuck me the internet is a really cruel space I try to avoid. I prefer the real world where at least the people I interact with have to look into my eyes and see a human being there, and vice versa.

It's much more difficult to tear a person apart (note, not impossible, just more difficult) when they are right in front of you; the 'social isolation' inherent to the net absolutely brings out our worst human tendencies because this. the same principle is at play in road rage.

social media exacerbates and reproduces these divisions of position and perspective. the content each of us see is filtered by these private/for profit corporations to pertain to our underlying values/views, as determined by computer algorithyms.

the end result is people who share a community, share a nation, share a fucking planet we all rely upon, aren't encouraged to recognize this. being bellicose and selfish and cruel is seen as strength.

social media and the internet also perform useful, constructive roles (providing a voice to peeps who have not historically had a global platform, as a tool for sharing knowledge and ideas) so I'm not dismissing it out of hand. my point is that the internet is a tool, nothing more. it's not actual life.

this tool is currently being used by private interests to divide us, both to ensure the stability of the current system and equally importantly, to sell us shit

there's no god out there that cares about it. humanity and our planet are mere specks in a universe that really has no interest in our wellbeing. the only beings that care about us are us. and this is how we treat each other.

it's fucking insane and nobody wins

[suesheboy]

Considering I saw that shithead in person at 4 rallies in Florida, I will just add this to his pile of outright lies.

[Bladewire]

Originally Posted by JesseQuinn

^^gracias for this

I honestly feel like I'm living in some weird parallel universe these days, one where grown adults find it acceptable to rant/debase/insult/threaten peeps who have the temerity to be and think, gasp, different from themselves

I really don't spend that much time online except to work. I check in here and a couple other forums, perform the bare minimum of social media to keep my name/biz out there but fuck me the internet is a really cruel space I try to avoid. I prefer the real world where at least the people I interact with have to look into my eyes and see a human being there, and vice versa.

It's much more difficult to tear a person apart (note, not impossible, just more difficult) when they are right in front of you; the 'social isolation' inherent to the net absolutely brings out our worst human tendencies because this. the same principle is at play in road rage.

social media exacerbates and reproduces these divisions of position and perspective. the content each of us see is filtered by these private/for profit corporations to pertain to our underlying values/views, as determined by computer algorithyms.

the end result is people who share a community, share a nation, share a fucking planet we all rely upon, aren't encouraged to recognize this. being bellicose and selfish and cruel is seen as strength.

social media and the internet also perform useful, constructive roles (providing a voice to peeps who have not historically had a global platform, as a tool for sharing knowledge and ideas) so I'm not dismissing it out of hand. my point is that the internet is a tool, nothing more. it's not actual life.

this tool is currently being used by private interests to divide us, both to ensure the stability of the current system and equally importantly, to sell us shit

there's no god out there that cares about it. humanity and our planet are mere specks in a universe that really has no interest in our wellbeing. the only beings that care about us are us. and this is how we treat each other.

it's fucking insane and nobody wins

Well said!

Ever notice how when you're in public these tensions don't exist face to face with everyday people you don't know personally?

It's important to remember that while grunts beat their chest, they don't have the intelect, tools, or will, to be divided, they just want to be acknowledged incessantly.

[kane]

Originally Posted by Fetish Gimp

2012 election results:
Popular vote
Obama 51.06%
Romney 47.20%

Electoral vote
Obama 61.71%
Romney 38.29%

2016 election results:
Popular vote
Clinton 47.73%
Trump 46.72%

Electoral vote
Trump 56.88%
Clinton 43.12%

The numbers show that this election's popular vote was much closer than last election's.

Obama won by a larger percentage difference in last election's popular vote compared to this election, and by a far greater margin by electoral vote.

I have no dog in this fight, I'm just pointing out that the numbers don't back up that statement.

By last election I mean Clinton VS Trump.

[kane]

Originally Posted by escorpio

Not referring to them as "morons, shitkickers and racists" would be a good place to start.

Kind of like not referring to anyone who might have supported Clinton as a Libertard, a cuck, an idiot, a traitor, a criminal and many other things would also be a great place to start.

[Joshua G]

Originally Posted by Bladewire

they just want to be acknowledged incessantly.

like when you post hints at your drug dealing, presumably to attention seek, or brag...



jesse quinn the internets are anonymous so you see the peoples dark thoughts run amok. what a nice guy i am to the real world. not here.

the web is the jungle, not everyone has the brass balls to play. carry on.

[baddog]

Originally Posted by bronco67

The bottom line is, Hillary was beaten by all the morons, shitkickers and racists between the left and right coasts. Democrats need to do some soul searching. You know....to get in touch with those morons, shitkickers and racists.

The bottom line is that Hillary beat herself by not visiting states she figured she had a lock on; she was assisted in those same states by Gary Johnson voters and the mass numbers that didn't vote.

This is a Republic, not a Democracy; the EC is doing its job providing representation to the entire country.

[woj]

Originally Posted by kane

Isn't his tweet a perfect example of why we need to do away with the electoral college? People who are for the electoral college say that we need it otherwise some states will be ignored, but here we have Trump saying outright that he ignored some states because he knew he couldn't win them, however, if there were no electoral college he would have campaigned in those states.

1. winner of the election didn't win popular vote only 5 times in the past few hundred years, so it happens pretty rarely

2. what would stop a single state from dominating the election? for example, what if California decided that they will enforce voting laws only very loosely, or not at all... letting people vote multiple times, letting ineligible voters vote, etc... as a result millions of additional votes would be cast for California's preferred candidate... as is, the damage is limited to 55 electoral votes... if we base elections on popular vote, California could exaggerate the results by millions of votes... tilting the election in their favor each time...

[Fetish Gimp]

Originally Posted by kane

By last election I mean Clinton VS Trump.

I stand corrected then

[C H R I S]

Those manufacturing jobs are all coming back in droves with Trumps presidency.

"You'll get tired of winning"

lol

[kane]

Originally Posted by woj

1. winner of the election didn't win popular vote only 5 times in the past few hundred years, so it happens pretty rarely

2. what would stop a single state from dominating the election? for example, what if California decided that they will enforce voting laws only very loosely, or not at all... letting people vote multiple times, letting ineligible voters vote, etc... as a result millions of additional votes would be cast for California's preferred candidate... as is, the damage is limited to 55 electoral votes... if we base elections on popular vote, California could exaggerate the results by millions of votes... tilting the election in their favor each time...

Do you honestly think something like you describe would happen? Voter fraud at that level would not be able to go unnoticed and there would be serious consequences for such a thing.

On the opposite end of the spectrum, let's not speculate, and look at what actually did happen in Ohio in 2004. It was pretty clear with a few weeks left that the election between Kerry and Bush was going to come down to Ohio. The winner of Ohio would likely win the White House.

For starters, the guy in charge of running the actual election in the state, Ken Blackwell. was also the head of Bush's re-election group in that state and was on record as saying he would do anything it took to deliver Ohio for Bush. To me, that is a massive conflict of interest especially when the state is that important in the election. There were many different things that then went on in that state including people breaking rules, too many voting machines sent to Republican heavy areas and not enough in Democrat heavy areas resulting in lines that were regularly 3-5 hours long. There were also issues where some of the voting machines "malfunctioned." as well as other issues with registering, provisional ballots etc.

The reason for this is that Ohio was a huge prize. Pulling off shady things in order to get a few hundred more votes for your candidate could be the difference between winning and losing the election so the reward is worth the risk. If it were a national election then those few hundred votes likely wouldn't make much of a difference and it certainly wouldn't be worth the risk to get them.

[woj]

Originally Posted by kane

Do you honestly think something like you describe would happen? Voter fraud at that level would not be able to go unnoticed and there would be serious consequences for such a thing.

On the opposite end of the spectrum, let's not speculate, and look at what actually did happen in Ohio in 2004. It was pretty clear with a few weeks left that the election between Kerry and Bush was going to come down to Ohio. The winner of Ohio would likely win the White House.

For starters, the guy in charge of running the actual election in the state, Ken Blackwell. was also the head of Bush's re-election group in that state and was on record as saying he would do anything it took to deliver Ohio for Bush. To me, that is a massive conflict of interest especially when the state is that important in the election. There were many different things that then went on in that state including people breaking rules, too many voting machines sent to Republican heavy areas and not enough in Democrat heavy areas resulting in lines that were regularly 3-5 hours long. There were also issues where some of the voting machines "malfunctioned." as well as other issues with registering, provisional ballots etc.

The reason for this is that Ohio was a huge prize. Pulling off shady things in order to get a few hundred more votes for your candidate could be the difference between winning and losing the election so the reward is worth the risk. If it were a national election then those few hundred votes likely wouldn't make much of a difference and it certainly wouldn't be worth the risk to get them.

of course it could happen, doesn't your Ohio story show that it could and does happen? maybe it would be noticed, but so what? what "serious consequences" would there be? Turning a blind eye on election fraud isn't exactly an easily provable crime, in the worst case someone would get fired for incompetence... how many people in Ohio went to jail over the election fraud you described?

... and Ohio didn't even decide the election, Bush won 2004 elections 286 to 251 electoral votes, so it was pretty close, but Ohio with 11 electoral votes wasn't enough to swing the election the other way... and that's the whole point of electoral college, with each state having only very limited power, it limits possible corruption and voter fraud, as well as giving each state fair representation in presidential elections...

[kane]

Originally Posted by woj

of course it could happen, doesn't your Ohio story show that it could and does happen? maybe it would be noticed, but so what? what "serious consequences" would there be? Turning a blind eye on election fraud isn't exactly an easily provable crime, in the worst case someone would get fired for incompetence... how many people in Ohio went to jail over the election fraud you described?

... and Ohio didn't even decide the election, Bush won 2004 elections 286 to 251 electoral votes, so it was pretty close, but Ohio with 11 electoral votes wasn't enough to swing the election the other way... and that's the whole point of electoral college, with each state having only very limited power, it limits possible corruption and voter fraud, as well as giving each state fair representation in presidential elections...

I think there is a pretty big difference between doing things that could cause one candidate to get a few hundred additional votes and flat out ignoring laws that could lead to millions of fraudulent votes.

Actually, that is my point in all of this. In both elections involving Bush there were issues. First in Florida then in Ohio. In both cases small amounts of fraud could help the candidate win that state in a very close election. If it were a general election the fraud, in order to be helpful, would have to be on a much larger scale and therefore, in my opinion, easier to see and stop.

As far as Ohio 2 people were arrested, convicted, and sent to jail for rigging the election. Ohio Sec. State Blackwell has been involved in more than a dozen various lawsuits stemming from that election.

On a different note, let's look at my state. Hillary won Oregon easily. I personally know half a dozen people who are Republicans or right-leaning independents who didn't even bother to vote because they didn't think it would matter. Their vote for Trump wasn't going to change the outcome of the election. If it were a general election, their vote would matter and they would be more likely to actually vote. I wonder how many people around the country feel that same way and are not voting because their state is dark red or dark blue.

[kane]

Originally Posted by woj

of course it could happen, doesn't your Ohio story show that it could and does happen? maybe it would be noticed, but so what? what "serious consequences" would there be? Turning a blind eye on election fraud isn't exactly an easily provable crime, in the worst case someone would get fired for incompetence... how many people in Ohio went to jail over the election fraud you described?

... and Ohio didn't even decide the election, Bush won 2004 elections 286 to 251 electoral votes, so it was pretty close, but Ohio with 11 electoral votes wasn't enough to swing the election the other way... and that's the whole point of electoral college, with each state having only very limited power, it limits possible corruption and voter fraud, as well as giving each state fair representation in presidential elections...

One other thing. Ohio has 20 electoral votes. Bush won 286 to 251. If Ohio had flipped it would have been Kerry with 271 and the win.

[Bladewire]

Originally Posted by Joshua G

like when you post hints at your drug dealing, presumably to attention seek, or brag...



jesse quinn the internets are anonymous so you see the peoples dark thoughts run amok. what a nice guy i am to the real world. not here.

the web is the jungle, not everyone has the brass balls to play. carry on.

You are not in the adult business. I dont deal drugs in any way and have never spoken as if if I have, that's a proof or ban offense here.

All you post here are conspiracies, pro trump propaganda and name calling of people you think are liberals.

Why? Because your Ebay business of crappy second hand bulk office supplies sucks, as does your life in South Carolina evidently DynaMo

[woj]

Originally Posted by kane

I think there is a pretty big difference between doing things that could cause one candidate to get a few hundred additional votes and flat out ignoring laws that could lead to millions of fraudulent votes.

Actually, that is my point in all of this. In both elections involving Bush there were issues. First in Florida then in Ohio. In both cases small amounts of fraud could help the candidate win that state in a very close election. If it were a general election the fraud, in order to be helpful, would have to be on a much larger scale and therefore, in my opinion, easier to see and stop.

As far as Ohio 2 people were arrested, convicted, and sent to jail for rigging the election. Ohio Sec. State Blackwell has been involved in more than a dozen various lawsuits stemming from that election.

On a different note, let's look at my state. Hillary won Oregon easily. I personally know half a dozen people who are Republicans or right-leaning independents who didn't even bother to vote because they didn't think it would matter. Their vote for Trump wasn't going to change the outcome of the election. If it were a general election, their vote would matter and they would be more likely to actually vote. I wonder how many people around the country feel that same way and are not voting because their state is dark red or dark blue.

you bring up a good point about the fact that many people end up not voting in states that are way blue or way red... deciding winner by popular vote would solve that problem, but at the same time it would concentrate all the political power in a few major cities, leaving rural areas and smaller states practically powerless...

so it's debatable which way is better, but if it worked fine for few hundred years, why change it now? Isn't a good rule of thumb "if it ain't broke, don't fix it"? Isn't the main reason why there is drama is because Hillary won popular vote? what if election results were reversed, would you still think it's a good idea, or would you lean towards keeping what worked for few hundred years as is?

Originally Posted by kane

One other thing. Ohio has 20 electoral votes. Bush won 286 to 251. If Ohio had flipped it would have been Kerry with 271 and the win.

yea, you are right, I looked at it wrong, Ohio did indeed in a way decide the election...

[BlackCrayon]

Originally Posted by woj

you bring up a good point about the fact that many people end up not voting in states that are way blue or way red... deciding winner by popular vote would solve that problem, but at the same time it would concentrate all the political power in a few major cities, leaving rural areas and smaller states practically powerless...

so it's debatable which way is better, but if it worked fine for few hundred years, why change it now? Isn't a good rule of thumb "if it ain't broke, don't fix it"? Isn't the main reason why there is drama is because Hillary won popular vote? what if election results were reversed, would you still think it's a good idea, or would you lean towards keeping what worked for few hundred years as is?



yea, you are right, I looked at it wrong, Ohio did indeed in a way decide the election...

worked fine according to who? how can you tell? since there are no parallel universes where the opposite outcome happened that you can spy on, you'll never know if the country would be better for it or not without trying it.

[kane]

Originally Posted by woj

you bring up a good point about the fact that many people end up not voting in states that are way blue or way red... deciding winner by popular vote would solve that problem, but at the same time it would concentrate all the political power in a few major cities, leaving rural areas and smaller states practically powerless...

so it's debatable which way is better, but if it worked fine for few hundred years, why change it now? Isn't a good rule of thumb "if it ain't broke, don't fix it"? Isn't the main reason why there is drama is because Hillary won popular vote? what if election results were reversed, would you still think it's a good idea, or would you lean towards keeping what worked for few hundred years as is?



yea, you are right, I looked at it wrong, Ohio did indeed in a way decide the election...

If the election results were reversed I would still be for removing the electoral college. I have felt this way for a long time. I just think it encourages corruption and it disenfranchises voters. Most of the time the system we have ends up working fine, but I just think we should do everything we can to get more people to vote and not alienate them.

As for candidates focusing their efforts on the population centers, I don't think that would happen as much as people think. When you look at the popular vote numbers from this election they are very close. They are reasonably close in the previous handful of elections as well. Candidates go where their voters are. Hillary won 61% of the vote in California. Trump got 34% and he didn't even campaign there. In Tennessee, Clinton got 35% of the vote and she never campaigned there. I think our society has become diverse enough politically that candidates will still be forced to carry out a national campaign in order to win and going to states that traditionally wouldn't could end up being a major strategy. If you told Hillary campaigning in Tennessee could net her another 250,000 votes, or you told Trump going to Oregon could get him that extra 250,000 I think they would jump at the chance of doing it.

[woj]

Originally Posted by BlackCrayon

worked fine according to who? how can you tell? since there are no parallel universes where the opposite outcome happened that you can spy on, you'll never know if the country would be better for it or not without trying it.

US started with nothing and became, and still is, a dominant world power in just about every sense: economic, military, overall influence, one of the highest standards of living in the world, etc, so I think it's pretty fair to describe the political system in the US as "worked fine"...

it perhaps stagnated a bit last few decades, reasons for that are complex, but that has nothing to do at all with the way presidential elections are held... so I don't see any good reason why the way president is elected should be changed...

[Bladewire]

Originally Posted by woj

US started with nothing and became, and still is, a dominant world power in just about every sense: economic, military, overall influence, one of the highest standards of living in the world, etc, so I think it's pretty fair to describe the political system in the US as "worked fine"...

it perhaps stagnated a bit last few decades, reasons for that are complex, but that has nothing to do at all with the way presidential elections are held... so I don't see any good reason why the way president is elected should be changed...

I hate to inform you but the standard of life / quality of living is better in every other western country but America.

I.E. when I lived in Australia 7 years ago the national minimum wage was about $10 an hour, now it's $17.70 an hour minimum. Minimum weekly pay is $672.70 or $2,691 a month.

When I lived there every average older person I knew owned a home and a rental property, this was on the Gold Coast.

The public school my son went to had on site dentist building and nurses building. Flat tax for citizens no IRS bulshit. Puvluc healthcare for everyone and unemployment, etc.

So America being a "dominant world power" has got us what? AND we're squeezing our citizens to death financially and giving a crappier than crap quality of life for most full of stress and anxiety for things as simple as healthcare & childcare.

[mlove]

The only thing this would result in is more trump campaigners having rocks thrown at them.

[bronco67]

Originally Posted by JesseQuinn

^^gracias for this

I honestly feel like I'm living in some weird parallel universe these days, one where grown adults find it acceptable to rant/debase/insult/threaten peeps who have the temerity to be and think, gasp, different from themselves

I really don't spend that much time online except to work. I check in here and a couple other forums, perform the bare minimum of social media to keep my name/biz out there but fuck me the internet is a really cruel space I try to avoid. I prefer the real world where at least the people I interact with have to look into my eyes and see a human being there, and vice versa.

It's much more difficult to tear a person apart (note, not impossible, just more difficult) when they are right in front of you; the 'social isolation' inherent to the net absolutely brings out our worst human tendencies because this. the same principle is at play in road rage.

social media exacerbates and reproduces these divisions of position and perspective. the content each of us see is filtered by these private/for profit corporations to pertain to our underlying values/views, as determined by computer algorithyms.

the end result is people who share a community, share a nation, share a fucking planet we all rely upon, aren't encouraged to recognize this. being bellicose and selfish and cruel is seen as strength.

social media and the internet also perform useful, constructive roles (providing a voice to peeps who have not historically had a global platform, as a tool for sharing knowledge and ideas) so I'm not dismissing it out of hand. my point is that the internet is a tool, nothing more. it's not actual life.

this tool is currently being used by private interests to divide us, both to ensure the stability of the current system and equally importantly, to sell us shit

there's no god out there that cares about it. humanity and our planet are mere specks in a universe that really has no interest in our wellbeing. the only beings that care about us are us. and this is how we treat each other.

it's fucking insane and nobody wins

How about the weird parallel universe where an internet troll is our new president? That's right. He qualifies as an internet troll.

[slapass]

Originally Posted by Bladewire

Well said!

Ever notice how when you're in public these tensions don't exist face to face with everyday people you don't know personally?

It's important to remember that while grunts beat their chest, they don't have the intelect, tools, or will, to be divided, they just want to be acknowledged incessantly.

They elected a president. Trolls won this round. no way around that.

[slapass]

Originally Posted by Bladewire

I hate to inform you but the standard of life / quality of living is better in every other western country but America.

I.E. when I lived in Australia 7 years ago the national minimum wage was about $10 an hour, now it's $17.70 an hour minimum. Minimum weekly pay is $672.70 or $2,691 a month.

When I lived there every average older person I knew owned a home and a rental property, this was on the Gold Coast.

The public school my son went to had on site dentist building and nurses building. Flat tax for citizens no IRS bulshit. Puvluc healthcare for everyone and unemployment, etc.

So America being a "dominant world power" has got us what? AND we're squeezing our citizens to death financially and giving a crappier than crap quality of life for most full of stress and anxiety for things as simple as healthcare & childcare.

And they have very little govt debt on the national level.

[slapass]

Originally Posted by bronco67

How about the weird parallel universe where an internet troll is our new president? That's right. He qualifies as an internet troll.

Wow read what I just wrote. I didn't label him as one but I see your point.

[crockett]

Originally Posted by Google Expert

Trump's right, you know.

"won even bigger and more easily" = brilliant to you? No wonder you are a Trump supporter..