trump won
- Thread starter Jivvi
- Start date
Just cuz nobody else is doin' it.
#MakeAmericaGreatAgain
and tbh, fuck ya'll that saying mostly "uneducated idiots voted 4 trump lololol"
Well, I don't honestly see the difference cause "college educated" fucktards are currently practically rioting in the streets while those "uneducated idiots" stay home and take of their families or whatever they fucking do. So please, explain to me how a "college educated person" is somehow better than an "uneducated".
#MakeAmericaGreatAgain
and tbh, fuck ya'll that saying mostly "uneducated idiots voted 4 trump lololol"
Well, I don't honestly see the difference cause "college educated" fucktards are currently practically rioting in the streets while those "uneducated idiots" stay home and take of their families or whatever they fucking do. So please, explain to me how a "college educated person" is somehow better than an "uneducated".
I considered both candidates to be unelectable, honestly, so by the time both nominees were official I had already given up on a result that I actually wanted and instead focused my attention on the massive potential of entertainment this election had.
I was not disappointed. Plus I won my bet and now a guy I know has to paint his hair neon pink.
In any case, shouldn't this thread fall under the "No politics" rule? I understand it's a huge event and everyone has an opinion on the matter, but this is clearly a divisive topic and has the potential to turn into a major flame war.
I was not disappointed. Plus I won my bet and now a guy I know has to paint his hair neon pink.
In any case, shouldn't this thread fall under the "No politics" rule? I understand it's a huge event and everyone has an opinion on the matter, but this is clearly a divisive topic and has the potential to turn into a major flame war.
Or everyone here agrees the political sphere currently is an established oligarchy, it doesn't matter, and nothing but the dankest of memes and spicy discourse will emerge
I mean, I'm always in for all of that and personally, I have nothing against flame wars either since they're hilarious, but I was just confused since I can see some pretty obvious signs in here already and figured it was something to point out given this community's usual opinion on heated disagreements.
Didn't you hear? The establishment is dead
-----------------------------------------------------------
semi-relevant:
Last edited:
Hoping that the Electoral College does a 180 and vote for Clinton on Dec 19th due to her winning the Popular Vote. Chances of that are slim, but who knows? Stock Markets seems to be doing fine but if the protests persists and something bad comes up then maybe the Electorate will vote for Clinton. Just trying to be optimistic here, but fuck the Electoral College from the get go because Pop Vote should always be considered.
The result has as far as I'm aware never been changed, but individual electors have sometimes voted against their party (electors are chosen by the party).
In some states it is illegal to vote against the winner I think.
In some states it is illegal to vote against the winner I think.
That's not going to happen because it's really not about Trump, it's about the republican establishment getting control over everything and frankly, that is much scarier than president Trump. Things like climate change and social rights are all in danger which is the real problem in my opinion.
No and there's a lot of reasons this is but I only possess the abilities to coherently display two why that is so:
One is that it benefits the established elite. Presidential elections since the Reagan administration have been considerably for show only (save for the Obama administration). Reagan's era is interesting because he very much so was just a puppet or outlet for the elite to use and quell the public for their own advantages. Noam Chomsky explores this in Understanding Power making an analogous comparison between the symbolic nature of the queen of England to the U.S. president. The queen makes some general sweeping statement for the parliament, but her authority doesn't really matter. No one really questions if she believes what she says is true or if she lied. The focus is her on being royalty and her role as a figurehead and nothing more. Everyone's aware of this and no one really questions it. It just is. The U.S. presidential elections considerably are a more convert version of this symbolic nature of "electing a meaningful person." A Trump presidency, however, is an interesting case because he's anti-establishment. While he's a perfect puppet for the oligarchy, he didn't enter the race as a puppet for the establishment* and so far it's unlikely he will be.
*I'm going to expand on this by stating the establishment here does not necessarily mean just the conservative establishment. There is a liberal establishment as well and I'll support this with three claims: the DNC's decision to not bring up the Bush campaign's allowance of literal Nazis in their administration[1 (page 17)], their inaction of challenging the electoral college before, and their choice to use Hilary for the election. See, it's interesting in what's not stated from the democrats during their campaign and not attacking or even bringing up the Nazi members in the Bush administration. The general belief is because the Jewish Anti-defamation league called them off in a statement with one of their newsletters quote: "Nazism is antique, anemic anti-semitism," and, "The real anti-semitism that we ought to be worried about is in the democratic party which is filled with Jew haters." Literally their own words. So the democratic party saw nothing would be achieved by bringing the issue up and decided to not act.
They decided to not act when Al Gore won the popular vote while they very well could have challenged the electoral college because they held majority in both the house and senate. My contention from this to the next is that the DNC has never been a party about social equity. They're a party solely focused on bargaining for power versus the republican basis of power for social control. The latter is just upfront about it. Bernie Sanders (as pithy as the decry from the left) legitimately polled very well in rural areas of the U.S. It's incredibly likely he would have won and it's more incredibly likely any other of the democratic runners would have won over Clinton. But she was very unpopular, Clinton being a member and figurehead of the neoliberal establishment. This is a severe case of the DNC's bargain for power lost and I've begun to vehemently hold the contention their platform is meaningless.
Second, majority rule is not an effective manner to make decisions for social policy. It was majority rule that culled many philosophers, political activists, and scientists throughout the development of Europe. It was majority that voted for the widely ineffective Prohibition of alcohol and also as widely ineffective war on drugs. There is also historical precedence to combat as the founding fathers and thinkers at the beginning of the U.S. feared majority[1][2]. It's pedantic, however, to have diatribes on which is better (majority or small "rational" minority), rather, it's a complication humanity has had to manage with and not enough discourse has occurred to have an effective answer on it.
Overall though, I could expand more on it though if someone really wanted me to: the electoral college benefits the establishment (<--- as vague as the definition of is).
Last edited:
I too love to undo democracy and just throw away votes because I lost, fuck the republic right! MAN I love it when my elected officials ignore my votes, issues and whims and do what ever the fuck they want and take away my rights!
You give government wayyyy to much credit. It is a bunch of suits who do not know what they are doing.
Ok things about the electoral college:
- A traitorous college would be a bigger bomb in this country than Trump would be if every policy he wanted was implemented in his first 100 days alone. The current rioting would be fun comparatively.
- This hasn't happened before (defecting college votes)
- It hasn't even happened when the popular vote went the other way
- Hillary conceded
- It's illegal in some states, fineable in others, and a reputation and career obliterator in all to go against the result
Alright, I see people all the time posting that they are scared of Trump or the Republicans themselves. The media probably did a very good job at fearmongering.
Anyways my question is, why are you all scared? Trump is not a classical Republican nor is he really conservative. Just because he was elected it doesn't mean that the world will end(unlike the media says). Why do you have such a hard time accept the results and thereby accept democracy? If you want to change it, then go ahead, make protests and push for a change in the democracy, on how votes are counted. Under american law you will probably be not oppressed... Unless you start plundering and rioting(which is always illegal).
Also the US government being all Republican seems to me like a very good sign. It will be easier to rule for them and try to push the country into the direction they believe in. "Social rights" and "Climate Change" are not at threat, unless you mean Obamacare and other things. Please view it from different points of view. To keep an economy competitive you may only care about pollution, Climate Change will happen anyways, no matter what, humanity has no control over on how the Earth itself behaves.
I actually hope that countries will be countries again and that these countries will enforce the will of the people. I view a world without borders as more of a threat to national sovereignty. Especially with people like Hillary Clinton, who massively support the huge cooperates and literally wants to open borders for even more globalization. Also abandoning a country just because you think that the newly elected person is an extremist(He is not, he is Right-Wing at best, and no right-wing is not a bad thing) is an act of cowardice. Of course if it was actually the "literal Hitler" many more people would have been opposed to that and there would be reason.
Fact is, unlike what the media tells you, that Trump is the next Hitler, he is simply a president who has his own plans and seems to orientate himself on Ronald Reagan, who was also not an actual career politician.
In the end we will see how he will rule. Especially when the media is still fearmongering and simply spreading manipulated information about him.
Anyways my question is, why are you all scared? Trump is not a classical Republican nor is he really conservative. Just because he was elected it doesn't mean that the world will end(unlike the media says). Why do you have such a hard time accept the results and thereby accept democracy? If you want to change it, then go ahead, make protests and push for a change in the democracy, on how votes are counted. Under american law you will probably be not oppressed... Unless you start plundering and rioting(which is always illegal).
Also the US government being all Republican seems to me like a very good sign. It will be easier to rule for them and try to push the country into the direction they believe in. "Social rights" and "Climate Change" are not at threat, unless you mean Obamacare and other things. Please view it from different points of view. To keep an economy competitive you may only care about pollution, Climate Change will happen anyways, no matter what, humanity has no control over on how the Earth itself behaves.
I actually hope that countries will be countries again and that these countries will enforce the will of the people. I view a world without borders as more of a threat to national sovereignty. Especially with people like Hillary Clinton, who massively support the huge cooperates and literally wants to open borders for even more globalization. Also abandoning a country just because you think that the newly elected person is an extremist(He is not, he is Right-Wing at best, and no right-wing is not a bad thing) is an act of cowardice. Of course if it was actually the "literal Hitler" many more people would have been opposed to that and there would be reason.
Fact is, unlike what the media tells you, that Trump is the next Hitler, he is simply a president who has his own plans and seems to orientate himself on Ronald Reagan, who was also not an actual career politician.
In the end we will see how he will rule. Especially when the media is still fearmongering and simply spreading manipulated information about him.
First of all, it's borderline rude to assume we're only afraid because the media is controlling our feeble minds. Liberals can make their own conclusions without the Clinton News Network telling them what to believe.
Secondly, Trump is not a typical Republican, but no we definitely can't say how closely he will work with the Republicans who are currently or about to be in every branch of the government. If he plays nice with his party they could get a lot done as you said:
Thirdly, those are pretty much opinions, and potentially naive ones at that considering the research never said conclusively "oh the Earth is fucked eventually it's not our fault". It's too basic to work long term. We did view things like Obamacare from other points of view and we still liked it.
Fourthly, we did accept democracy, it's just that is the will of the people in the amount of voters or how we sliced them?
Fifthly, whether or not Trump is an extremist, he has extreme ideas, says extreme things, and leads a party headed in the direction of extremism. I won't throw out a definite word for that, but it seems pretty obvious. I agree with you, no he isn't Hitler and he probably doesn't have the ability to become Hitler either. That comparison does exist though isn't terribly common to see.
Sixthly, there's a lot of media out there bud, maybe it's not so simple as condemning all media for being "anti-Trump". Or maybe I'm wrong and everything is woefully rigged, but maybe then he deserved it? Is paying attention to some of the most inane or shocking things he said as a media organization a bad direction? He did get all the free coverage from it anyways right, that's not rigged against him at least.
You are talking about puppets and Oligarchies controlling presidents and saying the president has no political power and is just a figurehead like in a constitutional monarchy.
It's not really him that is the major issue. You have a super religious conservative that has tried to defund planned parenthood, supports conversion therapy for gay people and caused an HIV outbreak in his state. (Pence) Which Trump has stated that he will play a role in his domestic and foreign policy decisions. I agree that illegal immigrants pose a problem not going to argue about that however the major issue is that one party controls the house senate and presidency. They can pass pretty much anything and they only thing left is the supreme court which Scalia had died and Congress blocked Obama from choosing a new justice. So he might be able to tilt the supreme court to be hugely conservative for decades since the terms are for life. Ginsburg is another Democratic judge that is 83 and has been battling cancer so she might be replaced if she dies during the Trump presidency. Breyer as well has expressed he wants to retire soon he is 78. Mainly the point is that Trump could make the already leaning conservative supreme court into a court that can pass/repeal any laws that are in the party's interest. So no its not really about Trump he has some good points on certain issues. Its that his party is has almost complete control and with appointing justices could hold control for decades through the judicial branch.
All we posted were memes and now the meme incarnate has become our glorious leader