Protesters take to the streets
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
13-11-2016, 11:40 AM
RE: Protesters take to the streets
Everything that scares you is not Hitler incinerating Jews. I appreciate that some of you are genuinely fearful...but Trump isn't the leader of the 4th Reich.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-11-2016, 11:44 AM
RE: Protesters take to the streets
(13-11-2016 10:41 AM)tomilay Wrote:  
(13-11-2016 08:22 AM)Full Circle Wrote:  I think we’re overreacting, let’s try and remember the good in people and that soon Christmas will be here.

[Image: 817feb381c53bb68a69fbca2c4f8c008.jpg]

Christmas is great again.

It's gonna be huuuge.

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-11-2016, 11:53 AM
RE: Protesters take to the streets
(13-11-2016 07:33 AM)Dark Light Wrote:  
(13-11-2016 07:17 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  Of course there are no death camps. He's not even president yet.

The thing is, neither you nor anyone else actually knows what is coming. That's the problem. We don't know whether or not these things will happen. No one can say.

What we do know though is that Trump is a demagogue. If America voted in someone that would bring about death camps and big brother making people disappear then it would be because people voted someone like Trump and the current Republican party without any checks and balances.

There is every reason to be worried. And these things are more likely to happen if people aren't vigilant.

I can say confidently that there will be no deathcamps in America regardless of who is President for the foreseeable future. There are plenty of checks and balances in place. Don't be an alarmist.
They always could be built somewhere else - nazi death camps weren't located within Reich borders if I recall correctly.

One could also say that Guantanamo means that first step to damnation already took place.

Having said that I don't think that USA will start doing things much worse under Trump that it were already done by Obama.

Wysłane z mojego 6045K przy użyciu Tapatalka

The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.

Mikhail Bakunin.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-11-2016, 11:54 AM
RE: Protesters take to the streets
(13-11-2016 10:41 AM)Full Circle Wrote:  I think the electoral college should be disbanded after this election if the electors vote Trump in as president. It will be an indictment on how toothless the system is. If the electors are simply going to rubber-stamp the popular vote then what the fuck are they there for?

Remove the electoral college and we would have gotten Clinton as president by approximately 2.5 million votes.

Hillary Clinton set to receive more votes than any US presidential candidate in history except Barack Obama
Democrat on course to trounce Donald Trump in popular vote despite losing election


“Nate Cohn, an election analyst at the New York Times, estimates that once all votes have been counted, 63.4 million Americans will have voted for Mrs Clinton and 61.2 million for Mr Trump, giving the Democrat a ‘winning’ margin of 1.5 per cent. "

"The nature of the electoral college has led some people to suggest Ms Clinton could still become president if electors vote against the instructions given to them by the electorate in their state.

There have been 157 of these so-called “faithless electors” throughout history but they have never overturned an election result and it is unlikely to happen this year.”
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/...13596.html

Mark December 19th on your calendars, the day the electoral college becomes a vestigial remain of our founders vision for a true republic.

I fail to see your point here. The electoral college worked as it should. Voting for president is not about the individual vote. It's about the states vote. It prevents a 51% majority from ruling over the 49%, especially if they live in different states and have different personalities, morals and beliefs. "A wolf and sheep arguing over what's for dinner." It forces the winner to have won in a variety of states that are all different, rather than a few big states that are all the same, giving no voice to the remainder. The founders feared pure democracy, the popular vote, majority rule. That's why we have 3 branches of government and the 2/3 and 3/4 rules mentioned all over the constitution. They never wanted a 51% majority to run shit.

"Evil will always triumph over good, because good is dumb." - Lord Dark Helmet
[Image: 25397spaceballs.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Lord Dark Helmet's post
13-11-2016, 11:57 AM
RE: Protesters take to the streets
(13-11-2016 11:44 AM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(13-11-2016 10:41 AM)tomilay Wrote:  Christmas is great again.

It's gonna be huuuge.

It's going to be tremendously terrific!

[Image: dobie.png]Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-11-2016, 11:58 AM
RE: Protesters take to the streets
(13-11-2016 11:54 AM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  I fail to see your point here. The electoral college worked as it should. Voting for president is not about the individual vote. It's about the states vote. It prevents a 51% majority from ruling over the 49%, especially if they live in different states and have different personalities, morals and beliefs. "A wolf and sheep arguing over what's for dinner." It forces the winner to have won in a variety of states that are all different, rather than a few big states that are all the same, giving no voice to the remainder. The founders feared pure democracy, the popular vote, majority rule. That's why we have 3 branches of government and the 2/3 and 3/4 rules mentioned all over the constitution. They never wanted a 51% majority to run shit.

They also didn't understand statistics and the inevitability of strategic voting and a two party system induced by first-past-the-post voting. Their foresight is not beyond question.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
13-11-2016, 12:29 PM
RE: Protesters take to the streets
(13-11-2016 09:26 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  And more than the majority either voted for Trump or did not vote and allowed him to get in. Trump ran on a campaign of bigotry.

So yes, there are masses of Americans who are racists and misogynists.

I didn't vote. Neither did my brother, nor my dad, nor any other friend of mine. Does that mean we are all racist and misoginistic? No it doesn't. This is exactly what DL is talking about. You just called a bunch of Americans racist and misogynist. So the same people who voted for trump now that voted for obama in both 2008 and 2012 is racist? What racist tries to put a colored person in the highest office in the land, if not the world, twice? Who? And you can't call most of them sexist either, because a lot of them tell their daughters then can be whatever they want.


(13-11-2016 09:26 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  People say that but it doesn't make sense. It's a way of putting blame on the progressives. History shows us that people don't vote for the right wing demagogues because they don't like being told that they are prejudiced. They do it because the demagogues appeal to the disenfranchised who have nothing left to lose but to destroy the status quo on the off-chance that some of the promises come true. They never do. The demagogue always makes a scapegoat of some vulnerable minority and appeals to exceptionalism.

Who do you think the elites were? Republicans? The elites ran with the progressive idea. They ran with the wage gap bullshit, they ran with the cultural appropriation bullshit. They ran with these PC culture bullshit. The same one that says just because I tell an offensive joke with my friends, someone should be a buzzkill and tell people what to do. And you don't think the PC culture disenfranchises people? How about Harvard canceling the soccer season because they were rating which women was the hottest? Or the gymnast that was removed because he called Islam stupid. How about they fact that universities banned jerry seinfeld because they found him to offensive. How about the fact they call a man a homophobe and a racist despite being a gay man wants black men to fuck him left and right just because he has a different view of the world?

The problem is that you are seeing it as progressives can do nothing wrong. Turns out they can. Remember the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

[Image: Guilmon-41189.gif] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOW_Ioi2wtuPa88FvBmnBgQ my youtube
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Metazoa Zeke's post
13-11-2016, 01:04 PM
RE: Protesters take to the streets
(13-11-2016 11:54 AM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  
(13-11-2016 10:41 AM)Full Circle Wrote:  I think the electoral college should be disbanded after this election if the electors vote Trump in as president. It will be an indictment on how toothless the system is. If the electors are simply going to rubber-stamp the popular vote then what the fuck are they there for?

Remove the electoral college and we would have gotten Clinton as president by approximately 2.5 million votes.

Hillary Clinton set to receive more votes than any US presidential candidate in history except Barack Obama
Democrat on course to trounce Donald Trump in popular vote despite losing election


“Nate Cohn, an election analyst at the New York Times, estimates that once all votes have been counted, 63.4 million Americans will have voted for Mrs Clinton and 61.2 million for Mr Trump, giving the Democrat a ‘winning’ margin of 1.5 per cent. "

"The nature of the electoral college has led some people to suggest Ms Clinton could still become president if electors vote against the instructions given to them by the electorate in their state.

There have been 157 of these so-called “faithless electors” throughout history but they have never overturned an election result and it is unlikely to happen this year.”
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/...13596.html

Mark December 19th on your calendars, the day the electoral college becomes a vestigial remain of our founders vision for a true republic.

I fail to see your point here. The electoral college worked as it should. Voting for president is not about the individual vote. It's about the states vote. It prevents a 51% majority from ruling over the 49%, especially if they live in different states and have different personalities, morals and beliefs. "A wolf and sheep arguing over what's for dinner." It forces the winner to have won in a variety of states that are all different, rather than a few big states that are all the same, giving no voice to the remainder. The founders feared pure democracy, the popular vote, majority rule. That's why we have 3 branches of government and the 2/3 and 3/4 rules mentioned all over the constitution. They never wanted a 51% majority to run shit.

The point is that if the electoral college votes Trump in, someone who in my view along with 57 of 59 major newspapers not to mention countless in his own party, is unfit to hold the office of POTUS, then they have not lived up to their mandate as per the founding father’s reasonings for having created it in the first place.

Your observation is true and correct but it does not negate that the raison d’être for the electoral college, that of preventing an unfit person from holding the office. That more than 51% of the populous agrees with me is not why the electors should not vote him in, it is because the man is clearly not emotionally or intellectually fit for the office.

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Full Circle's post
13-11-2016, 01:36 PM (This post was last modified: 13-11-2016 01:58 PM by Lord Dark Helmet.)
RE: Protesters take to the streets
(13-11-2016 01:04 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  
(13-11-2016 11:54 AM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  I fail to see your point here. The electoral college worked as it should. Voting for president is not about the individual vote. It's about the states vote. It prevents a 51% majority from ruling over the 49%, especially if they live in different states and have different personalities, morals and beliefs. "A wolf and sheep arguing over what's for dinner." It forces the winner to have won in a variety of states that are all different, rather than a few big states that are all the same, giving no voice to the remainder. The founders feared pure democracy, the popular vote, majority rule. That's why we have 3 branches of government and the 2/3 and 3/4 rules mentioned all over the constitution. They never wanted a 51% majority to run shit.

The point is that if the electoral college votes Trump in, someone who in my view along with 57 of 59 major newspapers not to mention countless in his own party, is unfit to hold the office of POTUS, then they have not lived up to their mandate as per the founding father’s reasonings for having created it in the first place.

Your observation is true and correct but it does not negate that the raison d’être for the electoral college, that of preventing an unfit person from holding the office. That more than 51% of the populous agrees with me is not why the electors should not vote him in, it is because the man is clearly not emotionally or intellectually fit for the office.

But nowhere do we have the definition of "unfit." We can look to the constitution, and by that measure Trump is fit to be president. He meets the requirements within the constitution by citizenship and age. He has no ties to foreign governments. Perhaps Federalist Paper #68 can give us a clue. It pretty much says that it is nearly impossible for an unqualified president to buck the system and become elected.

"Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States"

In other words, while someone who is "popular" could become president due to their popularity, their other virtues would have to be taken into consideration and weighed by the college, and the people.

Most people have accepted the results of the election. That proves that Trump is "fit" to be President. And the electors will vote as such. Now, if all 60 million people that voted for Hillary Clinton take to the streets in protest, I would say ok, Trump shouldn't be president. But the fact is 90% of Clinton supporters have not signed the online petition to convince the college to not vote Trump. 99.9% of Clinton supporters are not rioting in the streets.

Trump has in effect, won a "considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States" as #68 said. People don't have to accept his politics, but the vast majority have accepted his fitness, not with their direct vote, but by their acceptance of his victory.

“if it not be perfect, it is at least excellent”. -Alexander Hamilton

"Evil will always triumph over good, because good is dumb." - Lord Dark Helmet
[Image: 25397spaceballs.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-11-2016, 01:44 PM
RE: Protesters take to the streets
Well, his trial is imminent. His lawyers asked to postpone it until after inauguration because he needs his time now to prepare for the White House.

He thinks he will have more free time after he is president? Unsure

[Image: dobie.png]Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: