When Will The Anti Trump Hysteria Die Down?

^ Wf.


Btw, I'd prefer all but a handful of his cabinet picks over the current guy to be in charge of it all. I dislike Trump about as much as I disliked Obama, but that's his personality I hate, unlike Obama's (ideology seriously flawed). But I got over myself, that's just packaging, who cares if I didn't think his tv show was worth time, or if I think he's a loudmouth?

He moved to Texas. Self-explanatory, really.

Yeah, but we're the lazy fuckers who won't vote those crooked bums outta office.

They don't stay there for no reason. It's why George Carlin didn't rip into politicians because we the people could fix that with a little bit of effort, without any need for term limits.

So, you'd agree that Paris Hilton works harder and possesses greater business acumen than the oompa loompa in chief?

It's like you elected a rich version of Dayton...

Yeah, Trump is about the finest example of "given Daddy's money and allowed to play real estate (with his Dad's name underwriting the deals)" as you can get. Nowadays, he's got enough name recognition to slap his brand on a venture and let others work out the details, which is hardly working for a living. And also why he doesn't actually lose out when those ventures declare bankruptcy, although he's quick enough to list those losses when they help him avoid tax.

You are wrong. The turn out rate already accounts for only registered voters but does not count eligible but unregistered voters. So when they say 50% of registered voters turned out the actual number of eligible voters who turned out is much lower.

Mewa, how does my garden grow?


I'm a much happier fellow since I ditched the suit and the world of new York lawyers and wall st., and moved to buy a business far away from the left coast. I employ lots of people and treat them great, e.g. before obamacare we paid the medical bills of our top fifty people, just didn't advertise it. Me and my bud (another NY lawyer, but way smarter and way more successful than me) are very cool these days, he growing shrooms and even went on a windowpane kick since he left he big firm.

Obama really fucked things up and Trump was what the country said in response- who am I to think I know better?

You're a pretty stupid measure!

A guy who only provides medical coverage for his "top fifty people."

not sure why you said I was living in a fantasy world when I was quoting easily verified numbers? All you're adding is the possibility that even FEWER than 17% of the population voted for him as unregistered voters aren't in the count (they are, but I want to see where you're going with this)?

Bottom line is that your country's leader was selected by less than 1 in 5 citizens/residents, and even they were in a minority. Your electoral system is a failure and a fraud.

Have you been snorting shit you find in the couch cushions, or is this some sort of joke? Trump has run many businesses into the ground. Someone who loses as the house on three casinos is not what I would call a businessman. We know he does not pay taxes because he was such a huge loser in trying to run a business the government cut him a break. The only reason trump has the opportunity to run businesses into the ground is because he inherited it or took it from investors and the government. I am not quite sure what you would call a person who takes other people's money and loses it, but businessman is not it.

Running a business is a totally different angle than being the leader of a nation. The ruler of a country speaks to other countries as an entity trying to work with them or against them. The leader of a business speaks to a country's leaders as someone who wants to do business inside their country. It is a totally different relationship.

Looked at the quote, read it again, then get back to me because you deducted numbers when they were already not counted in the original numbers.

I don't dispute your percentages ST. But normally people in the U.S. don't bother talking in terms of total "eligible voters". If people choose not to vote that is their choice. They're choosing to be governed by the mid 50% of people who voted chose.

and the bottom line is that 46% of those who voted chose Trump. And that still amounts to "about half".

Why don't you just say no math in the red room? He explained clearly where the numbers came from, and you just do not like them. however I do think you would totally back those numbers if you swapped Hillary's name in there. Considering Hillary had a percentage within ten of his the numbers would work out very similarly even though she won the popular vote.

so if we discount those who were eligible but didn't participate, he still got fewer votes from those who did than his opponent.
As I've said before, your democracy is seriously flawed when the second place finisher gets the presidency.

And once again, American presidents are elected by the states, not by popular vote.

No doubt our democracy has a number of flaws. But it seems better than any obvious alternative. I don't want the U.S. to be governed by mob rule out of New York City, Chicago, Los Angeles and Houston.

We've been seeing acid pop up in Toronto again... been years. I walked away from it a long time ago though... caught my limit, as it were.
'shrooms, otoh, never go away. Bluebells?

Shrooms are the best!

That's exactly what the flaw strikes me as being... that you have an ennobled class dictating who gets to be king for the next few years. Maybe it was a good system for the Victorian era, but since then, there've been improvements where (we) the people have a bit more say in other countries.

Why should 100 000 people in Arkansas have a greater voice in electing the P-US than 8 million in New York City?
How is that a "representative" democracy?
Keep in mind that this is something other countries started to figure out by the mid 19th century

I'm pretty certain that the difference caused by the states electoral votes (those based on the Senate seats) is not so great that "100,000 people in Arkansas" have greater voice than "8 million in New York City"

Not in a significant way anyway.

The American system as it stands now does tend to give each area of the country a significant say in the presidential race. Helping beat back the sectionalism that was a major factor in the American civil war.

What about Pro-Trump zombieism? The Trump Faithful who make up excuses for anything & everything he says & does! Who believe every word out of Trump's mouth. Trump zombies, who are unfortunately legion in our braintrust United States, represent the opposite of anti-Trump hysteria.

I'd rather have a brain in my head, knowing that I wasn't voting for Hillary as much I was voting AGAINST Trump, basically a choice between urine (Billary Rotten Clint On) & diarrhea (Ronald McDonald Trump Card the Oompa Loompa).

Hillary was a shitty candidate. Didn't campaign in Wisconsin, among other mistakes.

Hillary SUCKED!

But the solution WASN'T voting for the orange hued con artist.

And now we're ALL stuck with the diarrhea until it gets flushed!

A glass is half empty sorta person, why aren't more liberals like this?

Now, after ACA "helped" everyone, fewer than 12% of my full time employees have coverage (down from over 50%), and it's all the "MEC" kind of coverage. For anyone paying attention, MEC coverage is not really coverage, except preventative etc. But it will never pay for hospital bills etc.

The sad joke is, the left has been duped by Democrat politicians, the media and a few poignant anecdotes into actually believing that Obamacare was a success, and that tens of millions were "covered" with the ideal plan they have in their mind. Good thing we won't actually ever have to feel the full brunt of the Obamacare stupidity/incompetence-in-legislation, or the country would've been bankrupted fast than you could say donald trump.

So you as the boss decided to deny coverage to the other 38% in order to “show Obama”? That’s about what one might expect from you.

Why should a president necessarily be elected by popular vote? What makes that morally superior to some other way of electing one? Please try to frame your argument in such a way that you're not arguing against the fixed number of Senators per state, or alternatively, please start arguing against that with equal vehemence.

Don't know, will learn more when I get a chance, thanks.

As to the leftie, same budget covers fewer people, just math, not meanness, and we found other ways to keep our top people happy.

Of course, we provide seminars on how Democrats are not really the friends of Hispanics, but oddly, most have already figured it out for themselves (they notoriously have troubles with blacks generally, and think the Democrats are responsible for the current still-slaves-under-another-name status quo). But anyway our people are too busy working two or more jobs to vote anyway, not that they're poor, just such fuckin hard workers we seem to have lucked into.

You'll have to show me why a president shouldn't be elected by the national popular vote rather than senators first. Why should a sparsely populated region have much more influence than a densely populated one?

I think I just did argue against the EC with the same vehemence I usually do. It doesn't serve the will of the majority of the electorate. It'd be up to you to explain differently, wouldn't it?

Is it ethical to claim "one man, one vote" when Dayton's vote counts for 300 of Mewa or Anna's? I'm not arguing for morality, but rather basic honesty...

For what its worth (and you'll say no one cares) but I like that kind of system.

With Trump, nothing is good any more. We watch the news like hawks to find out what of our civil rights have been flushed down the crapper. The religious nuts are having a field day trying to paint it all blue.

Oohh, looks like we are getting another thread where conservatives explain how they actually do sometimes support affirmative action, I love these!