Search:

[QUOTE=oops_ur_dead;673039]Uh, what? Unless I'm misunderstanding what you meant, you have it completely wrong. DC, Alaska, and Wyoming have 3 electoral college votes, while Florida has 29, Texas has 36, and Ohio has 18. The issue stems from the fact that the number of voters per electoral college vote differs greatly. For instance, Texas has about 700 000 people per electoral college vote, while Wyoming has 200 000 people per electoral college vote. This means that in the grand scheme of things, one Wyoming voter will have the same impact on the election as ~3.5 Texan voters (of course this is a vast oversimplification and its more complex, but this is just an illustration).[/QUOTE]
Thats kinda what I was getting at. If you compare the number of electoral college votes vs the number of people who actually voted there is a massive gap. If you compare the number of voting eligible citizens in that state vs the number of electoral college votes there is still a gap but its not quite as extreme. The most skewed figure is counting the flat number of people. Depending on 'who' you count you can make the numbers say what you want them to but yeah, overall a citizen voting in Wyoming gets 3 times the effective vote power over someone in California.
[QUOTE=oops_ur_dead;673039]Big city issues and small town issues are not mutually exclusive. Candidates don't have to appeal to just one of the two, and fuck over the other group. Also, I'd be willing to bet that the disparity isn't just because of issues pertaining to cities vs towns, but rather differences in demographics between those two populations. People in small towns tend to be more religious, less educated, and less wealthy than those in large cities. Candidates appealing to one set of traits that happen to be prevalent in small towns would appeal to voters in those regions, and the same goes for big cities. I think that those confounding factors play a larger role in the disparity than just big city vs small town. To illustrate this, take a look at the 2015 Canadian election results map: [url]https://nationalpostcom.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/na1020-election_map_12001.jpg[/url] where you'll find that differences in voting weren't solely due to large cities vs small towns, as the extremely rural areas in Northern Ontario and the territories voted similarly to the large cities. This isn't just a one-off effect either, you can see something similar in the 2011 results: [url]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2e/Canada_Fed_election_2011_Ridings.svg/2000px-Canada_Fed_election_2011_Ridings.svg.png[/url] where the divide again isn't along cities vs towns.[/QUOTE]
That makes a lot of sense.
Still, for an example:
There is a trend in America for citys to vote for some state wide tax to raise money to spend on infrastructure. Once the money gets raised it gets spent to repair citys roads and the rural areas never see any of that funding. But then if they argue the situation its pointed out that the majority of the state voted it in and the funding is being spent in a way that helps the most people possible. This totally sounds fair and democratic from one side while the other side feels like they are getting robbed.

[QUOTE=oops_ur_dead;673039]This is an unfortunate fact. We've seen what effect gerrymandering has had. I have no doubt that a government group trying to enact electoral reform would try to bias the system in their favour.
There are a thousand ways a democracy can work, but some ways work much better than others. It's pretty much fact that the system currently used in America and much of the world is flawed, and is based on a flawed and outdated model of democracy. Watch this video for more info: [url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo[/url][/QUOTE]
Good video. That series made a lot of sense.
[QUOTE=oops_ur_dead;673039]That was my point exactly. It's strange to put emphasis on what states want when it's people that are affected, not some abstract concept of a state. Let's say that the US was just California (the state with the most people per electoral college vote), and the 16 states with the least people per electoral college vote (namely New Mexico, Idaho, Nebraska, West Virginia, Hawaii, Montana, Maine, New Hampshire, Delaware, South Dakota, Rhode Island, Alaska, North Dakota, District of Columbia, Vermont, and Wyoming). Now let's say a president ran under the Fuck California party and promised to take the money and assets of everyone in California and give it to everyone else. Under the current electoral college system, and assuming all the states that aren't California vote for the Fuck California party, the Fuck California party would win in terms of electoral seats, despite the population of California being 39 million and the population of all the other states combined being 19 million. Despite the Fuck California party winning, more than twice as many people are fucked over by it. Would you say that that's fair? Would you still say "why should a ton of states have to deal with not fucking over California because only one state doesnt want to fuck over California?"[/QUOTE]
No, that would not be fair. But there is no fair in that kinda situation. And that is only an issue because power is centralized and we have an overbearing federal government messing with legislation that should be left to the states. Downsize the fed and these kinds of issues go away.

Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead

Uh, what? Unless I'm misunderstanding what you meant, you have it completely wrong. DC, Alaska, and Wyoming have 3 electoral college votes, while Florida has 29, Texas has 36, and Ohio has 18. The issue stems from the fact that the number of voters per electoral college vote differs greatly. For instance, Texas has about 700 000 people per electoral college vote, while Wyoming has 200 000 people per electoral college vote. This means that in the grand scheme of things, one Wyoming voter will have the same impact on the election as ~3.5 Texan voters (of course this is a vast oversimplification and its more complex, but this is just an illustration).

Thats kinda what I was getting at. If you compare the number of electoral college votes vs the number of people who actually voted there is a massive gap. If you compare the number of voting eligible citizens in that state vs the number of electoral college votes there is still a gap but its not quite as extreme. The most skewed figure is counting the flat number of people. Depending on 'who' you count you can make the numbers say what you want them to but yeah, overall a citizen voting in Wyoming gets 3 times the effective vote power over someone in California.

Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead

Big city issues and small town issues are not mutually exclusive. Candidates don't have to appeal to just one of the two, and fuck over the other group. Also, I'd be willing to bet that the disparity isn't just because of issues pertaining to cities vs towns, but rather differences in demographics between those two populations. People in small towns tend to be more religious, less educated, and less wealthy than those in large cities. Candidates appealing to one set of traits that happen to be prevalent in small towns would appeal to voters in those regions, and the same goes for big cities. I think that those confounding factors play a larger role in the disparity than just big city vs small town. To illustrate this, take a look at the 2015 Canadian election results map: https://nationalpostcom.files.wordpr..._map_12001.jpg where you'll find that differences in voting weren't solely due to large cities vs small towns, as the extremely rural areas in Northern Ontario and the territories voted similarly to the large cities. This isn't just a one-off effect either, you can see something similar in the 2011 results: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...idings.svg.png where the divide again isn't along cities vs towns.

That makes a lot of sense.
Still, for an example:
There is a trend in America for citys to vote for some state wide tax to raise money to spend on infrastructure. Once the money gets raised it gets spent to repair citys roads and the rural areas never see any of that funding. But then if they argue the situation its pointed out that the majority of the state voted it in and the funding is being spent in a way that helps the most people possible. This totally sounds fair and democratic from one side while the other side feels like they are getting robbed.

Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead

This is an unfortunate fact. We've seen what effect gerrymandering has had. I have no doubt that a government group trying to enact electoral reform would try to bias the system in their favour.
There are a thousand ways a democracy can work, but some ways work much better than others. It's pretty much fact that the system currently used in America and much of the world is flawed, and is based on a flawed and outdated model of democracy. Watch this video for more info: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo

Good video. That series made a lot of sense.

Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead

That was my point exactly. It's strange to put emphasis on what states want when it's people that are affected, not some abstract concept of a state. Let's say that the US was just California (the state with the most people per electoral college vote), and the 16 states with the least people per electoral college vote (namely New Mexico, Idaho, Nebraska, West Virginia, Hawaii, Montana, Maine, New Hampshire, Delaware, South Dakota, Rhode Island, Alaska, North Dakota, District of Columbia, Vermont, and Wyoming). Now let's say a president ran under the Fuck California party and promised to take the money and assets of everyone in California and give it to everyone else. Under the current electoral college system, and assuming all the states that aren't California vote for the Fuck California party, the Fuck California party would win in terms of electoral seats, despite the population of California being 39 million and the population of all the other states combined being 19 million. Despite the Fuck California party winning, more than twice as many people are fucked over by it. Would you say that that's fair? Would you still say "why should a ton of states have to deal with not fucking over California because only one state doesnt want to fuck over California?"

No, that would not be fair. But there is no fair in that kinda situation. And that is only an issue because power is centralized and we have an overbearing federal government messing with legislation that should be left to the states. Downsize the fed and these kinds of issues go away.

[QUOTE=MattZed;672735]Helz, we don't live in a world where we can only think about the US and everything will be fine. Keeping the world peaceful is hard work, and taking the moral high ground is important to our position as world leader. Half the reason the first world likes us so much and chose to side with us during the Cold War is because we gave them aid to rebuild their economies after WWII. It was chump change to them, but they thank us for it now. If the Soviet Union had been the only superpower giving out aid, you might be looking a communist Europe today.

It's the same philosophy with refugees. It makes up pocket change in the federal budget, but it makes us look like the good guys. We need coalition partners to fight Daesh. Joining the US in military operations isn't popular in many countries' parliaments, and if their anti-war folks can point to us not willing to be team players, it's that much harder to get them behind us.

Price matters. If it were 20% of the federal budget, you bet I'd be having major objections to our refugee policy. But it's less than half of a percent. It's a great deal.[/QUOTE]
I suppose this is where we differ in opinion. Our defence budget in 2016 was roughly 1.68 trillion. Thats 3 times more than the next 10 highest spending countries combined. We straight up should not have any need for allies while spending that much. And if people are going to 'help out' a just cause only because we dump billions on silly things are they really even our ally to begin with?
Show me a guy that will pay 100k a year to make friends and I bet he will have tons of them. But if he ever gets in a bind and has nothing more to offer all those people who were pretending to be his friend will just leave. You can not buy loyalty. Thats just not how shit works.
In contrast US charities received something in the area of 375-390 billion dollars last year (Depending on what sources you look at) from citizens, foundations, and corporations. Thats good shit. Thats Americans helping out because they want to while the government does their part by offering tax breaks for people who donate. I believe thats exactly how it should be. It makes extremely little difference what the government does but the things it does do reflects an immoral practice of forcing people to give their money to others. The key factor in any business relationship is that both sides have to benefit. When this is the case things go smoothly with each side happy. When its just one side helping the other it does not work out. We should allow the country to help people in the direct interests of America (Such as if we need more engineers, lets imagrate some over who can work to support themselves while providing a needed service to the country.) But demanding money from the citizens of a nation to go and give away to people who have done nothing for those citizens and without the express intention that they will start to contribute is fucked up. I really dont think we should be blowing our tax dollars to go and police the world when we can't even pay our bills. The climbing national debt is a very real issue.
[url]https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikepatton/2015/04/24/national-debt-tops-18-trillion-guess-how-much-you-owe/#69fc5e715ebd[/url]
As of April 2015 every tax payer in America basically owes One hundred and fifty four thousand dollars to foreign nations. The debt to GDP ratio is well over 100% which to put the nation in terms of a 'person' is like if you made 60k a year and owed 70 or 80k. Keep in mind that a 'good' debt to income ratio as viewed from lenders is no more than 38% of your income. This basically reflects the attitude of a 16 year old girl who just got a credit card. 'I can spend whatever I want because daddy will pay it off later.' The only difference is that our children will be the ones who pay because we wanted to put on a cape and save the world for a bunch of assholes who never really did anything for us in the first place.
I think America should help other nations. But I hate that direct government charity is justified in any way. I think that attitude reflects a generation with no concept of how money works with a ruling class exploiting it to get their jollys and get rich. Its going to be interesting to see what happens when people stop rioting over silly crap and start rioting over things that matter.
[QUOTE=MattZed;672735]Also, oops wasn't calling Trump voters dumb.[/QUOTE]
I did not mean to infer that he was. I simply feel like that's what that line points out. 'Educated people voted for Hillary, Uneducated people voted for Trump'

Originally Posted by MattZed

Helz, we don't live in a world where we can only think about the US and everything will be fine. Keeping the world peaceful is hard work, and taking the moral high ground is important to our position as world leader. Half the reason the first world likes us so much and chose to side with us during the Cold War is because we gave them aid to rebuild their economies after WWII. It was chump change to them, but they thank us for it now. If the Soviet Union had been the only superpower giving out aid, you might be looking a communist Europe today.

It's the same philosophy with refugees. It makes up pocket change in the federal budget, but it makes us look like the good guys. We need coalition partners to fight Daesh. Joining the US in military operations isn't popular in many countries' parliaments, and if their anti-war folks can point to us not willing to be team players, it's that much harder to get them behind us.

Price matters. If it were 20% of the federal budget, you bet I'd be having major objections to our refugee policy. But it's less than half of a percent. It's a great deal.

I suppose this is where we differ in opinion. Our defence budget in 2016 was roughly 1.68 trillion. Thats 3 times more than the next 10 highest spending countries combined. We straight up should not have any need for allies while spending that much. And if people are going to 'help out' a just cause only because we dump billions on silly things are they really even our ally to begin with?
Show me a guy that will pay 100k a year to make friends and I bet he will have tons of them. But if he ever gets in a bind and has nothing more to offer all those people who were pretending to be his friend will just leave. You can not buy loyalty. Thats just not how shit works.
In contrast US charities received something in the area of 375-390 billion dollars last year (Depending on what sources you look at) from citizens, foundations, and corporations. Thats good shit. Thats Americans helping out because they want to while the government does their part by offering tax breaks for people who donate. I believe thats exactly how it should be. It makes extremely little difference what the government does but the things it does do reflects an immoral practice of forcing people to give their money to others. The key factor in any business relationship is that both sides have to benefit. When this is the case things go smoothly with each side happy. When its just one side helping the other it does not work out. We should allow the country to help people in the direct interests of America (Such as if we need more engineers, lets imagrate some over who can work to support themselves while providing a needed service to the country.) But demanding money from the citizens of a nation to go and give away to people who have done nothing for those citizens and without the express intention that they will start to contribute is fucked up. I really dont think we should be blowing our tax dollars to go and police the world when we can't even pay our bills. The climbing national debt is a very real issue.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikepatt.../#69fc5e715ebd
As of April 2015 every tax payer in America basically owes One hundred and fifty four thousand dollars to foreign nations. The debt to GDP ratio is well over 100% which to put the nation in terms of a 'person' is like if you made 60k a year and owed 70 or 80k. Keep in mind that a 'good' debt to income ratio as viewed from lenders is no more than 38% of your income. This basically reflects the attitude of a 16 year old girl who just got a credit card. 'I can spend whatever I want because daddy will pay it off later.' The only difference is that our children will be the ones who pay because we wanted to put on a cape and save the world for a bunch of assholes who never really did anything for us in the first place.
I think America should help other nations. But I hate that direct government charity is justified in any way. I think that attitude reflects a generation with no concept of how money works with a ruling class exploiting it to get their jollys and get rich. Its going to be interesting to see what happens when people stop rioting over silly crap and start rioting over things that matter.

Originally Posted by MattZed

Also, oops wasn't calling Trump voters dumb.

I did not mean to infer that he was. I simply feel like that's what that line points out. 'Educated people voted for Hillary, Uneducated people voted for Trump'

[QUOTE=MattZed;672244]Listen, we could break down the cost: how much is spent per refugee, how much they pay in taxes, and how much they otherwise contribute to the economy. At the end of the day it's an utter pittance.

You've also completely missed the point that this is a national security issue. When we don't take in refugees, we look like weak assholes. You can't lead the free world from a position of weak assholery. If you want, you can slap the words "PR fund" all over our refugee budget and consider the refugee taxes and humanitarian benefits to be convenient side effects. Thinking that that one billion doesn't help Americans is myopic at best.[/QUOTE]
We 'could' and I honestly started drawing up something on it but then I got lazy. If you really really want I will dig into that and draw some shit up for you.
I think its silly to say 'not taking refugees is a national security issue' though. Don't take this the wrong way but that really sounds like contrived reasoning.
[QUOTE=oops_ur_dead;672461]Are you joking? That is one of the biggest arguments against the electoral college, in that as the system works now, the power to decide elections lies in a handful of states. If about 2% of Trump voters in Florida and Pennsylvania - not even 0.5% percent of the population of the US - had voted for Clinton instead, then the election would have gone in Clinton's favor. I don't understand how you can argue that the electoral college limits one state's ability to curve an election when it's exactly the case now that a few states decide the election with the rest being "safe" votes for a certain party. Under the current system, voter power is concentrated in a few states, with other states having little actual influence on how the election will turn out.

Also, from an outsider's perspective the US emphasis on "state rights" or states being equal or whatever is really strange. Yes, without the electoral college California would probably have a larger sway in the election, but if so many people live in California why shouldn't the state have a larger say, if more people will be affected by the outcome? It makes no sense for me that in the name of "fairness", individual voters in states like Wyoming and North Dakota have a much larger say than individual voters in California, simply because they happen to live in a state with less people.[/QUOTE]
That is a fair point. I think that states like DC, Wyoming and Alaska get 3-4 times the amount of electoral college votes as states like Flordia, Texas, and Ohio (Although Texas has the option to split into 4 states at will and massively increase its electoral votes.) But still pretty much every rural area voted Trump and Hillarys base came almost exclusively from large citys. Do you know of any better way to balance out the large city vs small town issues? Or should people who don't live in a large city just get run over because there are less of them? It did not work out very well when this was an issue last time. I totally aknoledge that it comes from some really old school shit but it does serve a purpose. A large issue is that reforming it would be total hell. Partys will do everything they can to push things in their favor for the next election.
Lets be real here. America has no idea how to loose anything with grace. Our citizens will find something to go ape shit about just because they did not get their way. If Hillary had won Bernie supporters would be raising hell about how he should actually be in that seat because her crooked ass did a lot of backroom handshaking to screw him out of having a chance. Its just an escalating pattern. Reminds me of the "Al Gore got screwed out of Flordia" conspiracy except every election it gets louder and more in everyones face.
[QUOTE=oops_ur_dead;672461]It's also strange, and perhaps a mindset caused by the electoral college, that states are seen as political monoliths, while the individual voters in the state are forgotten. I often see terms used like "states" decide elections, when really under a democracy, it should be the people deciding an election. California is a "Democratic" state, yes, but there are plenty of Republican voters there. However, as it stands the Republican voters in California have absolutely no say because California will never go Republican. It's completely unfair to Republican voters in CA that they have no influence at all on the outcome of the election because of where they live, and the same goes for Democratic voters in Texas. I just don't understand why people consider it fair to weigh the opinion of individuals differently, and often completely disregard them, because of the state they live in.[/QUOTE]
Texas is shifting away from a solid republican state. Austin in particular is liberal as hell. Im not 100% but I believe every year Texas shifts a bit more in the direction of the left. I can't say much about California. Its strongly shifting more and more democratic than it already is.
[QUOTE=oops_ur_dead;672461]I mean yeah, but that isn't a really interesting statement, all it shows is a difference in demographics for who voted for Trump and who voted for Hillary. But why are we looking at stupid shit like the area of the counties? Personally I don't think it's remarkable if Bumfuck, Nevada (Population: 10) which covers like half the state voted for Trump, while Las Vegas (Population: 600 000) voted for Clinton. All it means is that Trump voters happen to live in less dense areas, while Clinton voters are concentrated in cities. And yes, the cultures are very different and it's difficult to bridge the gap. But "fairness" isn't making it so that a majority of the population gets potentially fucked over to potentially help a minority of the population. That isn't the point of democracy.
Also, with regards to "He had more of literally every possible measurement other than flat population count that was shifted by 1 state", that isn't true either. Although those kinds of metrics are irrelevant when looking at who "should" have won, as I already mentioned, I'd say land is probably the least consequential of metrics that you could have chosen. 64% of American GDP comes from the counties that voted for Clinton, compared to 36% as produced by the countries that went for Trump. The counties and states that went for Clinton have higher numbers of college graduates, which fuel the economy and progress the nation as a worldwide leader of science and engineering. I'm not saying that any of these metrics really matter when it comes to the results of the election, but they certainly matter a hell of a lot more to the nation's future than "trump counties are biggurr"[/QUOTE]
I disagree. Theres a thousand ways a democracy can work. Electoral college votes, every state could vote, popularity vote ect.. And every one of them comes with injustices. Someone will always be screwed over and specifically supporting 1 method that supports the outcome you want is convenient. I would say that yes 'if' the fed was totally and utterly downsized with the power returning to the states then it would be great to have a popular vote run our shit. But thats not the case and I can just as easily say "Why should a ton of states have to deal with things they do not want just because only a few do." Its a balance- I get that its one you do not like, but it really is a balance.
The whole 'Clinton voters are educated and Trump voters are dumb' bit I don't really get. Like.. I really don't understand what bearing that has on anything.. I remember when I first saw it some stations flat out put it 'Uneducated young white males.' Kinda seems like people saying 'Oh that side just won because people are too stupid to know any better.'

Originally Posted by MattZed

Listen, we could break down the cost: how much is spent per refugee, how much they pay in taxes, and how much they otherwise contribute to the economy. At the end of the day it's an utter pittance.

You've also completely missed the point that this is a national security issue. When we don't take in refugees, we look like weak assholes. You can't lead the free world from a position of weak assholery. If you want, you can slap the words "PR fund" all over our refugee budget and consider the refugee taxes and humanitarian benefits to be convenient side effects. Thinking that that one billion doesn't help Americans is myopic at best.

We 'could' and I honestly started drawing up something on it but then I got lazy. If you really really want I will dig into that and draw some shit up for you.
I think its silly to say 'not taking refugees is a national security issue' though. Don't take this the wrong way but that really sounds like contrived reasoning.

Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead

Are you joking? That is one of the biggest arguments against the electoral college, in that as the system works now, the power to decide elections lies in a handful of states. If about 2% of Trump voters in Florida and Pennsylvania - not even 0.5% percent of the population of the US - had voted for Clinton instead, then the election would have gone in Clinton's favor. I don't understand how you can argue that the electoral college limits one state's ability to curve an election when it's exactly the case now that a few states decide the election with the rest being "safe" votes for a certain party. Under the current system, voter power is concentrated in a few states, with other states having little actual influence on how the election will turn out.

Also, from an outsider's perspective the US emphasis on "state rights" or states being equal or whatever is really strange. Yes, without the electoral college California would probably have a larger sway in the election, but if so many people live in California why shouldn't the state have a larger say, if more people will be affected by the outcome? It makes no sense for me that in the name of "fairness", individual voters in states like Wyoming and North Dakota have a much larger say than individual voters in California, simply because they happen to live in a state with less people.

That is a fair point. I think that states like DC, Wyoming and Alaska get 3-4 times the amount of electoral college votes as states like Flordia, Texas, and Ohio (Although Texas has the option to split into 4 states at will and massively increase its electoral votes.) But still pretty much every rural area voted Trump and Hillarys base came almost exclusively from large citys. Do you know of any better way to balance out the large city vs small town issues? Or should people who don't live in a large city just get run over because there are less of them? It did not work out very well when this was an issue last time. I totally aknoledge that it comes from some really old school shit but it does serve a purpose. A large issue is that reforming it would be total hell. Partys will do everything they can to push things in their favor for the next election.
Lets be real here. America has no idea how to loose anything with grace. Our citizens will find something to go ape shit about just because they did not get their way. If Hillary had won Bernie supporters would be raising hell about how he should actually be in that seat because her crooked ass did a lot of backroom handshaking to screw him out of having a chance. Its just an escalating pattern. Reminds me of the "Al Gore got screwed out of Flordia" conspiracy except every election it gets louder and more in everyones face.

Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead

It's also strange, and perhaps a mindset caused by the electoral college, that states are seen as political monoliths, while the individual voters in the state are forgotten. I often see terms used like "states" decide elections, when really under a democracy, it should be the people deciding an election. California is a "Democratic" state, yes, but there are plenty of Republican voters there. However, as it stands the Republican voters in California have absolutely no say because California will never go Republican. It's completely unfair to Republican voters in CA that they have no influence at all on the outcome of the election because of where they live, and the same goes for Democratic voters in Texas. I just don't understand why people consider it fair to weigh the opinion of individuals differently, and often completely disregard them, because of the state they live in.

Texas is shifting away from a solid republican state. Austin in particular is liberal as hell. Im not 100% but I believe every year Texas shifts a bit more in the direction of the left. I can't say much about California. Its strongly shifting more and more democratic than it already is.

Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead

I mean yeah, but that isn't a really interesting statement, all it shows is a difference in demographics for who voted for Trump and who voted for Hillary. But why are we looking at stupid shit like the area of the counties? Personally I don't think it's remarkable if Bumfuck, Nevada (Population: 10) which covers like half the state voted for Trump, while Las Vegas (Population: 600 000) voted for Clinton. All it means is that Trump voters happen to live in less dense areas, while Clinton voters are concentrated in cities. And yes, the cultures are very different and it's difficult to bridge the gap. But "fairness" isn't making it so that a majority of the population gets potentially fucked over to potentially help a minority of the population. That isn't the point of democracy.
Also, with regards to "He had more of literally every possible measurement other than flat population count that was shifted by 1 state", that isn't true either. Although those kinds of metrics are irrelevant when looking at who "should" have won, as I already mentioned, I'd say land is probably the least consequential of metrics that you could have chosen. 64% of American GDP comes from the counties that voted for Clinton, compared to 36% as produced by the countries that went for Trump. The counties and states that went for Clinton have higher numbers of college graduates, which fuel the economy and progress the nation as a worldwide leader of science and engineering. I'm not saying that any of these metrics really matter when it comes to the results of the election, but they certainly matter a hell of a lot more to the nation's future than "trump counties are biggurr"

I disagree. Theres a thousand ways a democracy can work. Electoral college votes, every state could vote, popularity vote ect.. And every one of them comes with injustices. Someone will always be screwed over and specifically supporting 1 method that supports the outcome you want is convenient. I would say that yes 'if' the fed was totally and utterly downsized with the power returning to the states then it would be great to have a popular vote run our shit. But thats not the case and I can just as easily say "Why should a ton of states have to deal with things they do not want just because only a few do." Its a balance- I get that its one you do not like, but it really is a balance.
The whole 'Clinton voters are educated and Trump voters are dumb' bit I don't really get. Like.. I really don't understand what bearing that has on anything.. I remember when I first saw it some stations flat out put it 'Uneducated young white males.' Kinda seems like people saying 'Oh that side just won because people are too stupid to know any better.'

[QUOTE=MattZed;671771]I'm aware it's more complicated than just one figure, but the "refugees get more money than X" where X is veterans, retirees, what have you, is a popular misconception that I'm fine to keep discussing. If you have numbers to support your point, go ahead and share them.

If you're going to maintain that tax money going to anything that isn't directly related to US citizens is immoral, you're having a far too simplistic view of the matter. Refugees amount for less than .0005 of the federal budget. Sure, that money could be spent elsewhere, but it has a huge ROI in the form of refugee contributions to our economy and making our nation not look like an asshole. The US benefits from living in a safer and more peaceful world, and it's harder to lead that world when we can't afford to help in the largest humanitarian crisis of our time.[/QUOTE]

You said so yourself that its a billion dollars. That may be a drop in the bucket compared to the federal budget but that is big money that could go to help Americans. We have plenty of Americans homeless on the street. We have a huge issue finding good homes for orphans and our elderly could use more assistance in their healthcare now that the 'affordable healthcare act' somehow made good treatment less affordable. It may not be a 'nice' or a 'cool' position for me to take but they straight up do not rate our federal tax money. That is what charity is for. The governments appropriate way of 'assisting' them is to provide tax breaks as incentives for corporations and individuals the help that they need. I am not saying we should not help them as a nation- I am just saying I feel that demanding the citizens of a nation to pay you money so you can give it away to others is some robin hood bullshit and an inappropriate practice.
[QUOTE=oops_ur_dead;671811]You know you can look this up yourself, right? The majority of PEOPLE (not states or counties or whatever the fuck you have in the US) voted for Clinton. Yes Trump won but more people voted for Hillary. This isn't cherry picking, and saying the public "sided with Trump" because he won due to a flawed electoral system is absurd. Would you also say that the public in North Korea sides with Kim Jong-Un because he wins every (obviously rigged) election they have?

Similarly, in Canada we have a election system much like the electoral college, and because of massive strategic voting (that I admittedly was a part of in the last election, and perpetrated by voting for a candidate that wasn't my preferred candidate but was better than the alternative) the last two governments had a majority of the seats with about 40% of the vote. The electoral college system and FPTP voting in general is objectively one of the worst possible voting systems, and only exists in the US because when the US was founded and had their first elections they didn't have the internet and phones and shit and had to actually send representatives on fucking horses to vote on behalf of their state.[/QUOTE]
My understanding was that its roots were from England where the poor locals could not afford to travel to vote so they would proxi their vote to whatever local noble who would make a vote that was suppose to be in their best interest. Is that necessary? No. But the justification for keeping it has been that it limits 1 states ability to curve an election to their desire simply because they have a high population. Its just a question of how you decide to count up the situation. You can not deny that there was a massive gap in the county results. So look at it by the area of America and roughly 80% sided with trump. He had more of literally every possible measurement other than flat population count that was shifted by 1 state. Even in that one state the numbers break down to a not so pretty picture. [url]https://www.wnd.com/files/2016/12/2016counties-blue-for-trump-600.jpg[/url]
If you really want to take the position of 'flat population' you run into the issue of big citys having totally different interests than small towns. Its 2 very different cultures and thats a tough gap to bridge. The issue of being fair between them has been one drawing back to the civil war.

[QUOTE=oops_ur_dead;671811]I'm sure you've heard the adage "actions speak louder than words". In this case, you take every opportunity to defend Trump, his actions, the means he got elected by, and dismiss the controversy surrounding him. When you constantly express support for what he's doing, I'm sure you can understand why your statements of "oh btw i dont actually like trump" don't seem very genuine.[/QUOTE]
Maybe I am blinded by my bias and too ignorant or stubborn to admit it. That is totally possible and Im not going to pretend that its not because holy shit am I glad Hillary did not get elected. But I really do believe the reason I keep ending up on this forum pushing against some of the 'anti trump' arguments is that I disagree with them. Like I stated earlier with the whole 'Obama doubled the national debt' argument- its just stupid. I should probably just learn to turn a blind eye or something but I constantly see people painting situations in whatever way justify s their bias (or more often agreeing and spreading others positions that do.)

I think a large part of why I disagree with some of the points here is that they lack any real foundation. Its "Hey- Trump is doing X thats fucked up" referencing some joke of a news outlet. If there was a solid basis for the claims it wouldn't be the case.

Imo Bernie Sanders should be president right now. But I am not going to go there..

Originally Posted by MattZed

I'm aware it's more complicated than just one figure, but the "refugees get more money than X" where X is veterans, retirees, what have you, is a popular misconception that I'm fine to keep discussing. If you have numbers to support your point, go ahead and share them.

If you're going to maintain that tax money going to anything that isn't directly related to US citizens is immoral, you're having a far too simplistic view of the matter. Refugees amount for less than .0005 of the federal budget. Sure, that money could be spent elsewhere, but it has a huge ROI in the form of refugee contributions to our economy and making our nation not look like an asshole. The US benefits from living in a safer and more peaceful world, and it's harder to lead that world when we can't afford to help in the largest humanitarian crisis of our time.

You said so yourself that its a billion dollars. That may be a drop in the bucket compared to the federal budget but that is big money that could go to help Americans. We have plenty of Americans homeless on the street. We have a huge issue finding good homes for orphans and our elderly could use more assistance in their healthcare now that the 'affordable healthcare act' somehow made good treatment less affordable. It may not be a 'nice' or a 'cool' position for me to take but they straight up do not rate our federal tax money. That is what charity is for. The governments appropriate way of 'assisting' them is to provide tax breaks as incentives for corporations and individuals the help that they need. I am not saying we should not help them as a nation- I am just saying I feel that demanding the citizens of a nation to pay you money so you can give it away to others is some robin hood bullshit and an inappropriate practice.

Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead

You know you can look this up yourself, right? The majority of PEOPLE (not states or counties or whatever the fuck you have in the US) voted for Clinton. Yes Trump won but more people voted for Hillary. This isn't cherry picking, and saying the public "sided with Trump" because he won due to a flawed electoral system is absurd. Would you also say that the public in North Korea sides with Kim Jong-Un because he wins every (obviously rigged) election they have?

Similarly, in Canada we have a election system much like the electoral college, and because of massive strategic voting (that I admittedly was a part of in the last election, and perpetrated by voting for a candidate that wasn't my preferred candidate but was better than the alternative) the last two governments had a majority of the seats with about 40% of the vote. The electoral college system and FPTP voting in general is objectively one of the worst possible voting systems, and only exists in the US because when the US was founded and had their first elections they didn't have the internet and phones and shit and had to actually send representatives on fucking horses to vote on behalf of their state.

My understanding was that its roots were from England where the poor locals could not afford to travel to vote so they would proxi their vote to whatever local noble who would make a vote that was suppose to be in their best interest. Is that necessary? No. But the justification for keeping it has been that it limits 1 states ability to curve an election to their desire simply because they have a high population. Its just a question of how you decide to count up the situation. You can not deny that there was a massive gap in the county results. So look at it by the area of America and roughly 80% sided with trump. He had more of literally every possible measurement other than flat population count that was shifted by 1 state. Even in that one state the numbers break down to a not so pretty picture. https://www.wnd.com/files/2016/12/201...-trump-600.jpg
If you really want to take the position of 'flat population' you run into the issue of big citys having totally different interests than small towns. Its 2 very different cultures and thats a tough gap to bridge. The issue of being fair between them has been one drawing back to the civil war.

Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead

I'm sure you've heard the adage "actions speak louder than words". In this case, you take every opportunity to defend Trump, his actions, the means he got elected by, and dismiss the controversy surrounding him. When you constantly express support for what he's doing, I'm sure you can understand why your statements of "oh btw i dont actually like trump" don't seem very genuine.

Maybe I am blinded by my bias and too ignorant or stubborn to admit it. That is totally possible and Im not going to pretend that its not because holy shit am I glad Hillary did not get elected. But I really do believe the reason I keep ending up on this forum pushing against some of the 'anti trump' arguments is that I disagree with them. Like I stated earlier with the whole 'Obama doubled the national debt' argument- its just stupid. I should probably just learn to turn a blind eye or something but I constantly see people painting situations in whatever way justify s their bias (or more often agreeing and spreading others positions that do.)

I think a large part of why I disagree with some of the points here is that they lack any real foundation. Its "Hey- Trump is doing X thats fucked up" referencing some joke of a news outlet. If there was a solid basis for the claims it wouldn't be the case.

Imo Bernie Sanders should be president right now. But I am not going to go there..

[QUOTE=MattZed;671738]I'm not really talking about budget either, but using it as a point that this shouldn't really pass sanity checks. If you think the government gives more to refugees than to disabled vets, you're either greatly overestimating refugee benefits or underestimating disabled veterans' benefits.

From the [url=https://www.benefits.va.gov/compensation/resources_comp01.asp]VA itself[/url], a 100% disabled veteran living alone with no dependents gets $2915 a month. These are lifetime benefits. Refugee cash payments don't exceed $1000/mo, and don't last for the rest of the refugee's life. (costs vary by state because the federal government gives states cash for refugees)[/QUOTE]

There is actually 3 different kinds of 100% disabled for vets but I will not go into that; but its not as simple as "100% = x $$$" I am a disabled vet and I do believe they get a better deal than 100% disabled vets. Or at least the ones in the community in Austin do.

Setting that aside I do not agree with a nation [U]obligating[/U] its citizens to give up their money so it can be spent on charity that is not for the citizens of that nation. That practice is just wrong.

Originally Posted by MattZed

I'm not really talking about budget either, but using it as a point that this shouldn't really pass sanity checks. If you think the government gives more to refugees than to disabled vets, you're either greatly overestimating refugee benefits or underestimating disabled veterans' benefits.

From the VA itself, a 100% disabled veteran living alone with no dependents gets $2915 a month. These are lifetime benefits. Refugee cash payments don't exceed $1000/mo, and don't last for the rest of the refugee's life. (costs vary by state because the federal government gives states cash for refugees)

There is actually 3 different kinds of 100% disabled for vets but I will not go into that; but its not as simple as "100% = x $$$" I am a disabled vet and I do believe they get a better deal than 100% disabled vets. Or at least the ones in the community in Austin do.

Setting that aside I do not agree with a nation obligating its citizens to give up their money so it can be spent on charity that is not for the citizens of that nation. That practice is just wrong.

[QUOTE=oops_ur_dead;670290]You completely misunderstood my point. I wasn't stating an opinion on any of those topics. I was pointing out how you post under the guise of being "impartial" and you want everyone to look at things rationally and consider the facts, yet all you've posted is Trump apologetics. You're pretty much making up facts on the spot to support what Trump is doing and trying to claim that the drama surrounding everything is just regular controversy and all of this happened under Obama, when it's apparent that all of this is on a whole other level than the reaction to what Obama was doing. I'm just saying that it's more than a bit disingenuous of you to pretend to not take sides when you're clearly on board with Trump.[/QUOTE]

Correct me if I am wrong. I totally could be in my above points. But it was based upon numbers I found from what I believe to be reliable sources. I would stand behind my electoral college argument every bit as much as I will stand behind my obama debt argument.

But I think if I were to dig up the fase points taken against Trump vs the false points taken against Obama I could draw a very clear picture. Just the other day I had a recommended youtube video pop up about how Trump wants to fuck his daughter. Not even kidding..

The only reason Trump is in office is because he ran against Hillary. She was just so god awful that the public sided with Trump. I think the whole 'popularity vote' idea is flat out cherry picking and I am very happy she is not president. If you think I am biased and on the Trump train all I can say is "Lol." He is a total clown who never should have been elected or even given the chance to run.

Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead

You completely misunderstood my point. I wasn't stating an opinion on any of those topics. I was pointing out how you post under the guise of being "impartial" and you want everyone to look at things rationally and consider the facts, yet all you've posted is Trump apologetics. You're pretty much making up facts on the spot to support what Trump is doing and trying to claim that the drama surrounding everything is just regular controversy and all of this happened under Obama, when it's apparent that all of this is on a whole other level than the reaction to what Obama was doing. I'm just saying that it's more than a bit disingenuous of you to pretend to not take sides when you're clearly on board with Trump.

Correct me if I am wrong. I totally could be in my above points. But it was based upon numbers I found from what I believe to be reliable sources. I would stand behind my electoral college argument every bit as much as I will stand behind my obama debt argument.

But I think if I were to dig up the fase points taken against Trump vs the false points taken against Obama I could draw a very clear picture. Just the other day I had a recommended youtube video pop up about how Trump wants to fuck his daughter. Not even kidding..

The only reason Trump is in office is because he ran against Hillary. She was just so god awful that the public sided with Trump. I think the whole 'popularity vote' idea is flat out cherry picking and I am very happy she is not president. If you think I am biased and on the Trump train all I can say is "Lol." He is a total clown who never should have been elected or even given the chance to run.

[QUOTE=Orpz;670271]It's actually really sad that you think this, considering all of the times you showed genuine compassion and respect when talking to other people. For all the political differences I have with Trump, his administrations, and his voters, I would never delight in the thought of violence against them.[/QUOTE]

Was a bad joke. My bad?[QUOTE=MattZed;670285]But it's worrying, [MENTION=10617]Helz[/MENTION], that you present things as facts that simply aren't true. Refugees in the US are not paid more than disabled veterans. They are given a small amount of money to cover moving and living expenses for their first few months, and then that's it.

The Veterans Affairs budget is $180 Billion. The refugee budget is $1 Billion.[/QUOTE]

I am not talking about the budget. I am talking about the benefits an individual family receives. I know this because I literally work with refugees in the greater Austin area.

Originally Posted by Orpz

It's actually really sad that you think this, considering all of the times you showed genuine compassion and respect when talking to other people. For all the political differences I have with Trump, his administrations, and his voters, I would never delight in the thought of violence against them.

Was a bad joke. My bad?

Originally Posted by MattZed

But it's worrying, @Helz , that you present things as facts that simply aren't true. Refugees in the US are not paid more than disabled veterans. They are given a small amount of money to cover moving and living expenses for their first few months, and then that's it.

The Veterans Affairs budget is $180 Billion. The refugee budget is $1 Billion.

I am not talking about the budget. I am talking about the benefits an individual family receives. I know this because I literally work with refugees in the greater Austin area.

[QUOTE=oops_ur_dead;670233]You realize that this isn't only about refugees? The order bans anyone who holds nationality or dual citizenship from any of those 7 countries from coming to the US, even if they had pre-approved green cards (though that part was overturned) and visas. My friend who came to Canada from Somalia when he was a baby and has lived here for his whole life isn't allowed to enter the US now. The vast majority of people affected by this aren't refugees.[/QUOTE]
That sounds like a real issue if its true; I honestly am skeptical that any 'American citizen' is getting banned. If that was a thing it would be shouted from the rooftops. Not squeaked from obscure 3rd party news sites on social media..
But I strongly dislike how our refugee and immigration systems work. If your an average joe refugee you get more benefits than a 100% disabled veteran and will start out off the bat living better than a massive portion of Americans. Thats tax payers coughing up for people who have done nothing for the country and its wrong. I believe in charity but people should not be obligated to be charitable. The government should not demand to take your money and give it to someone unless that person rates it for giving some contribution to the country.
Nobody would ever complain about immigration if it did not function like a charity. I dont care if they want a better life- what are they bringing to the table to help the country? If America needs more engineers lets immigrate some over. They get their better life and we get a needed workforce. Instead its just some nonsense about how everyone immigrated here at some point. Like thats not true for pretty much every other country in the world regardless of if you are an evolutionist or a creationist. The semantics in that line of argument have always been a total joke.

[QUOTE=oops_ur_dead;670233]At this point I get the feeling that remaining stubbornly "impartial" is more important to you than actually being "fact driven". Obama's first few executive orders, with the exception of closing Guantanamo (which never actually happened), were nowhere as controversial as Trump's first week of executive orders. There is no way you can actually, objectively say that the anti-Trump controversy is the same as the opposition to Obama, given how Trump's approval rating is the lowest of any president (and disapproval the highest), he won with substantially fewer votes than his opponent, influential GOP figures like McCain and Graham have started to stand up to him, world leaders have staunchly opposed his actions, and Obama has already spoken out against him. Some racists and reactionaries in Republican states and GOP politicians speaking out against Obama is nowhere near the same.

I'm willing to wager that if Trump started a civil war and nuked California you'd go on about how America was screwed no matter how the election went because Clinton was endorsed by Saudi Arabia and Obama drone striked American citizens so really it isn't too much different and everyone just needs to simmer down.[/QUOTE]

I can totally say that it is. If anything its just a progressive movement to generate nonsense that justify s bias because people have realized they can make money doing it. Remember when Obama was a Muslim / Non American / Terrorist sympathizer for how he said ISIS / Socialist for his programs ect? Tons of totally batshit stupid arguments floating around social media with very little founding. Fortunately bullshit does not survive the test of time. Like a few weeks back when there was some 'report' about Trump being controlled by Russia. It sounded legit as fuck until people looked at it for 2 seconds and it faded like a fart in the wind.
To be fair I am not saying Trump is right or that his actions are appropriate. But I am 100% saying he takes as much if not 10 times more crap with no factual reasoning.

I would also argue that the electoral college specifically functions to eliminate the ability of a one party state to dictate elections for the nation. Just look at the election:
States won: Trump +10
Electoral votes won: Trump + 68
Average margin of victory in winning states: Trump +2.4%
[COLOR="#FFFFFF"]Counties won: Trump 2623 vs Hillary 489[/COLOR]
Popular vote total: Clinton +2.8 Million
Popular vote total (Excluding California): Trump +1.4 Million
And this year for California no republicans ran for Senate, No republicans ran for the House seats.
California is totally a 1 party state and its margin of republican vs democrat was a 17% larger gap than the election 8 years ago while there has been a 13% gap in new vote registrations for democrats vs new republicans. The only reason the popular vote was anywhere near close is because in the Hillary states (Or more likely the anti-trump states who just voted for her to keep him out) had a disproportional margin of voters sliding one way.
I would equate this argument to when people try to blame Obama for doubling the national debt. Yeah he is responsible for maybe 2.5 - 3.5 trillion of it and contributed more than any president in history before him but although it is true the national debt doubled when you start to dig into the numbers that argument is bullshit. The largest portion of that debt is a result of the decrease in national revenue which is attributed to the crash of the economy and the tax cuts Bush put into play.

Btw- If Trump Nuked California I would giggle. I say that and I lived there for 4 years. A significant amount of people in that state are kinda shitty human beings from my experience. If you go to New York or Chicago there may be assholes everywhere but they are still good people.

Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead

You realize that this isn't only about refugees? The order bans anyone who holds nationality or dual citizenship from any of those 7 countries from coming to the US, even if they had pre-approved green cards (though that part was overturned) and visas. My friend who came to Canada from Somalia when he was a baby and has lived here for his whole life isn't allowed to enter the US now. The vast majority of people affected by this aren't refugees.

That sounds like a real issue if its true; I honestly am skeptical that any 'American citizen' is getting banned. If that was a thing it would be shouted from the rooftops. Not squeaked from obscure 3rd party news sites on social media..
But I strongly dislike how our refugee and immigration systems work. If your an average joe refugee you get more benefits than a 100% disabled veteran and will start out off the bat living better than a massive portion of Americans. Thats tax payers coughing up for people who have done nothing for the country and its wrong. I believe in charity but people should not be obligated to be charitable. The government should not demand to take your money and give it to someone unless that person rates it for giving some contribution to the country.
Nobody would ever complain about immigration if it did not function like a charity. I dont care if they want a better life- what are they bringing to the table to help the country? If America needs more engineers lets immigrate some over. They get their better life and we get a needed workforce. Instead its just some nonsense about how everyone immigrated here at some point. Like thats not true for pretty much every other country in the world regardless of if you are an evolutionist or a creationist. The semantics in that line of argument have always been a total joke.

Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead

At this point I get the feeling that remaining stubbornly "impartial" is more important to you than actually being "fact driven". Obama's first few executive orders, with the exception of closing Guantanamo (which never actually happened), were nowhere as controversial as Trump's first week of executive orders. There is no way you can actually, objectively say that the anti-Trump controversy is the same as the opposition to Obama, given how Trump's approval rating is the lowest of any president (and disapproval the highest), he won with substantially fewer votes than his opponent, influential GOP figures like McCain and Graham have started to stand up to him, world leaders have staunchly opposed his actions, and Obama has already spoken out against him. Some racists and reactionaries in Republican states and GOP politicians speaking out against Obama is nowhere near the same.

I'm willing to wager that if Trump started a civil war and nuked California you'd go on about how America was screwed no matter how the election went because Clinton was endorsed by Saudi Arabia and Obama drone striked American citizens so really it isn't too much different and everyone just needs to simmer down.

I can totally say that it is. If anything its just a progressive movement to generate nonsense that justify s bias because people have realized they can make money doing it. Remember when Obama was a Muslim / Non American / Terrorist sympathizer for how he said ISIS / Socialist for his programs ect? Tons of totally batshit stupid arguments floating around social media with very little founding. Fortunately bullshit does not survive the test of time. Like a few weeks back when there was some 'report' about Trump being controlled by Russia. It sounded legit as fuck until people looked at it for 2 seconds and it faded like a fart in the wind.
To be fair I am not saying Trump is right or that his actions are appropriate. But I am 100% saying he takes as much if not 10 times more crap with no factual reasoning.

I would also argue that the electoral college specifically functions to eliminate the ability of a one party state to dictate elections for the nation. Just look at the election:
States won: Trump +10
Electoral votes won: Trump + 68
Average margin of victory in winning states: Trump +2.4%
Counties won: Trump 2623 vs Hillary 489
Popular vote total: Clinton +2.8 Million
Popular vote total (Excluding California): Trump +1.4 Million
And this year for California no republicans ran for Senate, No republicans ran for the House seats.
California is totally a 1 party state and its margin of republican vs democrat was a 17% larger gap than the election 8 years ago while there has been a 13% gap in new vote registrations for democrats vs new republicans. The only reason the popular vote was anywhere near close is because in the Hillary states (Or more likely the anti-trump states who just voted for her to keep him out) had a disproportional margin of voters sliding one way.
I would equate this argument to when people try to blame Obama for doubling the national debt. Yeah he is responsible for maybe 2.5 - 3.5 trillion of it and contributed more than any president in history before him but although it is true the national debt doubled when you start to dig into the numbers that argument is bullshit. The largest portion of that debt is a result of the decrease in national revenue which is attributed to the crash of the economy and the tax cuts Bush put into play.

Btw- If Trump Nuked California I would giggle. I say that and I lived there for 4 years. A significant amount of people in that state are kinda shitty human beings from my experience. If you go to New York or Chicago there may be assholes everywhere but they are still good people.

[QUOTE=Apocist;670155]Except for maybe breaking our constitutional right to freedom of speech: [url]https://boingboing.net/2017/01/25/trumps-first-4-days-a-ban-o.html[/url][/QUOTE]

[url]https://boingboing.net[/url] ?? Where do you guys even find these web sights..

Honestly.. Fuck refugees. They get better benefits than any non-politician American using our tax dollars.

I also suspect the driving reason for that list is more based upon the nations relations and interactions than Trumps business ties. Business ties are kinda generated with country's we are friendly with in most cases.

This conversation reminds me of all the republicans screaming "ABOOOOSE" when Obama was passing executive orders all over the place. Its all hype. I really hope one day people get burnt out and numb to it to the point conversations become fact driven instead of pandering speculation to justify bias.

Originally Posted by Apocist

Except for maybe breaking our constitutional right to freedom of speech: https://boingboing.net/2017/01/25/tru...s-a-ban-o.html

https://boingboing.net ?? Where do you guys even find these web sights..

Honestly.. Fuck refugees. They get better benefits than any non-politician American using our tax dollars.

I also suspect the driving reason for that list is more based upon the nations relations and interactions than Trumps business ties. Business ties are kinda generated with country's we are friendly with in most cases.

This conversation reminds me of all the republicans screaming "ABOOOOSE" when Obama was passing executive orders all over the place. Its all hype. I really hope one day people get burnt out and numb to it to the point conversations become fact driven instead of pandering speculation to justify bias.