I love seeing TRUMP lose, it's my daily medicine, my weekly energy, my monthly inspiration and my yearly motivation. His loss is the only reason i'm still alive, i was born to love and enjoy the failure that he has achieved.
I love seeing TRUMP lose, it's my daily medicine, my weekly energy, my monthly inspiration and my yearly motivation. His loss is the only reason i'm still alive, i was born to love and enjoy the failure that he has achieved.
Remember that those are the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. If you support and respect Biden like I do, then you should not be the one opening fire first. Yes, you're trolling, but you could also say Trump has been trolling the world for 4 years with his, uh, diplomatic approach. It doesn't do much good :P.
so you and these crybaby Killary supporters have this in common, then because you've been crying about this shit for a week now
Is it religion? Do you support trump because of religion?
Are your parents conservative?
Have you ever seen a vagina in real life?
Have you ever seen a vagina in real life that you didn't have to pay for?
lmao
Disgusting. This is the last straw for me. I’ve been an american citizen for 49 years and in all my time i’ve NEVER seen an election this bad. I’ve had ENOUGH! until you fix this country, I’ll moving to Hawaii where they actually know how to run a country. BYE!
Disgusting. This is the last straw for me. I’ve been an american citizen for 49 years and in all my time i’ve NEVER seen an election this bad. I’ve had ENOUGH! until you fix this country, I’ll moving to Hawaii where they actually know how to run a country. BYE!
UWU!!!!
You've already used that line....
lol nice
I never understood people being so emotional about an election or sports. I get that theres shared emotions tied to seeing 'your team' win or loose but when it causes some emotional breakdown and becomes the most important thing in your life I just don't understand. Maybe its a thing for people that don't have anything else in their life?
Or more likely some people just crave drama.
Intellectual growth comes from discussions, not arguments. If you are unwilling to change your position and hear the other persons side you are closed minded and wasting your time.
If you can not clearly explain what the other sides reasoning is you can not disagree with their position because you do not understand it.
It's partially an American thing, if my understanding is correct. You guys have a really dramatic culture. You love bombastic movies and documentaries. It's interesting that you naturally draw a connection between elections and sporting events, because the rest of the world doesn't necessarily make that sort of connection. When I watch American news coverage of elections, it feels very reminiscent of a sporting event. There's also a really powerful sense of national identity, which doesn't always exist elsewhere, and much more investment in what happens to the country.
Intellectual growth comes from discussions, not arguments. If you are unwilling to change your position and hear the other persons side you are closed minded and wasting your time.
If you can not clearly explain what the other sides reasoning is you can not disagree with their position because you do not understand it.
That's really funny to see the "contest" between two absolutely identical parties, which pretend to have fundamental differences.
I agree with plan C.
Even if game is already over, I am still agree, why not?
This used to be true, but Trump changed American politics significantly. He actually does things differently (badly, but differently). Acting like COVID doesn't exist, having no green plan whatsoever, leaving international organizations, etc. is definetly not "absolutely identical" to the usual "American style".
The Democrats have been supporting left-leaning policies since at least the 1930s when they supported the New Deal ushered in by President Roosevelt (and which laid the basis for Social Security in the United States). Also, Jimmy Carter in the 1970s supported implementing a more progressive taxation system, eliminating tax shelters; also, from WIkipedia: "Proposals contemplated by the Carter administration include a guaranteed minimum income, a federal job guarantee for the unemployed, a negative income tax, and direct cash payments to aid recipients".
Lyndon B. Johnson, also from Wikipedia: "Johnson expanded upon the New Deal with the Great Society, a series of domestic legislative programs to help the poor and downtrodden. After taking office, he won passage of a major tax cut, the Clean Air Act, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. After the 1964 election, Johnson passed even more sweeping reforms. The Social Security Amendments of 1965 created two government-run healthcare programs, Medicare and Medicaid. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 prohibits racial discrimination in voting, and its passage enfranchised millions of Southern African-Americans. Johnson declared a "War on Poverty" and established several programs designed to aid the impoverished."
John Kennedy, Wikipedia: "In domestic politics, Kennedy made bold proposals in his New Frontier agenda, but many of his initiatives were blocked by the conservative coalition of Northern Republicans and Southern Democrats. The failed initiatives include federal aid education, medical care for the aged, and aid to economically depressed areas. Though initially reluctant to pursue civil rights legislation, in 1963 Kennedy proposed a major civil rights bill that ultimately became the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The economy experienced steady growth, low inflation and a drop in unemployment rates during Kennedy's tenure. Kennedy adopted Keynesian economics"
Harry Truman, Wikipedia: "In his first major address to Congress after taking office, Truman articulated a liberal domestic program, but his early domestic policy was dominated by post-war reconversion.[187] As he readied for the 1948 election, Truman made clear his identity as a Democrat in the New Deal tradition, advocating a national health care system, repeal of the Taft–Hartley Act, federal aid to education, expanded public housing programs, a higher minimum wage, more public power projects like the Tennessee Valley Authority, and a more progressive tax structure.["
Literally all of the above supported social welfare in some shape or form.
I agree with plan C.
Even if game is already over, I am still agree, why not?
You replaced a 74-year-old senile for a 78-year-old senile. now life will definitely get better!
I agree with plan C.
Even if game is already over, I am still agree, why not?
How are they identical?
Intellectual growth comes from discussions, not arguments. If you are unwilling to change your position and hear the other persons side you are closed minded and wasting your time.
If you can not clearly explain what the other sides reasoning is you can not disagree with their position because you do not understand it.
For the record I do believe the Republican Party lost its 'ideology' so to speak at some point. The great conservative George W. Bush left almost as many regulations in place by the time he left office as there were when he got elected: the Federal Register had ~83,000 pages when he got elected, and ~80,000 when he left office. In contrast, Trump reduced the size of the Federal Register by at least 25,000 pages between 2016 and 2019.
In addition, at a debate (I believe it was during the Republican Primaries in 2015) between Republican candidates one of them mentioned increasing minimum wage as a campaign policy; I don't remember who (I believe it was Trump, although I may be mistaken) who shut down the proposal, stating that America was not built on minimum wage.
If you look at the Federal Register in general, there's a pattern where during the times when a Democrat was President, the Federal Register increased in size (I believe Harry Truman's presidency is the sole exception). In contrast, look at Ronald Reagan and Trump. They both reduced the size of the Register while in power.
Of course, you still have Republicans like Nixon and Eisenhower (Eisenhower actually continued the New Deal) who actually increased the size of the register.
Note that I mentioned welfare and more 'socialist' economic policies because I've had discussions with MM on this topic before and he's claimed that both parties were right wing, which I staunchy disagree with.
You have 2 parties who wanted to spit on the problems of the people and lobby only the interests of their sponsors. And no way some real, 3rd party can appear in USA without being sponsored by some fat wallet. All american people is like buridan donkey between a bunch of shit and another bunch of shit. And you call that "democracy".
I agree with plan C.
Even if game is already over, I am still agree, why not?
I had never considered looking at the Register. I will have to look into that.
My biggest issues with trump outside of his rhetoric was that he stood for whats best for corporations over citizens. I am not sad to see him go but I am a little afraid of Biden screwing with the supreme court.
I feel like this is very well said. Although I would add that the voting structure necessitates a 2 party system.
Intellectual growth comes from discussions, not arguments. If you are unwilling to change your position and hear the other persons side you are closed minded and wasting your time.
If you can not clearly explain what the other sides reasoning is you can not disagree with their position because you do not understand it.
btw if you're interested, here's a link showing the number of pages in the register by year: https://www.llsdc.org/assets/sourceb...-reg-pages.pdf
Can I complain about how much I hate all the information surrounding this election? You have people alleging that some serious fraud took place in some states, and on the other hand you have State governors or whatnot literally going "no, it never happened, its all completely wrong". It pisses me off so much because I cannot tell whats true or whats not. For every allegation or rumour of fraud, there is an equivalent cry of 'FAKE NEWS!!!'
This isn't even about Trump winning; its just about people being able to trust the electoral system. How can people do that when half the country doesnt believe the President is actually the President? People should be pushing for greater investigation into what happened this election just so we have some closure. I'm glad I'm not American because this looks like a total nightmare.
In our country president was never truly elected from 1996 So idk what are you talking about.
But, to be honest, american election system limps on both legs. If it's possible to have another president then the elected by REAL majority, that's wrong. And that's possible in USA.
I agree with plan C.
Even if game is already over, I am still agree, why not?
False equivalence alert. One side is backed by evidence, the other is not. There were thousands of poll watchers in every state from both sides and nothing meaningful came out outside of a handful of human errors.
Can't help that Trumpkins don't believe in the system only when their candidate loses. Children.
Just because someone is delusional and heard or thinks there was fraud doesn't mean there was, and there is no reason to bend over backwards to appease them WHEN THEY WILL NEVER ACCEPT THE RESULT ANYWAY.
This is why freedom of speech should be restricted.
There’s too much white noise, misinformation & manipulation overwhelming the different media platforms.
They need to implement a system to block out the low-effort garbage.
People would be a lot less keen to lie or spread other people’s falsehood without verifying the facts first, if they know they can be legally persecuted.
Freedom of speech to be a fear-monger, political heckler, brainless parrot and straight-up manipulative, lying scumbag?
(Applies to businesses too, not just private individuals.)
Last edited by Exeter350; November 11th, 2020 at 11:45 AM.
Your friendly neighbourhood Asian.
You can cut through that if you look at the legal arguments submitted. People can run their mouth and say whatever to the public but when they submit things to law they can not lie and have to provide evidence. Simply put- The things that are being said about fraud happening to the public are not being said at all to judges in courts because there would be legal repercussions.
This lawyer gives a decent breakdown of the majority of cases. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ha7iWECm_8E
Intellectual growth comes from discussions, not arguments. If you are unwilling to change your position and hear the other persons side you are closed minded and wasting your time.
If you can not clearly explain what the other sides reasoning is you can not disagree with their position because you do not understand it.
Those people running their mouths ought to be thrown in jail for 30-40 years and slapped with life-destroying fines for inciting national-level unrest.
Am I the only one who sees a problem that people are allowed to shoot their mouths off irresponsibly without repercussions?
The whole “freedom of speech I can say whatever I want you can’t do shit to me” system sucks, seriously. People are not held accountable for their words. Talk about a complete lack of responsibility.
Your friendly neighbourhood Asian.
Inciting violence is a crime, and I've seen some things that were really borderline, yeah. Like an article concluding that Americans were legitimate in "resorting to blows in time"...
However, what you're suggesting here seems to be much wider than just jailing for some time those who incite violence; it rather extends to people disagreeing with the "official talk", and that is a very dangerous thing. Plus, as terrible as it is, Trump is still president as of now (and he will remain president until January the 20th)... and he is not making things smoother himself.
I actually quite agree with this for those who are in government/higher positions.
While I cannot agree that free speech should be removed in the majority of cases, I do believe it can be or is a dangerous freedom to give to people who's statements are supposed to be more trustworthy than the general public's.
I could discuss this more, but I don't think I would qualify as an expert or knowledgeable on this topic since I haven't discussed it much; sort of in lieu of what you said earlier in another topic:
I could discuss what I think are the ethics of it or otherwise, but I can't claim to have done much research into the idea.
A.K.A "That One Idiot"
Intellectual growth comes from discussions, not arguments. If you are unwilling to change your position and hear the other persons side you are closed minded and wasting your time.
If you can not clearly explain what the other sides reasoning is you can not disagree with their position because you do not understand it.
IMO, lets momentarily assume the claims of election fraud are true and Trump should've won:
The president of one of the most influential countries in the world rn
He has been complaining about his political enemies (and sometimes demonizing them depending on how one looks at it) for how many years now?
While I don't have an accurate statistic or anything regarding that, but if, for hypothetical example, Trump was aware of a possible future where there is election fraud for the entirety of his presidency
He had 4 YEARS to do something about that......and he still lost lol, despite being the president of the godamm United States of America.
Even if the claims of fraud are 100% true and Trump was supposed to win, I think that's enough to disqualify Trump on the basis of severe incompetence. He's part of the Executive branch of the goverment; protecting the law is one of his fucking jobs (to at least some degree) and he failed to protect election law.
And he failed that test. He's fired.
And if someone (I'm not implying this is you Oberon) is going to counter-argue that "the president isn't strong enough to protect the election", then I guess the position isn't that much of a big deal then, am I right?
On a clarifying note, I don't think significant amounts of election fraud occurred.
A.K.A "That One Idiot"
I should also add that if someone says something along the lines of "the legislature didn't support trump in preventing election fraud"
Then I don't exactly see an issue with that because the members of legislature are representatives who were elected just like trump in 2016. Them turning their back on him is, to some imaginable degree, equivalent to the popular vote.
A.K.A "That One Idiot"
I think that's an entirely different topic and one that would fill pages, at that, so I'd rather not get into the electoral college.
What's more distressing to me is that people are getting pretty much censored and allegations of fraud are suppressed and this really doesn't help anyone - Republican or Democrat, Trumper or Never Trumper; anyone. The media should be pushing for transparency and encouraging the investigation of allegations of fraud because it's good for national (or federal, heh, if you prefer) unity. Instead what's happening is that they're instantly discrediting any and all allegations, even the most believeable ones, of fraud. This helps absolutely nobody, least of all Democrats (the Media's natural ally).