Trump supporters?

[nospokenword]

7 hours ago, TeenCumDump said:

You should practice what you preach with the whole, "Just because you don't like it, it doesn't make it any less true." given how you've claimed he isn't really president when he is. 

Anyway, I'd really love to stay and argue but the whole limited replies per-day thing is quite annoying as by the time I can reply I already have more people to address than the limit will allow. 

I never said he wasn't really the president. I acknowledged that the electoral college is what put Trump into the White House. I said he is not a legitimate leader. I said that he doesn't have the consent of the governed. I said that he never had a mandate to lead. Those things are different than the question of whether or not Trump is the legal occupant of the White House. It is worth noting that there is a clear difference between what is legal and what is right. For a long time, slavery was the law of the land, and the people that broke the law to oppose slavery did the right thing. For a long time, same sex sex was illegal, and the people that broke those unjust laws were right. I could go on and on. My point is that just because Trump is the legal president, it doesn't give him a mandate to govern. If we had a more functional system of government, no person that didn't win the most votes would ever represent us. I mean, it is self-evident. How can someone represent us when the majority of us hate the man?! He can't, and that's why there is a problem.

[Spunkinmyarse]

I really don’t like getting involved in another country’s politics, as I hate it when people from other countries start making comments about mine, so I’m gonna steer clear of that one...  BUT, out of curiosity, what I really want to know is what exactly did the Democrats do under Obama that really pissed off so many fellow Americans?

[Guest TeenCumDump]

7 hours ago, nospokenword said:

I never said he wasn't really the president. I acknowledged that the electoral college is what put Trump into the White House. I said he is not a legitimate leader. I said that he doesn't have the consent of the governed. I said that he never had a mandate to lead. Those things are different than the question of whether or not Trump is the legal occupant of the White House. It is worth noting that there is a clear difference between what is legal and what is right. For a long time, slavery was the law of the land, and the people that broke the law to oppose slavery did the right thing. For a long time, same sex sex was illegal, and the people that broke those unjust laws were right. I could go on and on. My point is that just because Trump is the legal president, it doesn't give him a mandate to govern. If we had a more functional system of government, no person that didn't win the most votes would ever represent us. I mean, it is self-evident. How can someone represent us when the majority of us hate the man?! He can't, and that's why there is a problem.

To be fair, Hillary only got 3 million more votes, that's not really a lot when you consider the fact that less than half the US population voted in 2016. I think many people skipped voting because they didn't think Trump had a chance and this election you may see a lot more Republicans coming out, and maybe a few Democrats who see that Biden is fighting an uphill battle. The bigger difference this time around is that nothing Trump has done will sway past Republicans to not vote for him. Let's face it, if anyone voted for Trump in 2016 they're going to vote again. Democrats mostly the same, but they have much more baggage this time around. Biden is moderate in a world where there are more and more democrats trying to push far-left, such as yourself. BLM has been raging on in cities to the point where their support is dropping lower and lower each month, and the cities which have been left to the looting are under Democrat control which has done a great job in keeping moderate to conservative voters unhappy. Impeachment to turn up nothing. Muller to turn up nothing. This was the Democrats election to lose, and boy did they lose it.

I'm sorry to say but Trump has played these last few months perfectly and will easily take a win this November. Polls don't mean anything, they were wrong in 2016, they were massively wrong in the UK general election and they're going to be wrong again. I'm not American, of course, so I have no real personal investment in seeing Trump win, but I think it's obvious he will. 

Anyway, as I said, I'm done here. I see no real point in continuing because we're never going to get anywhere. You'll never convince me Trump is anything you think he is, and I'll probably never convince you he isn't half-bad. Not going to read any further replies. That being said, I'll be sure to hit y'all up with an "I told you so" in November :P

[fillmyholeftl]

25 minutes ago, TeenCumDump said:

To be fair, Hillary only got 3 million more votes, that's not really a lot when you consider the fact that less than half the US population voted in 2016. I think many people skipped voting because they didn't think Trump had a chance and this election you may see a lot more Republicans coming out, and maybe a few Democrats who see that Biden is fighting an uphill battle. The bigger difference this time around is that nothing Trump has done will sway past Republicans to not vote for him. Let's face it, if anyone voted for Trump in 2016 they're going to vote again. Democrats mostly the same, but they have much more baggage this time around. Biden is moderate in a world where there are more and more democrats trying to push far-left, such as yourself. BLM has been raging on in cities to the point where their support is dropping lower and lower each month, and the cities which have been left to the looting are under Democrat control which has done a great job in keeping moderate to conservative voters unhappy. Impeachment to turn up nothing. Muller to turn up nothing. This was the Democrats election to lose, and boy did they lose it.

I'm sorry to say but Trump has played these last few months perfectly and will easily take a win this November. Polls don't mean anything, they were wrong in 2016, they were massively wrong in the UK general election and they're going to be wrong again. I'm not American, of course, so I have no real personal investment in seeing Trump win, but I think it's obvious he will. 

Anyway, as I said, I'm done here. I see no real point in continuing because we're never going to get anywhere. You'll never convince me Trump is anything you think he is, and I'll probably never convince you he isn't half-bad. Not going to read any further replies. That being said, I'll be sure to hit y'all up with an "I told you so" in November 😛

Geezzz... You drank a lot of the Kool Aide didn't you.  Maybe it's the tertiary syphilliss. 

[fillmyholeftl]

6 hours ago, Spunkinmyarse said:

I really don’t like getting involved in another country’s politics, as I hate it when people from other countries start making comments about mine, so I’m gonna steer clear of that one...  BUT, out of curiosity, what I really want to know is what exactly did the Democrats do under Obama that really pissed off so many fellow Americans?

Nothing... It's the fact that a Black man did so much good that the narrow minded right wing can't stand it

[Guest TeenCumDump]

2 hours ago, fillmyholeftl said:

Geezzz... You drank a lot of the Kool Aide didn't you.  Maybe it's the tertiary syphilliss. 

Should probably learn how to spell syphilis correctly before attempting a weak insult. Did you mean to spell it wrong or is the HIV causing some problems with your ability to read what you write before posting it? 

[BootmanLA]

10 hours ago, Spunkinmyarse said:

I really don’t like getting involved in another country’s politics, as I hate it when people from other countries start making comments about mine, so I’m gonna steer clear of that one...  BUT, out of curiosity, what I really want to know is what exactly did the Democrats do under Obama that really pissed off so many fellow Americans?

It's called "Presidenting while Black". 

When Republicans swept to power in Congress in the 1994 mid-term elections, they thought it foretold a return to generations of Republican rule, as every "flip" that year (whether House seat, Senate seat, governor, or state legislative chamber control) was from Democrat to Republican. After they got George W. Bush chosen president by the Supreme Court in 2000, Republicans figured they had a lock on governing for the future.

Demographics bit them in the ass, because they didn't realize that their base was aging rapidly and that younger people weren't joining the Republican party in numbers nearly large enough to offset the losses on the "dead and dying" end of the spectrum. The Republicans figured that as millennials and Gen-Xers aged, they'd grow more conservative just like their Boomer forebears; what they didn't anticipate is that the natural moderating tendency of age was being more than offset by the scorched-earth, win-at-all-costs, social conservatism that drove the Republican party in the 21st century.

When a black man not only beat their white, conservative, veteran standard-bearer, they couldn't cope. And they set out to obstruct every single thing he proposed, determined to make him look weak and thus limit him to one term. When that failed, they lost their shit completely - how dare some uppity black guy defeat them AGAIN - and it became all-out war. Trump correctly detected this strand of racism rearing its ugly head in the Republican party and decided to fan those flames to carve out a base for himself among Republicans - one that never came close to a majority even of Republicans, but was enough to defeat all his rivals, who split up all the remaining sensible conservative votes. And once he became the nominee, they rallied behind him in order to defeat the person they hated most (next to Obama), Hillary Clinton. It was just enough, in a handful of close states, to flip the electoral college even though Trump lost the popular vote to Clinton and has never cracked about 44% in overall approval his entire presidency.

[BootmanLA]

4 hours ago, TeenCumDump said:

To be fair, Hillary only got 3 million more votes, that's not really a lot when you consider the fact that less than half the US population voted in 2016.

More than half the US population who were old enough to vote (the "Voting Age Population") did in fact vote in 2016. The only way you get "less than half" is if you're dumb enough to include all the people under age 18 who cannot vote. In addition, in this country, a 3 million vote spread is pretty wide. Back in 1980, when Reagan is widely acknowledged to have thoroughly trounced Carter, the spread was just over 8 million. 3 million isn't even close.

4 hours ago, TeenCumDump said:

I think many people skipped voting because they didn't think Trump had a chance and this election you may see a lot more Republicans coming out, and maybe a few Democrats who see that Biden is fighting an uphill battle.

Dumbest take of the week. For starters, very few people who are inclined to vote for someone like a Trump would skip because he wasn't considered capable of winning. The people who would normally vote Republican but skipped voting because they didn't like Trump have a thousand more reasons NOT to vote for him and Biden is far less polarizing to Republicans than Clinton was. Which is why Biden is not the one fighting the uphill battle - I have no idea what insane news source you're following, but Biden has led in every head-to-head poll with Trump since he became the presumptive nominee and his margin is growing, not shrinking.

4 hours ago, TeenCumDump said:

The bigger difference this time around is that nothing Trump has done will sway past Republicans to not vote for him. Let's face it, if anyone voted for Trump in 2016 they're going to vote again.

Again, stupid take. Did you not pay attention to the mid-term elections, where more than 40 US House seats held by Republicans tied to Trump flipped to the Democrats? If you don't think that's a repudiation of Trump by Republicans, you don't understand US politics (which, clearly, you don't anyway - and I wouldn't expect some snot-nosed teenager who doesn't even live in this country to understand it, so you're kind of excused).

4 hours ago, TeenCumDump said:

I'm sorry to say but Trump has played these last few months perfectly and will easily take a win this November. Polls don't mean anything, they were wrong in 2016, they were massively wrong in the UK general election and they're going to be wrong again. I'm not American, of course, so I have no real personal investment in seeing Trump win, but I think it's obvious he will. 

Anyway, as I said, I'm done here. I see no real point in continuing because we're never going to get anywhere. You'll never convince me Trump is anything you think he is, and I'll probably never convince you he isn't half-bad. Not going to read any further replies. That being said, I'll be sure to hit y'all up with an "I told you so" in November 😛

More stupid takes. The polls were right in 2016. They showed Clinton with a small but measurable lead. She got 3 million more votes than Trump. Because of our fucked-up system with the electoral college, however, the location of where fewer than 80,000 of those votes - an infinitesimally small percentage of the more than 130 million total votes - were cast shifted the race. Let's add math to the list of skills you lack.

As for "played these last few months perfectly" - That sentence shows me you're nothing but an ill-informed troll. Run along, little teen twit, and go play with your stuffed animals or toy trucks. Sorry, "lorries". 

[Guest takingdeepanal]

On 10/6/2020 at 7:14 PM, Starwood said:

That point , is why I kept my mouth shut over the Electorial College.

The EC does seem like an idea that has had its day.

However we are both in a country that has an Hereditary Monarchy, which I can live with, but would like to be asked about ever so often. An unelected Second Chamber, now THAT is definitely an idea that needs to change. Oh and a formal written Constitution, rather than our hotchpotch system of hall written, half not.

But that is definitely another topic.

I thought the Magna Carta (1215) was the basis for a written constitution after the incorporation of the Bill of Rights (1689) - but I was wrong! Seems there are other countries without a written constitution either (New Zealand and Israel): [think before following links] https://www.bl.uk/magna-carta/articles/britains-unwritten-constitution

As for the House of Lords, some are hereditary, and some are appointed by the parties. The below is from the House of Lords website ([think before following links] https://www.parliament.uk/about/mps-and-lords/about-lords/lords-appointment/): 

****************************************************************************************************************

How do you become a Member of the House of Lords?

Two events have changed the way Members of the House of Lords are appointed: the 1999 House of Lords Act, which ended hereditary Peers' right to pass membership down through family, and the introduction of the House of Lords Appointments Commission. There are now a number of routes to becoming a Member of the House of Lords.

House of Lords Appointments Commission

Set up in May 2000, this independent, public body recommends individuals for appointment as non-party-political life peers and vets nominations for life peers to ensure the highest standards of propriety.

****************************************************************************************************************

[Guest TeenCumDump]

4 hours ago, BootmanLA said:

More than half the US population who were old enough to vote (the "Voting Age Population") did in fact vote in 2016. The only way you get "less than half" is if you're dumb enough to include all the people under age 18 who cannot vote. In addition, in this country, a 3 million vote spread is pretty wide. Back in 1980, when Reagan is widely acknowledged to have thoroughly trounced Carter, the spread was just over 8 million. 3 million isn't even close.

Dumbest take of the week. For starters, very few people who are inclined to vote for someone like a Trump would skip because he wasn't considered capable of winning. The people who would normally vote Republican but skipped voting because they didn't like Trump have a thousand more reasons NOT to vote for him and Biden is far less polarizing to Republicans than Clinton was. Which is why Biden is not the one fighting the uphill battle - I have no idea what insane news source you're following, but Biden has led in every head-to-head poll with Trump since he became the presumptive nominee and his margin is growing, not shrinking.

Again, stupid take. Did you not pay attention to the mid-term elections, where more than 40 US House seats held by Republicans tied to Trump flipped to the Democrats? If you don't think that's a repudiation of Trump by Republicans, you don't understand US politics (which, clearly, you don't anyway - and I wouldn't expect some snot-nosed teenager who doesn't even live in this country to understand it, so you're kind of excused).

More stupid takes. The polls were right in 2016. They showed Clinton with a small but measurable lead. She got 3 million more votes than Trump. Because of our fucked-up system with the electoral college, however, the location of where fewer than 80,000 of those votes - an infinitesimally small percentage of the more than 130 million total votes - were cast shifted the race. Let's add math to the list of skills you lack.

As for "played these last few months perfectly" - That sentence shows me you're nothing but an ill-informed troll. Run along, little teen twit, and go play with your stuffed animals or toy trucks. Sorry, "lorries". 

I thought you were stupid before, but...Wow. You really outdone yourself in this reply. It was basically half voter turnout but I'll give you that one on a technically that I know you're going to be picky. The rest of your points are just hilarious. I can't even imagine how you can claim the polls were right in 2016 when they predicted Hillary a massive majority of electoral votes, and she didn't. You Demotards really are mentally ill. "Biden has led in every head-to-head poll" Imagine making that statement with a straight face, after the 2016 election. Here's a massive tip: They call it for the silent majority for a reason and that's why your polls are always wrong. 

I don't even know why you care so much about politics. You're 56 with HIV. You won't (hopefully) live long enough to see past Trump's term. Less democrats, socialists and liberals is always a good thing. 

 

[Guest takingdeepanal]

8 hours ago, fillmyholeftl said:

Nothing... It's the fact that a Black man did so much good that the narrow minded right wing can't stand it

If he had made the ACA the UHCA (UNIVERSAL Health Care Act), they may have won enough votes in the swing states. Australia has a FANTASTIC health care program. WTF did neither side advocate for an identical model?

A party that says they'll lower the cost of Health Care - while purposefully doing NOTHING about the bankrupting cost of hospital admission ("bill shock") - might as well have done NOTHING.

[BootmanLA]

29 minutes ago, TeenCumDump said:

I can't even imagine how you can claim the polls were right in 2016 when they predicted Hillary a massive majority of electoral votes, and she didn't. You Demotards really are mentally ill. "Biden has led in every head-to-head poll" Imagine making that statement with a straight face, after the 2016 election. Here's a massive tip: They call it for the silent majority for a reason and that's why your polls are always wrong. 

I don't even know why you care so much about politics. You're 56 with HIV. You won't (hopefully) live long enough to see past Trump's term. Less democrats, socialists and liberals is always a good thing. 

 

Because the polls never predicted any such thing.

The polls predicted that she would win the popular vote by a reasonable margin (which she did) and that Trump had a very narrow path to victory in the electoral college, which would involve flipping states that had gone Democratic for the last six elections - something that was thought to be not attainable. As it was, thanks to Russian-sponsored third party candidates like Jill Stein, just enough votes were siphoned off from Clinton in three of those states to flip them to Trump. (Given that Green party members are generally liberal - certainly not Republicans - it's a reasonable assumption that most of their votes would have gone to Clinton in Stein's absence. The Libertarian candidate's votes are more difficult to parse, but Libertarians tend to pull votes from both sides equally, broadly speaking; so without the Libertarian and the Green, Clinton would likely have won all three states.)

If you're wondering why I care about politics: I could ask the same thing of why some snot-nosed brat from Great Britain seems so heavily invested in American politics, a subject he clearly knows nothing about. But I will say, it's right on brand for Trump apologists to hope their political opponents die. He attracts the very worst of the worst sort of people.

And incidentally, when you're discussing countable items, including people, like "democrats, socialists and liberals" the proper words is "fewer", not "less". Fewer is used when you can count things, like people, or dogs, or morons teenagers in Great Britain. Less is used for non-countable but measurable things, like flour, water, and stupidity.

[Oldercumslut]

On 9/30/2020 at 3:09 PM, holefucker said:

I'd have to see his dick before I could make a final decision. 

Put forth by a far right Norwegian politician.  The bar for who can make a nomination is pretty low.  Any head of state or politician currently in any national office can nominate.  I suppose he could even nominate himself.

[Guest LiamCart]

On 10/4/2020 at 4:01 PM, BootmanLA said:

I'm curious how that could be. Obama inherited the worst recessionary economy since the Great Depression and managed to stem it, reverse it, and led during seven years of increasing prosperity. Are you sure your parents didn't "almost lose everything" thanks to the Bush recession?

And if they almost lost everything, how have they made it up in just the last 3 years? What, specifically, can you point to that Trump did that changed your family's fortunes?

You do not know anything about my reality and my family did not see any "recovery" under Obama. I don't know what recovery you're talking about. There was no recovery. The so called jobs that Obama created were all low paying service sector jobs. The unemployment rate under Obama was artificially lowered. It actually was much higher. Also, Obama only pushed for same sex marriage because Biden forced his hand. I don't believe he was a good president. Period. Good for you if you prospered under Obama. My family's reality was different than yours. 

[Guest LiamCart]

On 10/7/2020 at 2:54 PM, BootmanLA said:

More than half the US population who were old enough to vote (the "Voting Age Population") did in fact vote in 2016. The only way you get "less than half" is if you're dumb enough to include all the people under age 18 who cannot vote. In addition, in this country, a 3 million vote spread is pretty wide. Back in 1980, when Reagan is widely acknowledged to have thoroughly trounced Carter, the spread was just over 8 million. 3 million isn't even close.

Dumbest take of the week. For starters, very few people who are inclined to vote for someone like a Trump would skip because he wasn't considered capable of winning. The people who would normally vote Republican but skipped voting because they didn't like Trump have a thousand more reasons NOT to vote for him and Biden is far less polarizing to Republicans than Clinton was. Which is why Biden is not the one fighting the uphill battle - I have no idea what insane news source you're following, but Biden has led in every head-to-head poll with Trump since he became the presumptive nominee and his margin is growing, not shrinking.

Again, stupid take. Did you not pay attention to the mid-term elections, where more than 40 US House seats held by Republicans tied to Trump flipped to the Democrats? If you don't think that's a repudiation of Trump by Republicans, you don't understand US politics (which, clearly, you don't anyway - and I wouldn't expect some snot-nosed teenager who doesn't even live in this country to understand it, so you're kind of excused).

More stupid takes. The polls were right in 2016. They showed Clinton with a small but measurable lead. She got 3 million more votes than Trump. Because of our fucked-up system with the electoral college, however, the location of where fewer than 80,000 of those votes - an infinitesimally small percentage of the more than 130 million total votes - were cast shifted the race. Let's add math to the list of skills you lack.

As for "played these last few months perfectly" - That sentence shows me you're nothing but an ill-informed troll. Run along, little teen twit, and go play with your stuffed animals or toy trucks. Sorry, "lorries". 

The electoral college was established so states like California and New York would not dominate who was elected in national elections.  It is a fair system.  Getting rid of it would put smaller states at a huge disadvantage and would mean residents in those states would have no voice.