Clinton or trump?

ButterflyHeart

Well-Known Member
#86
Sorry, one more thing.

I've been talking to my VMK friends, and I know I have feelings of dispair right now. To quote the adage, this too shall pass. For the time being, I'd like to share a post that expresses what I've been feeling. I appreciate it if you can give it a read.

http://johnpavlovitz.com/2016/11/09/heres-why-we-grieve-today/

It's almost the 24-hour mark since I heard the news. Time to get to work.
 
Last edited:

Whispered

Well-Known Member
#87
Plot twist, contrary to what Hillary and the liberal media told you, the following things are true:
1. The world is still intact and functioning the exact same as it was before.
2. Nobody has died due to the election.
3. Nobody has (yet) emigrated from our country.
4. Nobody has been deported due to Donald Trump
5. Nobody has been refused marriage, birth control, or forced to go through conversion therapy due to Donald Trump
6. Nobody has been affected by gun control laws that haven't not been made yet, due to Donald Trump.
... this list could go on.

Here are some things that are false:
1. Hillary should be president because she won the popular vote.
-- The electoral college is designed specifically to be a democratic republic. The USA is not, nor has ever been, nor should be a true democracy. In a democracy, the candidate would only have to win a 60% majority in the top XXX MSAs (metropolitan statistical areas) to win the presidency. This is overly pessimistic, because usually the candidate from the democratic party does much better than that in MSAs proper - Hillary won NYC by 87%, won the next largest LA area by 71%, the next largest Chicago by 74%, etc. Regardless, at 60-40 ratio of votes for candidate A in the largest MSAs, and assuming people not residing in the top 100 MSAs vote at a rate of 30-70, less favorable to candidate A, candidate A would win after winning 80% of the vote in only 39 cities, whereas with a more modest 60% win rate it would still only take about 100 cities for the candidate to win. In this method, candidate A could spend all of his/her time focusing on the top, say, 60-65 cities, and as long as they got some votes in the rural areas would be almost guaranteed an easy win. This, to be frank, basically disenfranchises the rural voters because it encourages candidates to spend all of their time in the large cities to rack up as high a vote total as possible.
-- The electoral college is in place to prevent mob rule. There are times that one vote does not equal one vote, yes, but that is because the electoral college acts as a statistical sieve to lower the likelihood that one group can heavily influence the election. In the electoral college system, the voting power is spread out between rural voters in Montana, whose votes *are* theoretically "worth" slightly more, and those who live in the inner city in Los Angeles, whose votes are worth slightly less. However, when you consider that there are many millions more people living in LA than in the entire state of Montana, it becomes evident that this system actually doesn't do enough to ensure that everyone's voice counts. In a true democracy, you end up in cases where the 50.001% of the population would be able to assume total control over the 49.999% who may, in fact, have completely different views. In this system, it is theoretically impossible to have a candidate win without representing a relatively large area both geographically and population-wise. The alternative, as mentioned above, would be allowing a geographically small but populated area to rule the entire country when most of the candidates from the populated areas may have no clue what rural voters and smaller towns actually want.

2. Donald Trump did anything illegal.
-- If Donald Trump did anything that would make him register on a watch list if found guilty (you know what I am referring to), he would either be in jail, or being investigated right now. This has been disproven multiple times, there is no current investigation because there is no evidence to show that any wrongdoing occurred. Regardless of your opinion on his statements, if you actually read them, he specifically said "they let you", which by itself implies consent. Vulgarity and crudeness does not make it wrong in and of itself.

3. Donald Trump didn't file taxes.
-- Donald has filed taxes every year (and been audited a large number of years in recent past). He didn't pay taxes one year due in part to a loophole created by democrats allowing him to take investment losses as a tax break. Basically, he was allowed to claim his loss in money due to investments going down in value as a reduction in his taxes for the year, and carry forward any loss over his tax liability to the next year. This, from multiple independent accountants as reported by the Wall Street Journal, is something both any businessman would do, as well as something Ms. Clinton had actually done herself in the past.

4. Donald Trump says outrageous things and means every single one of them, and has no concrete comprehensive policy ideas.
-- He uses truthful hyperbole, a literary device, to get people's attention. Let's also look back at when Ms. Clinton claimed to "land under fire" when in reality no such thing happened (and repeated that claim for decades until called out on it). This was another example of truthful hyperbole - she landed in an active conflict zone but not "under fire". Yet it's easier to say "under fire" than "I landed in an active conflict zone but not under direct combat". Likewise, it's easier to say "we're going to build a wall" than "We have a comprehensive national security and jobs plan that includes building a physical barrier to persons entering the country without the use of legitimate methods such as immigration checkpoints to protect our jobs and security"; it's easier to say "we will ban Muslims" (which he later clarified) than "We have a comprehensive national security plan that includes using religion and country of origin in combination to conduct a preliminary screen on entrants to our country to prevent radical Muslims from ISIS and other organizations from entering our country, without negatively affecting most well-meaning entrants."; and it's easier to say "we will do away with Obamacare" than "We have a comprehensive healthcare reform plan that includes the repeal and replacement of the Affordable Care Act with a plan that involves interstate plans which can be sold by companies across state lines with lower premiums and many plan types so that everyone can choose the plan that is right for them, while also doing away with certain requirements of the ACA that have increased premiums for everyone to pay for programs only some of the participants use, allowing people to choose plans with these programs if they want, but not being required to if they do not want."
-- See how much you wouldn't have liked to hear anyone sit there and tell you every part of their policy? It's your job (if you are one) as a voter to research the candidates policies yourself.


Basically, people who voted for Ms. Clinton seem to have underestimated the number of people in this country that vote based on true political issues facing our country, and not social issues. It's called politics for a reason, and politicians are not social justice warriors for a reason. Everyone who was surprised by the Trump win needs to look back at why they voted, did they vote because they support gay marriage, or did they vote because they want the US to become the world power it once was yet again? Personally, I voted for someone who I trusted to make America great again. Sure, I don't agree with everything he or Mike Pence support, but it's much more important to me that my children have the American Dream to look forward to than if I am able to get married to the man of my dreams in the short term. Social issues will resolve themselves eventually without electing someone who is politically inept (look at slavery, which was abolished with almost 100% republican and 0% democratic support, etc). It just happens that the GOP is slower to adopt social issues in their platform, instead leaving them ambiguous until a societal norm has been clearly established. I have no problem waiting for the GOP to adopt gay marriage, or abortion rights, etc, because I know it will happen eventually (and likely in the next 8 years). However, what I cannot wait for is the democratic party to adopt strong views towards national security, the military, immigration, etc., because I know it will not happen. The democratic party is more interested in social issues, which this election proves that the American voter is not more interested in than political issues. For this reason, I voted for Donald Trump, and I have absolutely no regrets.

Post scriptum: Please watch his entire victory speech, in which he both thanks Hillary for her decades of dedication to public service, and outlines how he will reach to all in congress and the country to make the transition and presidency as smooth as he can. He is being very respectable and modest about his victory, whereas Ms. Clinton chose to do something no candidate in recent history has done and privately call the victor then go to bed without making a public statement.

Post post scriptum: If you actually read this entire post, thank you. Hopefully it has opened your eyes as to how Trump won and why it's good.
 
#88
Plot twist, contrary to what Hillary and the liberal media told you, the following things are true:
1. The world is still intact and functioning the exact same as it was before.
2. Nobody has died due to the election.
3. Nobody has (yet) emigrated from our country.
4. Nobody has been deported due to Donald Trump
5. Nobody has been refused marriage, birth control, or forced to go through conversion therapy due to Donald Trump
6. Nobody has been affected by gun control laws that haven't not been made yet, due to Donald Trump.
... this list could go on.

Here are some things that are false:
1. Hillary should be president because she won the popular vote.
-- The electoral college is designed specifically to be a democratic republic. The USA is not, nor has ever been, nor should be a true democracy. In a democracy, the candidate would only have to win a 60% majority in the top XXX MSAs (metropolitan statistical areas) to win the presidency. This is overly pessimistic, because usually the candidate from the democratic party does much better than that in MSAs proper - Hillary won NYC by 87%, won the next largest LA area by 71%, the next largest Chicago by 74%, etc. Regardless, at 60-40 ratio of votes for candidate A in the largest MSAs, and assuming people not residing in the top 100 MSAs vote at a rate of 30-70, less favorable to candidate A, candidate A would win after winning 80% of the vote in only 39 cities, whereas with a more modest 60% win rate it would still only take about 100 cities for the candidate to win. In this method, candidate A could spend all of his/her time focusing on the top, say, 60-65 cities, and as long as they got some votes in the rural areas would be almost guaranteed an easy win. This, to be frank, basically disenfranchises the rural voters because it encourages candidates to spend all of their time in the large cities to rack up as high a vote total as possible.
-- The electoral college is in place to prevent mob rule. There are times that one vote does not equal one vote, yes, but that is because the electoral college acts as a statistical sieve to lower the likelihood that one group can heavily influence the election. In the electoral college system, the voting power is spread out between rural voters in Montana, whose votes *are* theoretically "worth" slightly more, and those who live in the inner city in Los Angeles, whose votes are worth slightly less. However, when you consider that there are many millions more people living in LA than in the entire state of Montana, it becomes evident that this system actually doesn't do enough to ensure that everyone's voice counts. In a true democracy, you end up in cases where the 50.001% of the population would be able to assume total control over the 49.999% who may, in fact, have completely different views. In this system, it is theoretically impossible to have a candidate win without representing a relatively large area both geographically and population-wise. The alternative, as mentioned above, would be allowing a geographically small but populated area to rule the entire country when most of the candidates from the populated areas may have no clue what rural voters and smaller towns actually want.

2. Donald Trump did anything illegal.
-- If Donald Trump did anything that would make him register on a watch list if found guilty (you know what I am referring to), he would either be in jail, or being investigated right now. This has been disproven multiple times, there is no current investigation because there is no evidence to show that any wrongdoing occurred. Regardless of your opinion on his statements, if you actually read them, he specifically said "they let you", which by itself implies consent. Vulgarity and crudeness does not make it wrong in and of itself.

3. Donald Trump didn't file taxes.
-- Donald has filed taxes every year (and been audited a large number of years in recent past). He didn't pay taxes one year due in part to a loophole created by democrats allowing him to take investment losses as a tax break. Basically, he was allowed to claim his loss in money due to investments going down in value as a reduction in his taxes for the year, and carry forward any loss over his tax liability to the next year. This, from multiple independent accountants as reported by the Wall Street Journal, is something both any businessman would do, as well as something Ms. Clinton had actually done herself in the past.

4. Donald Trump says outrageous things and means every single one of them, and has no concrete comprehensive policy ideas.
-- He uses truthful hyperbole, a literary device, to get people's attention. Let's also look back at when Ms. Clinton claimed to "land under fire" when in reality no such thing happened (and repeated that claim for decades until called out on it). This was another example of truthful hyperbole - she landed in an active conflict zone but not "under fire". Yet it's easier to say "under fire" than "I landed in an active conflict zone but not under direct combat". Likewise, it's easier to say "we're going to build a wall" than "We have a comprehensive national security and jobs plan that includes building a physical barrier to persons entering the country without the use of legitimate methods such as immigration checkpoints to protect our jobs and security"; it's easier to say "we will ban Muslims" (which he later clarified) than "We have a comprehensive national security plan that includes using religion and country of origin in combination to conduct a preliminary screen on entrants to our country to prevent radical Muslims from ISIS and other organizations from entering our country, without negatively affecting most well-meaning entrants."; and it's easier to say "we will do away with Obamacare" than "We have a comprehensive healthcare reform plan that includes the repeal and replacement of the Affordable Care Act with a plan that involves interstate plans which can be sold by companies across state lines with lower premiums and many plan types so that everyone can choose the plan that is right for them, while also doing away with certain requirements of the ACA that have increased premiums for everyone to pay for programs only some of the participants use, allowing people to choose plans with these programs if they want, but not being required to if they do not want."
-- See how much you wouldn't have liked to hear anyone sit there and tell you every part of their policy? It's your job (if you are one) as a voter to research the candidates policies yourself.


Basically, people who voted for Ms. Clinton seem to have underestimated the number of people in this country that vote based on true political issues facing our country, and not social issues. It's called politics for a reason, and politicians are not social justice warriors for a reason. Everyone who was surprised by the Trump win needs to look back at why they voted, did they vote because they support gay marriage, or did they vote because they want the US to become the world power it once was yet again? Personally, I voted for someone who I trusted to make America great again. Sure, I don't agree with everything he or Mike Pence support, but it's much more important to me that my children have the American Dream to look forward to than if I am able to get married to the man of my dreams in the short term. Social issues will resolve themselves eventually without electing someone who is politically inept (look at slavery, which was abolished with almost 100% republican and 0% democratic support, etc). It just happens that the GOP is slower to adopt social issues in their platform, instead leaving them ambiguous until a societal norm has been clearly established. I have no problem waiting for the GOP to adopt gay marriage, or abortion rights, etc, because I know it will happen eventually (and likely in the next 8 years). However, what I cannot wait for is the democratic party to adopt strong views towards national security, the military, immigration, etc., because I know it will not happen. The democratic party is more interested in social issues, which this election proves that the American voter is not more interested in than political issues. For this reason, I voted for Donald Trump, and I have absolutely no regrets.

Post scriptum: Please watch his entire victory speech, in which he both thanks Hillary for her decades of dedication to public service, and outlines how he will reach to all in congress and the country to make the transition and presidency as smooth as he can. He is being very respectable and modest about his victory, whereas Ms. Clinton chose to do something no candidate in recent history has done and privately call the victor then go to bed without making a public statement.

Post post scriptum: If you actually read this entire post, thank you. Hopefully it has opened your eyes as to how Trump won and why it's good.
Please don't preach to us about how Trump is amazing and you are so happy that Hilary didn't win. Others don't feel the same way you do. Although I respect your opinion... but geez you dont have to break every little thing down for us like we are children and don't understand anything..
 
#89
Please don't preach to us about how Trump is amazing and you are so happy that Hilary didn't win. Others don't feel the same way you do. Although I respect your opinion... but geez you dont have to break every little thing down for us like we are children and don't understand anything..
preach girly![DOUBLEPOST=1478787989][/DOUBLEPOST]
Plot twist, contrary to what Hillary and the liberal media told you, the following things are true:
1. The world is still intact and functioning the exact same as it was before.
2. Nobody has died due to the election.
3. Nobody has (yet) emigrated from our country.
4. Nobody has been deported due to Donald Trump
5. Nobody has been refused marriage, birth control, or forced to go through conversion therapy due to Donald Trump
6. Nobody has been affected by gun control laws that haven't not been made yet, due to Donald Trump.
... this list could go on.

Here are some things that are false:
1. Hillary should be president because she won the popular vote.
-- The electoral college is designed specifically to be a democratic republic. The USA is not, nor has ever been, nor should be a true democracy. In a democracy, the candidate would only have to win a 60% majority in the top XXX MSAs (metropolitan statistical areas) to win the presidency. This is overly pessimistic, because usually the candidate from the democratic party does much better than that in MSAs proper - Hillary won NYC by 87%, won the next largest LA area by 71%, the next largest Chicago by 74%, etc. Regardless, at 60-40 ratio of votes for candidate A in the largest MSAs, and assuming people not residing in the top 100 MSAs vote at a rate of 30-70, less favorable to candidate A, candidate A would win after winning 80% of the vote in only 39 cities, whereas with a more modest 60% win rate it would still only take about 100 cities for the candidate to win. In this method, candidate A could spend all of his/her time focusing on the top, say, 60-65 cities, and as long as they got some votes in the rural areas would be almost guaranteed an easy win. This, to be frank, basically disenfranchises the rural voters because it encourages candidates to spend all of their time in the large cities to rack up as high a vote total as possible.
-- The electoral college is in place to prevent mob rule. There are times that one vote does not equal one vote, yes, but that is because the electoral college acts as a statistical sieve to lower the likelihood that one group can heavily influence the election. In the electoral college system, the voting power is spread out between rural voters in Montana, whose votes *are* theoretically "worth" slightly more, and those who live in the inner city in Los Angeles, whose votes are worth slightly less. However, when you consider that there are many millions more people living in LA than in the entire state of Montana, it becomes evident that this system actually doesn't do enough to ensure that everyone's voice counts. In a true democracy, you end up in cases where the 50.001% of the population would be able to assume total control over the 49.999% who may, in fact, have completely different views. In this system, it is theoretically impossible to have a candidate win without representing a relatively large area both geographically and population-wise. The alternative, as mentioned above, would be allowing a geographically small but populated area to rule the entire country when most of the candidates from the populated areas may have no clue what rural voters and smaller towns actually want.

2. Donald Trump did anything illegal.
-- If Donald Trump did anything that would make him register on a watch list if found guilty (you know what I am referring to), he would either be in jail, or being investigated right now. This has been disproven multiple times, there is no current investigation because there is no evidence to show that any wrongdoing occurred. Regardless of your opinion on his statements, if you actually read them, he specifically said "they let you", which by itself implies consent. Vulgarity and crudeness does not make it wrong in and of itself.

3. Donald Trump didn't file taxes.
-- Donald has filed taxes every year (and been audited a large number of years in recent past). He didn't pay taxes one year due in part to a loophole created by democrats allowing him to take investment losses as a tax break. Basically, he was allowed to claim his loss in money due to investments going down in value as a reduction in his taxes for the year, and carry forward any loss over his tax liability to the next year. This, from multiple independent accountants as reported by the Wall Street Journal, is something both any businessman would do, as well as something Ms. Clinton had actually done herself in the past.

4. Donald Trump says outrageous things and means every single one of them, and has no concrete comprehensive policy ideas.
-- He uses truthful hyperbole, a literary device, to get people's attention. Let's also look back at when Ms. Clinton claimed to "land under fire" when in reality no such thing happened (and repeated that claim for decades until called out on it). This was another example of truthful hyperbole - she landed in an active conflict zone but not "under fire". Yet it's easier to say "under fire" than "I landed in an active conflict zone but not under direct combat". Likewise, it's easier to say "we're going to build a wall" than "We have a comprehensive national security and jobs plan that includes building a physical barrier to persons entering the country without the use of legitimate methods such as immigration checkpoints to protect our jobs and security"; it's easier to say "we will ban Muslims" (which he later clarified) than "We have a comprehensive national security plan that includes using religion and country of origin in combination to conduct a preliminary screen on entrants to our country to prevent radical Muslims from ISIS and other organizations from entering our country, without negatively affecting most well-meaning entrants."; and it's easier to say "we will do away with Obamacare" than "We have a comprehensive healthcare reform plan that includes the repeal and replacement of the Affordable Care Act with a plan that involves interstate plans which can be sold by companies across state lines with lower premiums and many plan types so that everyone can choose the plan that is right for them, while also doing away with certain requirements of the ACA that have increased premiums for everyone to pay for programs only some of the participants use, allowing people to choose plans with these programs if they want, but not being required to if they do not want."
-- See how much you wouldn't have liked to hear anyone sit there and tell you every part of their policy? It's your job (if you are one) as a voter to research the candidates policies yourself.


Basically, people who voted for Ms. Clinton seem to have underestimated the number of people in this country that vote based on true political issues facing our country, and not social issues. It's called politics for a reason, and politicians are not social justice warriors for a reason. Everyone who was surprised by the Trump win needs to look back at why they voted, did they vote because they support gay marriage, or did they vote because they want the US to become the world power it once was yet again? Personally, I voted for someone who I trusted to make America great again. Sure, I don't agree with everything he or Mike Pence support, but it's much more important to me that my children have the American Dream to look forward to than if I am able to get married to the man of my dreams in the short term. Social issues will resolve themselves eventually without electing someone who is politically inept (look at slavery, which was abolished with almost 100% republican and 0% democratic support, etc). It just happens that the GOP is slower to adopt social issues in their platform, instead leaving them ambiguous until a societal norm has been clearly established. I have no problem waiting for the GOP to adopt gay marriage, or abortion rights, etc, because I know it will happen eventually (and likely in the next 8 years). However, what I cannot wait for is the democratic party to adopt strong views towards national security, the military, immigration, etc., because I know it will not happen. The democratic party is more interested in social issues, which this election proves that the American voter is not more interested in than political issues. For this reason, I voted for Donald Trump, and I have absolutely no regrets.

Post scriptum: Please watch his entire victory speech, in which he both thanks Hillary for her decades of dedication to public service, and outlines how he will reach to all in congress and the country to make the transition and presidency as smooth as he can. He is being very respectable and modest about his victory, whereas Ms. Clinton chose to do something no candidate in recent history has done and privately call the victor then go to bed without making a public statement.

Post post scriptum: If you actually read this entire post, thank you. Hopefully it has opened your eyes as to how Trump won and why it's good.
(honestly don't bother replying b/c this is the myvmk forums i'm not trying to fight w/ u here but just let me say something)

it's been like a minute ofc his policies haven't been enacted lol
take this opportunity to actually listen to ppl's concerns instead of trying to invalidate everything they are feeling & saying
call us crazy but some ppl actually care more abt basic human rights before anything else! & that's ok! we're allowed to be concerned abt different things! but listen to all those concerns equally so we can form a country we are all happy to live in! pls understand that there r ppl who r concerned for the physical safety of their families just as ur concerned for the availability of the 'american dream' for urs! thanks!
 
Last edited:
#90
Plot twist, contrary to what Hillary and the liberal media told you, the following things are true:
1. The world is still intact and functioning the exact same as it was before.
2. Nobody has died due to the election.
3. Nobody has (yet) emigrated from our country.
4. Nobody has been deported due to Donald Trump
5. Nobody has been refused marriage, birth control, or forced to go through conversion therapy due to Donald Trump
6. Nobody has been affected by gun control laws that haven't not been made yet, due to Donald Trump.
... this list could go on.

Here are some things that are false:
1. Hillary should be president because she won the popular vote.
-- The electoral college is designed specifically to be a democratic republic. The USA is not, nor has ever been, nor should be a true democracy. In a democracy, the candidate would only have to win a 60% majority in the top XXX MSAs (metropolitan statistical areas) to win the presidency. This is overly pessimistic, because usually the candidate from the democratic party does much better than that in MSAs proper - Hillary won NYC by 87%, won the next largest LA area by 71%, the next largest Chicago by 74%, etc. Regardless, at 60-40 ratio of votes for candidate A in the largest MSAs, and assuming people not residing in the top 100 MSAs vote at a rate of 30-70, less favorable to candidate A, candidate A would win after winning 80% of the vote in only 39 cities, whereas with a more modest 60% win rate it would still only take about 100 cities for the candidate to win. In this method, candidate A could spend all of his/her time focusing on the top, say, 60-65 cities, and as long as they got some votes in the rural areas would be almost guaranteed an easy win. This, to be frank, basically disenfranchises the rural voters because it encourages candidates to spend all of their time in the large cities to rack up as high a vote total as possible.
-- The electoral college is in place to prevent mob rule. There are times that one vote does not equal one vote, yes, but that is because the electoral college acts as a statistical sieve to lower the likelihood that one group can heavily influence the election. In the electoral college system, the voting power is spread out between rural voters in Montana, whose votes *are* theoretically "worth" slightly more, and those who live in the inner city in Los Angeles, whose votes are worth slightly less. However, when you consider that there are many millions more people living in LA than in the entire state of Montana, it becomes evident that this system actually doesn't do enough to ensure that everyone's voice counts. In a true democracy, you end up in cases where the 50.001% of the population would be able to assume total control over the 49.999% who may, in fact, have completely different views. In this system, it is theoretically impossible to have a candidate win without representing a relatively large area both geographically and population-wise. The alternative, as mentioned above, would be allowing a geographically small but populated area to rule the entire country when most of the candidates from the populated areas may have no clue what rural voters and smaller towns actually want.

2. Donald Trump did anything illegal.
-- If Donald Trump did anything that would make him register on a watch list if found guilty (you know what I am referring to), he would either be in jail, or being investigated right now. This has been disproven multiple times, there is no current investigation because there is no evidence to show that any wrongdoing occurred. Regardless of your opinion on his statements, if you actually read them, he specifically said "they let you", which by itself implies consent. Vulgarity and crudeness does not make it wrong in and of itself.

3. Donald Trump didn't file taxes.
-- Donald has filed taxes every year (and been audited a large number of years in recent past). He didn't pay taxes one year due in part to a loophole created by democrats allowing him to take investment losses as a tax break. Basically, he was allowed to claim his loss in money due to investments going down in value as a reduction in his taxes for the year, and carry forward any loss over his tax liability to the next year. This, from multiple independent accountants as reported by the Wall Street Journal, is something both any businessman would do, as well as something Ms. Clinton had actually done herself in the past.

4. Donald Trump says outrageous things and means every single one of them, and has no concrete comprehensive policy ideas.
-- He uses truthful hyperbole, a literary device, to get people's attention. Let's also look back at when Ms. Clinton claimed to "land under fire" when in reality no such thing happened (and repeated that claim for decades until called out on it). This was another example of truthful hyperbole - she landed in an active conflict zone but not "under fire". Yet it's easier to say "under fire" than "I landed in an active conflict zone but not under direct combat". Likewise, it's easier to say "we're going to build a wall" than "We have a comprehensive national security and jobs plan that includes building a physical barrier to persons entering the country without the use of legitimate methods such as immigration checkpoints to protect our jobs and security"; it's easier to say "we will ban Muslims" (which he later clarified) than "We have a comprehensive national security plan that includes using religion and country of origin in combination to conduct a preliminary screen on entrants to our country to prevent radical Muslims from ISIS and other organizations from entering our country, without negatively affecting most well-meaning entrants."; and it's easier to say "we will do away with Obamacare" than "We have a comprehensive healthcare reform plan that includes the repeal and replacement of the Affordable Care Act with a plan that involves interstate plans which can be sold by companies across state lines with lower premiums and many plan types so that everyone can choose the plan that is right for them, while also doing away with certain requirements of the ACA that have increased premiums for everyone to pay for programs only some of the participants use, allowing people to choose plans with these programs if they want, but not being required to if they do not want."
-- See how much you wouldn't have liked to hear anyone sit there and tell you every part of their policy? It's your job (if you are one) as a voter to research the candidates policies yourself.


Basically, people who voted for Ms. Clinton seem to have underestimated the number of people in this country that vote based on true political issues facing our country, and not social issues. It's called politics for a reason, and politicians are not social justice warriors for a reason. Everyone who was surprised by the Trump win needs to look back at why they voted, did they vote because they support gay marriage, or did they vote because they want the US to become the world power it once was yet again? Personally, I voted for someone who I trusted to make America great again. Sure, I don't agree with everything he or Mike Pence support, but it's much more important to me that my children have the American Dream to look forward to than if I am able to get married to the man of my dreams in the short term. Social issues will resolve themselves eventually without electing someone who is politically inept (look at slavery, which was abolished with almost 100% republican and 0% democratic support, etc). It just happens that the GOP is slower to adopt social issues in their platform, instead leaving them ambiguous until a societal norm has been clearly established. I have no problem waiting for the GOP to adopt gay marriage, or abortion rights, etc, because I know it will happen eventually (and likely in the next 8 years). However, what I cannot wait for is the democratic party to adopt strong views towards national security, the military, immigration, etc., because I know it will not happen. The democratic party is more interested in social issues, which this election proves that the American voter is not more interested in than political issues. For this reason, I voted for Donald Trump, and I have absolutely no regrets.

Post scriptum: Please watch his entire victory speech, in which he both thanks Hillary for her decades of dedication to public service, and outlines how he will reach to all in congress and the country to make the transition and presidency as smooth as he can. He is being very respectable and modest about his victory, whereas Ms. Clinton chose to do something no candidate in recent history has done and privately call the victor then go to bed without making a public statement.

Post post scriptum: If you actually read this entire post, thank you. Hopefully it has opened your eyes as to how Trump won and why it's good.
I'll allow you to update your list once he actually takes office because you make it apparent that you don't fully understand how this whole presidency thing works.

If you voted for Trump, below you'll find just snipits of the "American Dream" you voted for. A dream in which the white youth of America are able to bully and harm minorities. You didn't vote to "Make America Great" again, you voted to "Make America White" again.

http://www.freep.com/story/news/loc...6/11/10/royal-oak-middle-wall-viral/93582256/

https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/na...oking-trump/VuSY9agf5Wqp8TP7tcF6AL/story.html

Just one of the spots that graffiti was found in my city's college campus, ironic that a statue about thinking would be defaced by a Trump supporter.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

PoorFroning

Well-Known Member
#91
Plot twist, contrary to what Hillary and the liberal media told you, the following things are true:
1. The world is still intact and functioning the exact same as it was before.
2. Nobody has died due to the election.
3. Nobody has (yet) emigrated from our country.
4. Nobody has been deported due to Donald Trump
5. Nobody has been refused marriage, birth control, or forced to go through conversion therapy due to Donald Trump
6. Nobody has been affected by gun control laws that haven't not been made yet, due to Donald Trump.
... this list could go on.

Here are some things that are false:
1. Hillary should be president because she won the popular vote.
-- The electoral college is designed specifically to be a democratic republic. The USA is not, nor has ever been, nor should be a true democracy. In a democracy, the candidate would only have to win a 60% majority in the top XXX MSAs (metropolitan statistical areas) to win the presidency. This is overly pessimistic, because usually the candidate from the democratic party does much better than that in MSAs proper - Hillary won NYC by 87%, won the next largest LA area by 71%, the next largest Chicago by 74%, etc. Regardless, at 60-40 ratio of votes for candidate A in the largest MSAs, and assuming people not residing in the top 100 MSAs vote at a rate of 30-70, less favorable to candidate A, candidate A would win after winning 80% of the vote in only 39 cities, whereas with a more modest 60% win rate it would still only take about 100 cities for the candidate to win. In this method, candidate A could spend all of his/her time focusing on the top, say, 60-65 cities, and as long as they got some votes in the rural areas would be almost guaranteed an easy win. This, to be frank, basically disenfranchises the rural voters because it encourages candidates to spend all of their time in the large cities to rack up as high a vote total as possible.
-- The electoral college is in place to prevent mob rule. There are times that one vote does not equal one vote, yes, but that is because the electoral college acts as a statistical sieve to lower the likelihood that one group can heavily influence the election. In the electoral college system, the voting power is spread out between rural voters in Montana, whose votes *are* theoretically "worth" slightly more, and those who live in the inner city in Los Angeles, whose votes are worth slightly less. However, when you consider that there are many millions more people living in LA than in the entire state of Montana, it becomes evident that this system actually doesn't do enough to ensure that everyone's voice counts. In a true democracy, you end up in cases where the 50.001% of the population would be able to assume total control over the 49.999% who may, in fact, have completely different views. In this system, it is theoretically impossible to have a candidate win without representing a relatively large area both geographically and population-wise. The alternative, as mentioned above, would be allowing a geographically small but populated area to rule the entire country when most of the candidates from the populated areas may have no clue what rural voters and smaller towns actually want.

2. Donald Trump did anything illegal.
-- If Donald Trump did anything that would make him register on a watch list if found guilty (you know what I am referring to), he would either be in jail, or being investigated right now. This has been disproven multiple times, there is no current investigation because there is no evidence to show that any wrongdoing occurred. Regardless of your opinion on his statements, if you actually read them, he specifically said "they let you", which by itself implies consent. Vulgarity and crudeness does not make it wrong in and of itself.

3. Donald Trump didn't file taxes.
-- Donald has filed taxes every year (and been audited a large number of years in recent past). He didn't pay taxes one year due in part to a loophole created by democrats allowing him to take investment losses as a tax break. Basically, he was allowed to claim his loss in money due to investments going down in value as a reduction in his taxes for the year, and carry forward any loss over his tax liability to the next year. This, from multiple independent accountants as reported by the Wall Street Journal, is something both any businessman would do, as well as something Ms. Clinton had actually done herself in the past.

4. Donald Trump says outrageous things and means every single one of them, and has no concrete comprehensive policy ideas.
-- He uses truthful hyperbole, a literary device, to get people's attention. Let's also look back at when Ms. Clinton claimed to "land under fire" when in reality no such thing happened (and repeated that claim for decades until called out on it). This was another example of truthful hyperbole - she landed in an active conflict zone but not "under fire". Yet it's easier to say "under fire" than "I landed in an active conflict zone but not under direct combat". Likewise, it's easier to say "we're going to build a wall" than "We have a comprehensive national security and jobs plan that includes building a physical barrier to persons entering the country without the use of legitimate methods such as immigration checkpoints to protect our jobs and security"; it's easier to say "we will ban Muslims" (which he later clarified) than "We have a comprehensive national security plan that includes using religion and country of origin in combination to conduct a preliminary screen on entrants to our country to prevent radical Muslims from ISIS and other organizations from entering our country, without negatively affecting most well-meaning entrants."; and it's easier to say "we will do away with Obamacare" than "We have a comprehensive healthcare reform plan that includes the repeal and replacement of the Affordable Care Act with a plan that involves interstate plans which can be sold by companies across state lines with lower premiums and many plan types so that everyone can choose the plan that is right for them, while also doing away with certain requirements of the ACA that have increased premiums for everyone to pay for programs only some of the participants use, allowing people to choose plans with these programs if they want, but not being required to if they do not want."
-- See how much you wouldn't have liked to hear anyone sit there and tell you every part of their policy? It's your job (if you are one) as a voter to research the candidates policies yourself.


Basically, people who voted for Ms. Clinton seem to have underestimated the number of people in this country that vote based on true political issues facing our country, and not social issues. It's called politics for a reason, and politicians are not social justice warriors for a reason. Everyone who was surprised by the Trump win needs to look back at why they voted, did they vote because they support gay marriage, or did they vote because they want the US to become the world power it once was yet again? Personally, I voted for someone who I trusted to make America great again. Sure, I don't agree with everything he or Mike Pence support, but it's much more important to me that my children have the American Dream to look forward to than if I am able to get married to the man of my dreams in the short term. Social issues will resolve themselves eventually without electing someone who is politically inept (look at slavery, which was abolished with almost 100% republican and 0% democratic support, etc). It just happens that the GOP is slower to adopt social issues in their platform, instead leaving them ambiguous until a societal norm has been clearly established. I have no problem waiting for the GOP to adopt gay marriage, or abortion rights, etc, because I know it will happen eventually (and likely in the next 8 years). However, what I cannot wait for is the democratic party to adopt strong views towards national security, the military, immigration, etc., because I know it will not happen. The democratic party is more interested in social issues, which this election proves that the American voter is not more interested in than political issues. For this reason, I voted for Donald Trump, and I have absolutely no regrets.

Post scriptum: Please watch his entire victory speech, in which he both thanks Hillary for her decades of dedication to public service, and outlines how he will reach to all in congress and the country to make the transition and presidency as smooth as he can. He is being very respectable and modest about his victory, whereas Ms. Clinton chose to do something no candidate in recent history has done and privately call the victor then go to bed without making a public statement.

Post post scriptum: If you actually read this entire post, thank you. Hopefully it has opened your eyes as to how Trump won and why it's good.
The world isn't functioning the exact same as it was before. in the past two days, so much stock money has been allocated in new directions. Our country's allies are contemplating their trust in us as Trump talks about the the possibility of coming to terms with Russia. Unless Russia magically drops some of their relationships such as the one with Assad (which they wont), the US cant be friendly with everyone. A few days ago, our nation didn't have an anti LGBT president-elect. Social issues are in fact political issues. That may not be of importance to you but it is to many. There are so many more changes I could list. Regardless of how Trump handles his presidency, there are plenty of significant things that have already changed since Trump was elected. Significant things will continue to change and anyone who says otherwise doesn't know what they are talking about, whether they'd consider the changes positive or negative if they even recognized them.
 
#92
i can't believe i'm still letting myself react to ur post but i just need to add something
Social issues will resolve themselves eventually without electing someone who is politically inept (look at slavery, which was abolished with almost 100% republican and 0% democratic support, etc). It just happens that the GOP is slower to adopt social issues in their platform, instead leaving them ambiguous until a societal norm has been clearly established. I have no problem waiting for the GOP to adopt gay marriage, or abortion rights, etc, because I know it will happen eventually (and likely in the next 8 years).
pls don't use the example of slavery. please don't validate the suffering of millions of people b/c it eventually "resolved itself."
i'm glad u have the patience to wait until ur country literally allows u to be happy as the person u r & live ur life fully
but quite frankly it's 2016 & not everyone is willing to wait to be treated decently. respect that & recognize that that is just as important of an issue.
i personally believe we r all sacks of flesh & could die any day so it'd be rlly chill if ppl didn't have to die w/o being granted full personhood
that's it
sorry i am too much of a "social justice warrior" but some ppl r tired of waiting

also most of the ppl who are grieving or upset are not upset b/c he won & hillary lost. we're upset b/c we don't live in the country we thought we did. we're upset b/c the "hyperboles" & language he used in his successful campaign have validated the ideas of many intolerant ppl, resulting in a spike in hate crimes. we're upset because "making america great again" looks like a regression of progress that has been so important to the lives of many. ppl r allowed to be fearful right now.
 

Question

Very Questionable
#93
as much as i am worried about trump as president i'm also extremely worried because a man who based his whole platform on racism, fear, divisiveness, etc. won. like........................a bully who has several rape and sexual molestation allegations against him, has been noted to have said disgustingly misogynistic things about women, has a vice president who is very anti-LGBT, and has absolutely no political experience becomes the president of the US. that speaks volumes for the citizens of america as a whole?? like after brexit was passed hate crimes increased in the UK by like 40% or something(???). trump was literally supported by racists, homophobes, and misogynists and him becoming president will cause their beliefs to feel validated and that is very troubling.

trump is literally endorsed by the kkk, vladimir putin, kim jong-un and many other nasties and even though he disavowed some of them like the kkk it's still scary.

please stay safe poc, lgbt+, muslims, women, etc. i love you all
 
#94
Don't have the energy to respond to something invalidating and apathetic (Yes, we are all aware that no policies have been enacted yet - did that even have to be said?) these are the thoughts that popped up for me:

The personal is political.

Abolished slavery -> prison labor exploitation -> Jim Crow segregation -> mass incarceration

Have you ever heard of the Southern Strategy?

Update: Also ty to everyone's responses ❤️
 
#95
Don't have the energy to respond to something invalidating and apathetic (Yes, we are all aware that no policies have been enacted yet - did that even have to be said?) these are the thoughts that popped up for me:

The personal is political.

Abolished slavery -> prison labor exploitation -> Jim Crow segregation -> mass incarceration

Have you ever heard of the Southern Strategy?
SAY IT LOUDER FOR THE PPL IN THE BACK!
 
#96
I wish more Americans took the time to search out the truth rather than relying on media (and social media) propaganda. Thank you for taking the time to address concerns that many have voiced with the factual statements you provided. It was a courageous thing to do since I have seen not everyone can respect other people's differing opinions. I'm looking forward to the next four years and hope we can finally see some real improvements in our country.
Facts is it? Haha, okay...
 
#97
Plot twist, contrary to what Hillary and the liberal media told you, the following things are true:
1. The world is still intact and functioning the exact same as it was before.
2. Nobody has died due to the election.
3. Nobody has (yet) emigrated from our country.
4. Nobody has been deported due to Donald Trump
5. Nobody has been refused marriage, birth control, or forced to go through conversion therapy due to Donald Trump
6. Nobody has been affected by gun control laws that haven't not been made yet, due to Donald Trump.
... this list could go on.

Here are some things that are false:
1. Hillary should be president because she won the popular vote.
-- The electoral college is designed specifically to be a democratic republic. The USA is not, nor has ever been, nor should be a true democracy. In a democracy, the candidate would only have to win a 60% majority in the top XXX MSAs (metropolitan statistical areas) to win the presidency. This is overly pessimistic, because usually the candidate from the democratic party does much better than that in MSAs proper - Hillary won NYC by 87%, won the next largest LA area by 71%, the next largest Chicago by 74%, etc. Regardless, at 60-40 ratio of votes for candidate A in the largest MSAs, and assuming people not residing in the top 100 MSAs vote at a rate of 30-70, less favorable to candidate A, candidate A would win after winning 80% of the vote in only 39 cities, whereas with a more modest 60% win rate it would still only take about 100 cities for the candidate to win. In this method, candidate A could spend all of his/her time focusing on the top, say, 60-65 cities, and as long as they got some votes in the rural areas would be almost guaranteed an easy win. This, to be frank, basically disenfranchises the rural voters because it encourages candidates to spend all of their time in the large cities to rack up as high a vote total as possible.
-- The electoral college is in place to prevent mob rule. There are times that one vote does not equal one vote, yes, but that is because the electoral college acts as a statistical sieve to lower the likelihood that one group can heavily influence the election. In the electoral college system, the voting power is spread out between rural voters in Montana, whose votes *are* theoretically "worth" slightly more, and those who live in the inner city in Los Angeles, whose votes are worth slightly less. However, when you consider that there are many millions more people living in LA than in the entire state of Montana, it becomes evident that this system actually doesn't do enough to ensure that everyone's voice counts. In a true democracy, you end up in cases where the 50.001% of the population would be able to assume total control over the 49.999% who may, in fact, have completely different views. In this system, it is theoretically impossible to have a candidate win without representing a relatively large area both geographically and population-wise. The alternative, as mentioned above, would be allowing a geographically small but populated area to rule the entire country when most of the candidates from the populated areas may have no clue what rural voters and smaller towns actually want.

2. Donald Trump did anything illegal.
-- If Donald Trump did anything that would make him register on a watch list if found guilty (you know what I am referring to), he would either be in jail, or being investigated right now. This has been disproven multiple times, there is no current investigation because there is no evidence to show that any wrongdoing occurred. Regardless of your opinion on his statements, if you actually read them, he specifically said "they let you", which by itself implies consent. Vulgarity and crudeness does not make it wrong in and of itself.

3. Donald Trump didn't file taxes.
-- Donald has filed taxes every year (and been audited a large number of years in recent past). He didn't pay taxes one year due in part to a loophole created by democrats allowing him to take investment losses as a tax break. Basically, he was allowed to claim his loss in money due to investments going down in value as a reduction in his taxes for the year, and carry forward any loss over his tax liability to the next year. This, from multiple independent accountants as reported by the Wall Street Journal, is something both any businessman would do, as well as something Ms. Clinton had actually done herself in the past.

4. Donald Trump says outrageous things and means every single one of them, and has no concrete comprehensive policy ideas.
-- He uses truthful hyperbole, a literary device, to get people's attention. Let's also look back at when Ms. Clinton claimed to "land under fire" when in reality no such thing happened (and repeated that claim for decades until called out on it). This was another example of truthful hyperbole - she landed in an active conflict zone but not "under fire". Yet it's easier to say "under fire" than "I landed in an active conflict zone but not under direct combat". Likewise, it's easier to say "we're going to build a wall" than "We have a comprehensive national security and jobs plan that includes building a physical barrier to persons entering the country without the use of legitimate methods such as immigration checkpoints to protect our jobs and security"; it's easier to say "we will ban Muslims" (which he later clarified) than "We have a comprehensive national security plan that includes using religion and country of origin in combination to conduct a preliminary screen on entrants to our country to prevent radical Muslims from ISIS and other organizations from entering our country, without negatively affecting most well-meaning entrants."; and it's easier to say "we will do away with Obamacare" than "We have a comprehensive healthcare reform plan that includes the repeal and replacement of the Affordable Care Act with a plan that involves interstate plans which can be sold by companies across state lines with lower premiums and many plan types so that everyone can choose the plan that is right for them, while also doing away with certain requirements of the ACA that have increased premiums for everyone to pay for programs only some of the participants use, allowing people to choose plans with these programs if they want, but not being required to if they do not want."
-- See how much you wouldn't have liked to hear anyone sit there and tell you every part of their policy? It's your job (if you are one) as a voter to research the candidates policies yourself.


Basically, people who voted for Ms. Clinton seem to have underestimated the number of people in this country that vote based on true political issues facing our country, and not social issues. It's called politics for a reason, and politicians are not social justice warriors for a reason. Everyone who was surprised by the Trump win needs to look back at why they voted, did they vote because they support gay marriage, or did they vote because they want the US to become the world power it once was yet again? Personally, I voted for someone who I trusted to make America great again. Sure, I don't agree with everything he or Mike Pence support, but it's much more important to me that my children have the American Dream to look forward to than if I am able to get married to the man of my dreams in the short term. Social issues will resolve themselves eventually without electing someone who is politically inept (look at slavery, which was abolished with almost 100% republican and 0% democratic support, etc). It just happens that the GOP is slower to adopt social issues in their platform, instead leaving them ambiguous until a societal norm has been clearly established. I have no problem waiting for the GOP to adopt gay marriage, or abortion rights, etc, because I know it will happen eventually (and likely in the next 8 years). However, what I cannot wait for is the democratic party to adopt strong views towards national security, the military, immigration, etc., because I know it will not happen. The democratic party is more interested in social issues, which this election proves that the American voter is not more interested in than political issues. For this reason, I voted for Donald Trump, and I have absolutely no regrets.

Post scriptum: Please watch his entire victory speech, in which he both thanks Hillary for her decades of dedication to public service, and outlines how he will reach to all in congress and the country to make the transition and presidency as smooth as he can. He is being very respectable and modest about his victory, whereas Ms. Clinton chose to do something no candidate in recent history has done and privately call the victor then go to bed without making a public statement.

Post post scriptum: If you actually read this entire post, thank you. Hopefully it has opened your eyes as to how Trump won and why it's good.
I voted for Clinton, but you do make a reasonable point. May not agree with his rhetorical tactic, but his plan for the economy, healthcare, and national security may be what the country needs.
 
I have no idea whether the Trump's rhetoric pre-election results will continue or not (his victory speech was surprising to me and something I noticed two nights ago), but for now there is this:

https://medium.com/@seanokane/day-1-in-trumps-america-9e4d58381001#.9hb4iwti8
Thank you for sharing this. For people to say “oh Trump’s elected and nothing bad has happened yet” is completely inaccurate and so insensitive. Just because you yourself are not experiencing or witnessing the negative consequences, does not mean it isn’t happening. Some of the more overt racists (who happen to be Trump supporters) feel more empowered now and feel that they can do whatever they want. A lot of people are afraid, hate crimes are increasing, Muslims, Latinos, and other POC are being targeted. That unfortunately is one of the consequences of this election. I urge you to read the accounts of numerous hate crimes from people across the country after Election Day, posted on ShaunKing‘s twitter, it is so depressing. (Warning some of the language used is offensive, but a sad reality of what’s going on today).
 
Top