You are another culturally programmed millenial internet dude with this weird bitterness towards women. One female accuses a guy of mansplaining incorrectly and you come here to âdelightâ in her downfall. The culture is sick and it makes me sad.
My favorite part of this tweet storm was the guy linking a map to make it seem as if "the entire country voted Trump" once again proving conservatives have very little mental capacity.
I have no idea how people can conscionably talk down to anyone when they rely on video game analogies to communicate.
I say gas the animelovers, gamers, and furries before the boomers. At least retirees can do crosswords that don't come out of Nintendo Powers. I shudder to think of the NYT Sunday puzzles in 30 years that have themes like 2020s memes or Natuto characters.
It already feels wrong when they include words like âlitâ and âbaeâ. Iâm barely ok with the âX, in a textâ clue format. At least they call it âmodern lingoâ so you know itâs still written by out of touch older people who are adding those words for the Kids These DaysTM . The day Will Shortz retires and some millennial gets his job and starts earnestly including internet slang is the day I die from cringing too hard.
Makes as much sense as the losers that can't accept election results and try to whine about rules after the fact, the same rules that Obama played by and crushed the competition in previous two elections.
Ok, I will slow it down for you. The sour grapes of Hillary who is still pouting almost two years later and by her Stans is ridiculous. The election she cries about is under the same rules that Obama won twice with just prior to her general election.
Unfortunately, Hillary eventually had to run in a national election that didn't have the DNC in charge and managed to lose even with a massive m money advantage.
She lost in spectacular fashion and did it in the most ungraceful way possible of any losing presidential candidate in modern history.
The election has always been an electoral vote. She literally made comments about how it is dangerous to not accept elections and their validity and you still see almost two years later about how she is the real winner from mongoloids trying to claim how Trump didn't win fairly.
Obama managed to win twice and so did her husband. Her losing under the same rules is not some grave injustice but just a reflection that she is a loser.
I don't give a fuck about who is against the electoral election. She still ran under the same rules as her competition and lost. She needs to get the fuck over it. No one was cheated. She was not good enough.
I don't care about what that retard Trump said about the electoral college. That is completely irrelevant.
The worst part about you pizza is that your brain damage has given you completely unwarranted self confidence about your ability to communicate and argue.
I don't give a fuck about who is against the electoral election. She still ran under the same rules as her competition and lost. She needs to get the fuck over it. No one was cheated. She was not good enough.
TIL winning like 3-4 million votes and still losing is a "fair election."
TIL massive Russian influence campaigns, hacking of political parties by foreign powers in order to help one candidate is a "fair election."
TIL a house republican led crusade over Benghazi with the explicit intent to create nothingburger scandals in the upcoming presidential election is a "fair election."
TIL Republican elected officials leaking the Comey memo to cause damage to Clinton in the election is a "fair election."
I don't care about what that retard Trump said about the electoral college. That is completely irrelevant.
Of course it is, because it shows you to be misinformed.
The worst part about you pizza is that your brain damage has given you completely unwarranted self-confidence about your ability to communicate and argue.
The worst part about you is you're hilariously uneducated and are a walking dunning-kruger effect. You have piss poor reasoning ability which is why you often find yourself taking indefensible stances, my personal favorite being the time you tried to claim Wyoming was in the right for getting fucking 7x the per capita funding NYC did after 9/11.
You need to move to one of those countries with pure democracy before you have a heart attack. You are under the impression pure democracy is the only way to run a country and that isn't how it works.
Looks like you must hate Canada and UK too. I don't give a shit about your whining, there would be no America without Electoral College same your hatred of your family clouds your reasoning so badly that you get reduced to AngryDM ranting mixed in with massive block quotes from links that no one in their right mind wants to waste time reading on a Drama sub.
TIL wanting equal fucking representation in a democracy is unreasonable.
Funny how you just lost another argument to me and I wasn't even paying attention.
"muh fixed cost."
How in the fuck would there be "no American" if the electoral college didn't exist? Your argument doesn't even make a tiny bit of sense. You're just again, taking an indefensible position just because you want to argue.
It isn't anti democracy. Or just isn't the democracy you want. USA only formed because of Electoral College and having two houses of Congress. Smaller states would have never joined and it is that compromise that holds the country together so that minority interests aren't overlooked for pure mob rule.
Sorry that you hate republics so much. I guess Canada and UK and other countries literally don't have democracy either.
It isn't anti democracy. Or just isn't the democracy you want
TIL giving certain people 2-3x the power of other people is not anti-democracy.
SA only formed because of Electoral College and having two houses of Congress.
The fuck are you smoking dude. You can still have both the Senate and the house without the electoral college. This argument is bordering on complete lunacy. We don't even use the electoral college as intended anymore and we haven't in a long ass time.
The "founders" version of the electoral college was very different than ours. Not only that, but they had clearly intended the house to expand with population growth, evening out small/big state power, giving larger states a voice.
But we capped the house in the early 1900s, defeating the entire point. Either the electoral college needs to go, or the house needs to be expanded.
You can't have it both ways.
Smaller states would have never joined and it is that compromise that holds the country together so that minority interests aren't overlooked for pure mob rule.
Do you even know how the US government works? The Senate is there for small states. Here's a little history lesson for you. This was a hot topic during constitutional convention.
The population distribution of the states was out of whack. Some people wanted to give every state the same number of representatives. The obvious problem with this is that it would suppress the vast majority of the population.
The "compromise" was to have 2, the senate, and the house.
The problem with this is, you know, the compromise is meaningless if you cap the size of the house while leaving the Senate intact. Again, you can't have it both ways. So we're confronted with 3 options.
What? Absolutely false, because the reps are still divided up by population. The only stipulation is that a state has to have at least one rep in the House.
I am fully aware of what you are talking about.
The electoral college was used to the POTUS not completely ignore places like Rhode Island in favor of Virginia and offered up some semblance of balance.
Again, at what point are you going to fucking acknowledge the shit said to you. Do not realize other countries do the same fucking thing? Canada sure as fuck isn't a pure democracy either. Stop your ridiculous rage and pretending no election is fair just because you think you live in fucking Athens thousands of years ago. Democracy is still valid outside of literal pure democracy.
What? Absolutely false, because the reps are still divided up by population. The only stipulation is that a state has to have at least one rep in the House.
No it's not false. The house was intended to expand with population growth, that's literally the point of having 2 chambers.
The Senate - equal representation no matter what your population size is.
The house is meant for the large states. I literally linked you this. The founders seemed to have never imagined that rural retards would cap the house in an effort to seize more power.
But thatâs wrong: while the founders wanted to limit the size of the Senate, they intended the House to expand based on population growth. Instead of setting an absolute number, the Constitution merely limits the ratio of members to population. âThe number of representatives shall not exceed one for every 30,000,â the founders wrote. They were concerned, in other words, about having too many representatives, not too few.
When the House met in 1789 it had 65 members, one for every 60,000 inhabitants (including slaves as three-fifths of a person). For well over a century, after each census Congress would pass a law increasing the size of the House.
But after the 1910 census, when the House grew from 391 members to 433 (two more were added later when Arizona and New Mexico became states), the growth stopped. Thatâs because the 1920 census indicated that the majority of Americans were concentrating in cities, and nativists, worried about of the power of âforeigners,â blocked efforts to give them more representatives.
1
The electoral college was used to the POTUS not completely ignore places like Rhode Island in favor of Virginia and offered up some semblance of balance.
Again, do you just not understand how the electoral college works? States get votes based on senators/house members. The "house" was meant for the larger states. When we capped the size of the house, we tilted the entire government towards small states, including national elections due to how votes are given.
Again, at what point are you going to fucking acknowledge the shit said to you. Do not realize other countries do the same fucking thing? Canada sure as fuck isn't a pure democracy either. Stop your ridiculous rage and pretending no election is fair just because you think you live in fucking Athens thousands of years ago. Democracy is still valid outside of literal pure democracy.
This is actually wild. I've put you in the fucking dirt here. You didn't even know the intent of having a senate and a house. Stop embarrassing yourself.
There is no systemic bias towards small states in the House. The least represented state is Montana. California has exactly the number of reps youâd expect in a 435 person chamber. Whether you are more or less represented has to do with proximity to the cutoff for an extra rep. Small straws that make the cutoff are overrepresented. Small states that miss it are underrepresented. It doesnât affect big states as much because having or not having an extra rep doesnât make as big a difference when the population is larger.
Also the main aspect of the EC that causes it to differ from the popular vote is the winner take all format, disproportionate representation between states only caused a difference of 2-3 votes in the last election.
There is no systemic bias towards small states in the House.
And stopped reading, yes there is.
Because each state must have at least 1 rep, small states are over-represented in the house in relation to big states.
Also the main aspect of the EC that causes it to differ from the popular vote is the winner take all format, disproportionate representation between states only caused a difference of 2-3 votes in the last election.
Debatable. It'd be a decent amount of electoral votes.
Because each state must have at least 1 rep, small states are over-represented in the house in relation to big states.
As of the 2010 Census, there were two states (Vermont and Wyoming) with populations less than the average congressional district. Yes, if you compare to Wyoming the big states are underrepresented. If you compare to Montana, they are overrepresented.
Sort the table in the link below by congressional district size. The most over and under represented states are small states, and the big states tend to fall in the middle. Going off the 2010 numbers, California actually has a smaller people per district number than the national average. There isn't a systemic bias in favor of small states, they're either advantaged or disadvantaged based on how close they are to having or not having an extra rep.
Copying and pasting from a comment I made in /r/politicaldiscussion recently. Feel free to double-check but either way it's not debatable, it's math. I didn't bother checking prior elections, but at least in 2016 an Electoral College with perfectly proportional representation between the states would not have differed significantly.
The primary reason for the EC differing isn't disproportionate representation, it's the fact that it's winner take all in each state (with small exceptions for Nebraska and Maine CDs) regardless of whether you win by 50% or 0.1%. If every state had perfectly proportionate representation - to the point of having 1 electoral vote for every person who lived there as of the 2010 Census - Trump still would have won, with about 174 million electoral votes to 135 million for Clinton (I didn't bother adjusting for Maine's 2nd CD). If you do the math, it works out to him getting 56.3% of electoral votes. In real life, excluding faithless electors Trump got 306 out of 538 - 56.9%. So disproportionate representation caused a difference of 0.6%, which is equivalent to Trump getting 3 fewer electoral votes. Under the popular vote, and excluding 3rd party candidates, Trump would have gotten about 263 electoral votes, or more than 40 fewer. As you can see, the impact of disproportionate representation is much less significant than the winner-take-all allocation - though it should be pointed out that it still may have been enough to swing the 2000 election (I didn't bother crunching numbers, but Bush won with 271 electoral votes, so even a change of 3 each way would have swung it, and 2 would have sent it to the House).
Also, I didn't justify anything, I don't even support the electoral college. Pointing out inaccuracies in your argument is not the same thing as justifying what you're arguing against.
As of the 2010 Census, there were two states (Vermont and Wyoming) with populations less than the average congressional district. Yes, if you compare to Wyoming the big states are underrepresented. If you compare to Montana, they are overrepresented.
The senate might be a bigger problem, the issue might not so much be over-representation in the house as it is we capped the house making the Senate advantage for potent.
If we view the âSenate bumpâ in the Electoral College as undesirable, nothing short of a constitutional amendment can completely remove it. A dramatic increase in the size of the House of Representatives, which is within the power of Congress, could have almost the same effect, in that the value of the extra two votes would be minimized, if there were, say, 870 members of the House of Representatives rather than 435. However, a much larger House of Representatives does seem to be an item on anyoneâs political agenda.
Also, I didn't justify anything, I don't even support the electoral college. Pointing out inaccuracies in your argument is not the same thing as justifying what you're arguing against.
I'm not really talking about last election tbh. Even if we had a bigger house, last election would have probably been lost even with a bigger house, but it wouldn't be as close.
I'm trying to find an article I read a while back that did the math in relation to the electoral college and the house which had the exact numbers for how far the election would have swung. I recall it being at least 30 electoral votes. Though, I don't remember the house numbers he used.
I literally gave you the actual numbers if there was perfectly proportional representation. If there was 1 electoral vote for every person in each state, Trump would have carried 56.3% of electoral votes if you don't account for Maine's 2nd CD, and 56.5% if you do. That comes out to 303 or 304 electoral votes. In real life, he won 306 not counting faithless electors (56.9% of the total).
You can download a file at the link below and verify the numbers for yourself.
This specific point doesn't need to be correct in order to argue that the electoral college is bad, or that the House is too small, or that rural states/areas are overrepresented in general. The main issue with the EC's divergence from popular vote is that winning a state by 1 vote or 4 million is treated the same, so you get 100% of its electoral votes whether the state actually loves you unanimously or if its bitterly divided and you barely managed to get a plurality of support.
I literally gave you the actual numbers if there was perfectly proportional representation. If there was 1 electoral vote for every person in each state,
I'm not saying popular vote. I'm saying more house members, giving big states more total electoral votes.
Your numbers seem off, for example if we had something like 600 house members the bigger states would gain more electoral college power.
If we had something like 860, the bigger states would have even more power in the electoral college.
When you increase the size of the house, you're giving states like new york and California more electors. You're increasing their electoral value.
This specific point doesn't need to be correct in order to argue that the electoral college is bad, or that the House is too small, or that rural states/areas are overrepresented in general. The main issue with the EC's divergence from popular vote is that winning a state by 1 vote or 4 million is treated the same, so you get 100% of its electoral votes whether the state actually loves you unanimously or if its bitterly divided and you barely managed to get a plurality of support.
"winner takes all" is another problem, yes. But I don't think winner takes all is going anywhere, so the next best thing is to simply increase the size of the house so the "senate bump" is reduced.
I wasn't using the popular vote, I was using the electoral college format (winner take all, aside from small exceptions for Maine and Nebraska CDs) where the # of electoral votes is equal to total state population, which is the scenario of perfectly proportional representation.
I literally linked you the data source. It really doesn't take that long to sort it in Excel based on the 2016 election results and create a couple formulas. I did it in less than 5 minutes. You can verify the numbers for yourself.
Gain since the impact of the Senate votes would decrease.
If you increased it sufficiently you would also do away with the effects of unequal House representation, which as I showed previously affects some small states positively and others negatively. Simply getting rid of the Senate votes in the EC totals wouldn't produce completely proportionate representation because the House is not entirely equally represented, which is why I based my numbers on total state population, because that represents the perfectly proportionate scenario.
I really don't know what you're arguing at this point or why. I gave you direct access to the data source to confirm or disprove my argument that disproportionate representation in the electoral college had a small impact on the outcome compared to winner take all.
I'm not saying that increasing the size of the house wouldn't increase the representation of big states, I'm saying that the net effect of representation in the EC as is compared to a perfectly proportionate scenario under the same rules is not very big. I gave you the data necessary to confirm or deny that hypothesis.
M8, my argument is the electoral college isn't fair because small states, due to the senate and other factors have disproportionate power in the college.
You're correct that small states get overrepresented in the EC due to the senate votes. If you're arguing that this overrepresentation is the primary reason the electoral college differs from the popular vote, that's empirically incorrect.
Whether something is fair or bad is obviously more subjective, but that isn't primary objection to the EC. My main two objections are 1) the nature of the EC means that swing states get extremely disproportionate focus in elections and politics than states firmly in one camp or the other, and your vote doesn't really matter if you aren't in a competitive state 2) As I mentioned above, the EC does a very poor job of representing states' opinions because it is winner take all, which means a state that's nearly 50/50 has the same result as if it were 90/10, which obviously doesn't accurately reflect the populace.
You're correct that small states get overrepresented in the EC due to the senate votes. If you're arguing that this overrepresentation is the primary reason the electoral college differs from the popular vote, that's empirically incorrect.
It's not empirically incorrect though. If you reduce the electoral power of large states and increase it for small states, it makes sense that the electoral college would be out of whack with the popular vote.
There's a reason these electoral college/popular vote wins are increasingly likely today.
It's going to keep getting worse as large states continue to grow in population and small states remain the same.
That's not primarily from disproportionate representation, again it's from the winner take all format. With winner take all, it doesn't matter how narrowly you win your states, or how much you lose the states you lose, all that matters is that you win states that have 270 electoral votes. Trump won by narrowly winning the decisive states (about 1% margin or less in Florida, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin). As I've established, the states he won have 40 million more people in them than the states he lost, so the decisive factor isn't that his states got disproportionate representation, it's that Hillary won her states by more than Trump won his, but it doesn't matter because the format is winner take all.
Possible but astronomically low odds. Heâll theoretically you could win with almost 0% of the vote (even excluding faithless electors). In practice thatâs not how it works. But again that scenario is only possible through winner take all allocation.
Iâve provided you with the numbers for the latest election and it probably wouldnât be that much work to crunch them for prior elections. Disproportionate representation might be able to wing an election like 2000 where Bush barely cleared 270 but doesnât come close to being decisive in an election like trumps where he won over 300.
I'm not against the electoral college because of 2016. Most Americans have been against it since the 40s. I already said I doubt a bigger house would have changed 2016.
I didnât say you were, Iâm just using 2016 because itâs the most recent election, the one I crunched numbers on and the biggest example of popular-electoral divergence in recent history this the most relevant.
Does that matter? It's a provision in there by design, explicitly anti democratic, just because it hasn't been used to it's full effect doesn't make it democratic
That is because states are responsible for their own elections. Has there even been an actual instance of this being an issue in the entire history of the country?
Does that matter? It's a provision in there by design, explicitly anti democratic, just because it hasn't been used to it's full effect doesn't make it democratic
Department of Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge said this week that he, too, believes New York City and other high-risk cities should receive a bigger slice of federal anti-terrorism funds.
Ridge has told lawmakers the Bush administration is working on an updated formula "that better takes into account threats, population density and the presence of critical infrastructure."
Later grants have gone specifically to areas deemed more vulnerable to terrorist attack. The department has sent $800 million to densely populated urban areas with ports, mass transit and other critical transportation, communication and commercial installations.
The idea "fixed" cost is a valid counter-argument to anything I've ever said on this subject is just not factually correct.
I just never went into it because it was a waste of time, and I didn't think you actually thought "fixed costs" was relevant to anti-terrorism funding.
There's nothing you can say to wreck me because the department of homeland security already said you're wrong and the formula was changed.
If the department of homeland security says you're wrong, what makes you think you have the authority to ever argue with them on this subject, considering they're the people, you know, in charge of defending the country from terrorist attacks.
Who the fuck said I was defending Trump? I was referencing the election and prior elections. Holy shit, stop being so lazy and worthless. At no point was I ever talking about illegals.
Not mourning at all. Just observing a sad person. I am just glad you haven't pulled the trigger yet so we can still laugh at you.
The shit you get obsessed over is trannies, incels, and you being a hardcore resist lib obsessed with Drumpf.
I just put two and two together and call a spade a spade.
When was the last time you had an actual relationship, Ed? With someone right in front of you. Talking to people from other parts of the world like a fucking weirdo doesn't count.
Senator-elect Hillary Rodham Clinton began a victory tour of upstate New York Friday by calling for elimination of the Electoral College....At the moment, Americans are waiting to see who wins Florida's 25 electoral votes and thus becomes the next president. Vice President Al Gore leads Republican George W. Bush in the popular vote nationwide.
Got anything that shows she was publicly against the electoral college before it was in her party's interest?
Wut. The only ones still bemoaning about Hillary 2 years after the election are Trump & his acolytes. He was literally tweeting about 'Crooked Hillary' untill early 2018. You're being willfully blind if you refuse to see that.
Or maybe you just lack self awareness, because two out three paragraphs of your post above boil down to you making it abundently clear to everybody else how much Hilldawg still lives rent-free in your head.
Dude, she is literally tweeting EnoughTrumpSpam memes in 2018 and if you spend any time in SRD or Politics or any number of places it is filled with Hillary Stans that rage about Trump and Bernie to this day.
People who laugh at salty people. I have seen nothing like her in terms of watching a nominee not being able to let a loss go going back decades. I am also not convinced she won't involve herself in future campaigns in some form.
I don't doubt for a second that Trump would have been a sideshow as a loser but that is just speculation on my end. Maybe he outdoes her in terms of sore loser in 2020.
A rural vote is worth more than an urban vote because winning 1000 rural votes costs more than winning 1000 urban votes. By a lot. In a system that's 100% decided by popular vote, rural people wouldn't be worth enough points to justify spending any campaign money on. Rural areas perform vital functions like supplying food and raw materials. They deserve consideration, especially since they have fundamentally different needs that may go unmet if catering to them is always a suboptimal strategy.
I keep seeing this absurd argument repeated and it doesn't stand up to even 5 minutes of research. The electoral college causes every state in the country to be ignored outside of a few swing states.
Those dots would be clustered in a much smaller area though. Some of those states have multipliers to their popular votes that make them viable places to spend money.
Fam, nearly every state in the country is ignored. Not only that, but the winner take all electoral college suppresses millions of rural people as well.
You understand millions of rural people live in California, right?
I'm dead serious when I say every argument made in favor of the electoral college makes no sense. Every problem they claim removing it would cause is more true of the electoral college.
No, removing the electoral college would exacerbate the existing inequalities that the electoral college was implemented to ease. Instead of the geographically- and culturally-diverse smattering of dots in the graph above you'd have a hyper-concentrated map of the top 10 most populated municipalities in the US and nothing else.
Your arguments make no sense. the idea only 4 states mattering every election is somehow a good thing is absurd.
Not only is the electoral college proven to suppress voter turnout, it robs millions of Americans of their vote.
When you find yourself trying to argue against democracy and make it seem as if one group deserves 3x the political power as another group, you need to take a step back and ask yourself why that is.
I'm not arguing that 4 states mattering is a good thing, I'm saying that the problem will be worse if we switch to a popular vote system because the campaign spending will be even more densely-concentrated than it is now.
I think they are saying the Armenian genocide was a literal holocaust. Holocausts are bullshit anyway, I mean if it was really that bad how are all your fucking descendents still everywhere whinging about it?
The problem with Obama wasnt that he was too dignified it was that he was overly diplomatic he avoided ever saying anything that could be remotely considered an insult of the right not like it stopped them from going insane and raving about him being a secret african.
Worse than that, Americans like a President who won't pull punches all the time. Obama came across as being too soft on everybody and too restrained. People like having a "cowboy" in the office. "We want dignity" is something people only say when they get one.
TBF The bible belt probably hated him more for being christian like because it caused cognitive dissonance in their happy view of liberals as all godless heathens.
What do you mean "christian acting"? Obama bombed Libya, gave weapons to Syrian rebels who kill christians, was the first us president to endorse LGBT rights and was a strong advocate for abortion.
None of that sounds Christian to me. The last Christian president we had was probably Jimmy Carter.
Yeah. "Christian" doesn't really mean "acting like Jesus did", and it hasn't meant that for the last few thousand years. Christianity is a set of shared traditions between many different groups.
Bit of both to be honest. I don't want to start serious posting but he was certainly mire willing to attack the population on the right and their beliefs than many of the modern presidents before him who stuck to attacking other politicians.
Name one single example of Obama denigrating the Republican base. Even when those racist fuckers were claiming he was a muslim plant from Kenya, he still maintained the high road.
I mean do you actually want me to? I'll dig up a few if you're actually interested in talking about it because I'm bored. But since no one else is still in this old thread the potential for drama is almost nil and I don't actually have a horse in this political race so there is no win for me.
But like I said, if you actually want to shoot the shit about it, I'll dig you up a few decent examples.
Bro we agree that they're milquetoast and boring, that was my whole point.
Anyway there was the time he referred to Republican voters as enemies to be punished when addressing Hispanic voters. He later walked it back.
Of course there was the comment about rust belters bitterly clinging to guns and God while blaming immigrants for their own failures.
The swamp of crazy comment about people on the right and how it led to Trump.
Some religious types were deeply offended by his constant use of the "wrong side of history" stuff especially in the context of what he said about Catholic education in the UK
People on the right also got pissy about his comments concerning their failure to pay their fair share and the time he insisted that business owners werent responsible for their own success
Obama is not the first president to refer to the opposing party in adversarial terms. Not by a long shot.
If you actually listened to the full quote by Obama, what he actually said is that previous administrations have ignored and failed to address the rural midwest's concerns, which leads to them feeling ignored and becoming bitter. Which is an objectively true statement. Not to mention that it's not exactly that far off from say Reagan's diatribes about "welfare queen's" or even Kennedy contrasting the patriot who asks what can he can do for his country with the man who holds his hand out and asks what the country can do for him.
I'm not saying Obama hasn't said bad things about Republicans. I'm merely pointing out that all politicians at some point have to point out that their opponents are wrong. It's especially odd when Republicans try to tar Obama with that brush considering that calling democrats godless heathens is pretty much their bread and butter.
They have families, but they tend to talk about how much they hate them for having different views. Plus, demographically, they're less likely to be in successful relationships. They're younger, poorer, and gayer (less likely to start families). Even those who stay liberal as they age are more likely to have either no children or a smaller number of children. http://www.reddit.com/r/Drama/comments/8tlkq2/start_hoarding_the_lipstick_klonopin_and/e18snc4
You are r/dramas Mary Matalin of hot take political analysis
I am very confused right now. I'm getting downvotes on Reddit for saying Obama wasn't a little bitch. Is this a Daddy Defense Force social experiment or something?
Iâm not educated on American politics, but I donât get the big deal of that article. Shock horror, a president is tougher and less friendly in a professional context away from the public.
"The big deal" is that you can only say he was "diplomatic" if you actually ignore what he did while he was in office, the way a lot of those who say he had a "scandal-free presidency" have to ignore such things as Benghazi and Fast-and-Furious.
Wasnât the whole Benghazi situation totally unpredictable despite how some Daddy-lovers insist on blaming Hillary? I donât even know what you mean by fast and furious.
Wasnât the whole Benghazi situation totally unpredictable despite how some Daddy-lovers insist on blaming Hillary?
The whole thing was a cluster-fuck and I think they could have honestly made the case that no one was really to blame if they had wanted to do so. Unfortunately, instead of doing that, they lied to the public and said that the terrorists who killed a few Americans were "protesters" who were mad about some YouTube video.
Fast-and-Furious was a DoJ sting operation that sold guns to Mexican cartels. It was a complete failure because they couldn't track the guns after they sold them, which was kind of the whole point of the exercise. Basically, the DoJ armed Mexico's cartels and had nothing of value to show for it.
Fast-and-Furious was a DoJ sting operation that sold guns to Mexican cartels. It was a complete failure because they couldn't track the guns after they sold them, which was kind of the whole point of the exercise. Basically, the DoJ armed Mexico's cartels and had nothing of value to show for it.
The first known ATF "gunwalking" operation to Mexican drug cartels, named Operation Wide Receiver, began in early 2006 and ran into late 2007. Licensed dealer Mike Detty of Mad Dawg Global informed the ATF of a suspicious gun purchase that took place in February 2006 in Tucson, Arizona. In March he was hired as a confidential informant working with the ATF's Tucson office, part of their Phoenix, Arizona field division.[31]
With the use of surveillance equipment, ATF agents monitored additional sales by Detty to straw purchasers. With assurance from ATF "that Mexican officials would be conducting surveillance or interdictions when guns got to the other side of the border",[12] Detty would sell a total of about 450 guns during the operation.[30] These included AR-15s, semi-automatic AK-pattern rifles, and Colt .38s. The majority of the guns were eventually lost as they moved into Mexico.[6][31][32][33]
Yeah looks like they were doing a great đ job tracking those guns in 2007
Stop being so invested in this tribal bullshit. It was a dumb program when it started in 2006 with the first operation resulting in the majority of the 450 âmonitoredâ guns ending up missing in Mexico, and you can argue it was even dumber to continue the program in 2009 with an even larger scale operation that had the same end results.
Lmao You're so great at quoting Wikipedia you have such knowlege of this,
continue the program in 2009
You really are such a idiot you don't know what program is, impressive.
It's totally the same program what with those guns being used in terrorist attacks in Paris and killing Americans.
No wonder you're such a retard you can't even click wikipedia links to find out "the guns that were eventually lost as they moved into Mexico" are talking about the Obama era ones
Because you know
There's the entire reason they got lost and Bush's didn't?
Such you are so informed I'm sure you know what technical foulup caused it lol
Jesus youâre so invested in this itâs pathetic. I can make up shit without providing any sources to, but I certainly canât match your level of autistic sperglord faggotry.
I find arguments about semantics boring so if youâre not going to link to a credible source for your tabloid caliber accusations or are planing on linking to some boomer tier trash site for literal retards like obamadidthingsillegally.biz or consevathotthreehouse.brainlet Iâm not really interested tbhqhwy.
Wasnât the whole Benghazi situation totally unpredictable despite how some Daddy-lovers insist on blaming Hillary?
Naw it wasn't unpredictable because at the time they said it was caused by a Youtube video that a man was arrested over when we now know they knew at the time that wasn't true
Fast and Furious
Where one of the guns in the November 13, 2015 Paris terrorist attacks came from
train syrians to fight their government accidentally starting up another Islamic State
that fucking feeling when the people you've been funding terrorisms to blow up your own embassy because nobody knows what the fuck their doing, justifying your invasions of Syria and Libya to cause more ruckus
Now we got the largest human rights crisis in the world and they're shipping people to italy in death boats because America decided to dick around.
The problem with Obama wasnt that he was too dignified it was that he was overly diplomatic he avoided ever saying anything that could be remotely considered an insult of the right.
Didnt stop them from going insane but didnt make good drama because he never brought his bants.
Yeah, they hated from the start because he was black. He should've gone all in after the 2012 election.
Idk. I don't really pay attention to be honest. It's not like I browse reddit for pictures of daddy in a speedo to jerk off to, unlike some faggots around here.
"I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that's a storybook, man."
No, it's not. The rules weren't even changed until after Clinton left office, something even watchdog groups admitted:
Addressing the Federal Records Act, NPR's Scott Horsley reported last month on the question of whether Clinton's exclusive reliance on a private email account violated it. Here's some of what he reported:
"A State Department spokeswoman says Hillary Clinton did not break any rules by relying solely on her personal email account. Federal law allows government officials to use personal email so long as relevant documents are preserved for history."
The law was amended in late 2014 to require that personal emails be transferred to government servers within 20 days. But that was after Clinton left office. Watchdog groups conceded that she may not have violated the text of the law, but they argue she violated the spirit of it. The Sunlight Foundation's John Wonderlich explained to Horsley:
"[O]ur expectations for public service are [that] public servants use their official email accounts."
First of all, the State Departmentâs policy as of 2005 (Clinton joined in 2009) is that all day-to-day operations are to be conducted on the official State Department information channel. Clinton never once used this State Department email system.
And if an employee needs to use a personal email for conducting official business, he or she has an "obligation" to consult with the chief information officer and the assistant secretary for diplomatic security. However, Clinton did neither.
I disagree with everything that doesn't clearly point out that the law was changed after Hillary Clinton left office, because it being changes is an objective fact.
Even more fatal to your own argument is:
Removing, concealing, or destroying federal records, regardless of whether they are classified, can constitute a federal felony. But again, courts have generally required prosecutors pursuing this charge to prove that defendants knew they were violating the law, for which the evidence against Clinton appears to be lacking.
This is the problem with people that like don't understand how this shit works. If you're curious as to how it does in fact work:
I remember that night. We baked chocolate chip cookies (a la Hilldog). We made Jeb's guac recipe. We had a taco bowls in honor of how much Trump "loved the hispanics"
My partner at the time turned to me and said "I swear to god, if you say the name 'Bernie' to me, I will never talk to you again."
231 comments
1 SnapshillBot 2018-07-08
You are another culturally programmed millenial internet dude with this weird bitterness towards women. One female accuses a guy of mansplaining incorrectly and you come here to âdelightâ in her downfall. The culture is sick and it makes me sad.
Snapshots:
I am a bot. (Info / Contact)
1 SecretDragoon 2018-07-08
Best tweet by the god emperor mustard man.
1 DeathByDragonDildo 2018-07-08
LMFAO Gunk Yoghurt on suicide watch.
1 redditisgay6969 2018-07-08
/u/pizzashill sup faggot?
1 pizzashill 2018-07-08
My favorite part of this tweet storm was the guy linking a map to make it seem as if "the entire country voted Trump" once again proving conservatives have very little mental capacity.
1 redditisgay6969 2018-07-08
there we go!
1 Bustwe 2018-07-08
Wow, see pizzashill, you do have something in common with conservatives!
1 pizzashill 2018-07-08
1 Bustwe 2018-07-08
At least I can stay away from Reddit for a month, Jesus Christ just look at your comment history.
1 pizzashill 2018-07-08
Is that the defense you want to go with?
1 Bustwe 2018-07-08
Actually let me do one better, what's wrong with liking a Twitch streamer? Do you not have any hobbies yourself?
1 pizzashill 2018-07-08
Nigga just told me I have no life, claimed I was stupid, and then admitted to following Forsen on Twitch, while then claiming that was a hobby.
Can not make this shit up.
1 Bustwe 2018-07-08
You didn't answer the question.
1 pizzashill 2018-07-08
What is there to answer?
1 Bustwe 2018-07-08
Why do people get mad at you? Your bants and bait are terrible.
1 pizzashill 2018-07-08
Forsen.
1 lifesbrink 2018-07-08
Did you get dropped on your head as a baby?
1 im-a-koala 2018-07-08
/u/Ed_ButteredToast where's that laughing cat cartoon? Pizza needs it.
1 Ed_ButteredToast 2018-07-08
https://i.imgur.com/aks7kxV.png
1 im-a-koala 2018-07-08
Ah, thanks.
/u/Bustwe: https://i.imgur.com/aks7kxV.png
1 ComedicSans 2018-07-08
I love you the way you don't like women.
1 Ed_ButteredToast 2018-07-08
said the retard, unironically
đđđđđđđđ
1 Bustwe 2018-07-08
Your name is based off a literal retard
đ¤đ¤đ¤
I still love your shitposting ed
1 Ed_ButteredToast 2018-07-08
You're trying too hard here. Twitch fags and vloggers are the worst type of online video cancer.
1 westofthetracks 2018-07-08
if you dont know the answer to this one youre too far gone already fam
1 Singulaire 2018-07-08
Does a World of Warcraft addiction count as a hobby?
1 froibo 2018-07-08
Lol nerd
1 imissyouseattle 2018-07-08
This is why we love him. He's got heart
1 Matues49 2018-07-08
epic burn XDDDD
1 allendrio 2018-07-08
Daddy literally had printouts of that map that he handed to visitors so he could brag about the election
https://edition.cnn.com/2017/04/28/politics/trump-brought-printed-map-handouts-cnntv/index.html
Highschool entry level statistics sure is hard for boomers.
1 pizzashill 2018-07-08
I mean, I'm starting to suspect they like willfully just don't want to learn anything because I've seen them throw this map out a lot.
1 allendrio 2018-07-08
Just saw a boomer talk about the costs of the paris accord across an argument where every reply explained to him how it cost nothing.
Boomerology a special skill they can invoke to ignore reality at the cost of WIS & INT and no skill cooldown.
1 tyuijvhvhcfcjf 2018-07-08
I have no idea how people can conscionably talk down to anyone when they rely on video game analogies to communicate.
I say gas the animelovers, gamers, and furries before the boomers. At least retirees can do crosswords that don't come out of Nintendo Powers. I shudder to think of the NYT Sunday puzzles in 30 years that have themes like 2020s memes or Natuto characters.
1 allendrio 2018-07-08
Just say mayocide its much shorter.
1 Elite_AI 2018-07-08
You fucking what
1 colonel-o-popcorn 2018-07-08
It already feels wrong when they include words like âlitâ and âbaeâ. Iâm barely ok with the âX, in a textâ clue format. At least they call it âmodern lingoâ so you know itâs still written by out of touch older people who are adding those words for the Kids These DaysTM . The day Will Shortz retires and some millennial gets his job and starts earnestly including internet slang is the day I die from cringing too hard.
1 tyuijvhvhcfcjf 2018-07-08
Honest to god, 'Dank Memes' was at the bottom of the puzzle the other day. Check 2018.07.07. Pretty soon we'll have famous usernames in there someday.
1 colonel-o-popcorn 2018-07-08
Fuck you werenât kidding
âInternet in-jokes that have gone viral, in modern lingoâ
I normally do it daily but I skipped this weekend because I was traveling. Iâm rather glad I did now.
1 dogDroolsCatsRules 2018-07-08
It's table board terms, you nerd.
1 nanonan 2018-07-08
If you think it cost nothing you are a dupe.
1 CirqueDuFuder 2018-07-08
Makes as much sense as the losers that can't accept election results and try to whine about rules after the fact, the same rules that Obama played by and crushed the competition in previous two elections.
1 pizzashill 2018-07-08
Obama won both the electoral college and the popular vote, actually.
1 CirqueDuFuder 2018-07-08
Are you retarded, you didn't dispute what I said about Obama.
1 pizzashill 2018-07-08
Obama didn't simply play by the same rules. He won both, Trump won one.
Why should a rural person's vote be worth 2x as much?
1 CirqueDuFuder 2018-07-08
Ok, I will slow it down for you. The sour grapes of Hillary who is still pouting almost two years later and by her Stans is ridiculous. The election she cries about is under the same rules that Obama won twice with just prior to her general election.
Unfortunately, Hillary eventually had to run in a national election that didn't have the DNC in charge and managed to lose even with a massive m money advantage.
She lost in spectacular fashion and did it in the most ungraceful way possible of any losing presidential candidate in modern history.
1 pizzashill 2018-07-08
There was nothing to cry about when Obama won because he won both the popular vote and the electoral college.
Should I slow this down a bit more for you?
1 CirqueDuFuder 2018-07-08
The election has always been an electoral vote. She literally made comments about how it is dangerous to not accept elections and their validity and you still see almost two years later about how she is the real winner from mongoloids trying to claim how Trump didn't win fairly.
Obama managed to win twice and so did her husband. Her losing under the same rules is not some grave injustice but just a reflection that she is a loser.
1 pizzashill 2018-07-08
Ok, so I'm going to copy paste my comment again and hold you to this to prove my point you're a profoundly ignorant and low-information person.
1 imguralbumbot 2018-07-08
Hi, I'm a bot for linking direct images of albums with only 1 image
https://i.imgur.com/UVlEPyW.jpg
Source | Why? | Creator | ignoreme | deletthis
1 CirqueDuFuder 2018-07-08
I don't give a fuck about who is against the electoral election. She still ran under the same rules as her competition and lost. She needs to get the fuck over it. No one was cheated. She was not good enough.
I don't care about what that retard Trump said about the electoral college. That is completely irrelevant.
The worst part about you pizza is that your brain damage has given you completely unwarranted self confidence about your ability to communicate and argue.
1 pizzashill 2018-07-08
TIL winning like 3-4 million votes and still losing is a "fair election."
TIL massive Russian influence campaigns, hacking of political parties by foreign powers in order to help one candidate is a "fair election."
TIL a house republican led crusade over Benghazi with the explicit intent to create nothingburger scandals in the upcoming presidential election is a "fair election."
TIL Republican elected officials leaking the Comey memo to cause damage to Clinton in the election is a "fair election."
Of course it is, because it shows you to be misinformed.
The worst part about you is you're hilariously uneducated and are a walking dunning-kruger effect. You have piss poor reasoning ability which is why you often find yourself taking indefensible stances, my personal favorite being the time you tried to claim Wyoming was in the right for getting fucking 7x the per capita funding NYC did after 9/11.
1 CirqueDuFuder 2018-07-08
You need to move to one of those countries with pure democracy before you have a heart attack. You are under the impression pure democracy is the only way to run a country and that isn't how it works.
1 pizzashill 2018-07-08
TIL wanting equal representation in a democracy is unreasonable.
TIL wanting equal representation in a democracy is unreasonable.
[citation needed]
You know the department of homeland security and lawmakers both disagree with you right, which is why later grants primarily went to the cities?
You're just repeating subs "fixed cost" argument, one with no basis in the facts.
1 CirqueDuFuder 2018-07-08
Looks like you must hate Canada and UK too. I don't give a shit about your whining, there would be no America without Electoral College same your hatred of your family clouds your reasoning so badly that you get reduced to AngryDM ranting mixed in with massive block quotes from links that no one in their right mind wants to waste time reading on a Drama sub.
1 pizzashill 2018-07-08
TIL wanting equal fucking representation in a democracy is unreasonable.
Funny how you just lost another argument to me and I wasn't even paying attention.
"muh fixed cost."
How in the fuck would there be "no American" if the electoral college didn't exist? Your argument doesn't even make a tiny bit of sense. You're just again, taking an indefensible position just because you want to argue.
1 CirqueDuFuder 2018-07-08
It isn't anti democracy. Or just isn't the democracy you want. USA only formed because of Electoral College and having two houses of Congress. Smaller states would have never joined and it is that compromise that holds the country together so that minority interests aren't overlooked for pure mob rule.
Sorry that you hate republics so much. I guess Canada and UK and other countries literally don't have democracy either.
1 pizzashill 2018-07-08
TIL giving certain people 2-3x the power of other people is not anti-democracy.
The fuck are you smoking dude. You can still have both the Senate and the house without the electoral college. This argument is bordering on complete lunacy. We don't even use the electoral college as intended anymore and we haven't in a long ass time.
The "founders" version of the electoral college was very different than ours. Not only that, but they had clearly intended the house to expand with population growth, evening out small/big state power, giving larger states a voice.
But we capped the house in the early 1900s, defeating the entire point. Either the electoral college needs to go, or the house needs to be expanded.
You can't have it both ways.
Do you even know how the US government works? The Senate is there for small states. Here's a little history lesson for you. This was a hot topic during constitutional convention.
The population distribution of the states was out of whack. Some people wanted to give every state the same number of representatives. The obvious problem with this is that it would suppress the vast majority of the population.
The "compromise" was to have 2, the senate, and the house.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connecticut_Compromise
The problem with this is, you know, the compromise is meaningless if you cap the size of the house while leaving the Senate intact. Again, you can't have it both ways. So we're confronted with 3 options.
1 CirqueDuFuder 2018-07-08
What? Absolutely false, because the reps are still divided up by population. The only stipulation is that a state has to have at least one rep in the House.
I am fully aware of what you are talking about.
The electoral college was used to the POTUS not completely ignore places like Rhode Island in favor of Virginia and offered up some semblance of balance.
Again, at what point are you going to fucking acknowledge the shit said to you. Do not realize other countries do the same fucking thing? Canada sure as fuck isn't a pure democracy either. Stop your ridiculous rage and pretending no election is fair just because you think you live in fucking Athens thousands of years ago. Democracy is still valid outside of literal pure democracy.
1 pizzashill 2018-07-08
No it's not false. The house was intended to expand with population growth, that's literally the point of having 2 chambers.
The Senate - equal representation no matter what your population size is.
The house is meant for the large states. I literally linked you this. The founders seemed to have never imagined that rural retards would cap the house in an effort to seize more power.
1
Again, do you just not understand how the electoral college works? States get votes based on senators/house members. The "house" was meant for the larger states. When we capped the size of the house, we tilted the entire government towards small states, including national elections due to how votes are given.
This is actually wild. I've put you in the fucking dirt here. You didn't even know the intent of having a senate and a house. Stop embarrassing yourself.
1 walkthisway34 2018-07-08
There is no systemic bias towards small states in the House. The least represented state is Montana. California has exactly the number of reps youâd expect in a 435 person chamber. Whether you are more or less represented has to do with proximity to the cutoff for an extra rep. Small straws that make the cutoff are overrepresented. Small states that miss it are underrepresented. It doesnât affect big states as much because having or not having an extra rep doesnât make as big a difference when the population is larger.
Also the main aspect of the EC that causes it to differ from the popular vote is the winner take all format, disproportionate representation between states only caused a difference of 2-3 votes in the last election.
1 pizzashill 2018-07-08
And stopped reading, yes there is.
Because each state must have at least 1 rep, small states are over-represented in the house in relation to big states.
Debatable. It'd be a decent amount of electoral votes.
1 walkthisway34 2018-07-08
As of the 2010 Census, there were two states (Vermont and Wyoming) with populations less than the average congressional district. Yes, if you compare to Wyoming the big states are underrepresented. If you compare to Montana, they are overrepresented.
Sort the table in the link below by congressional district size. The most over and under represented states are small states, and the big states tend to fall in the middle. Going off the 2010 numbers, California actually has a smaller people per district number than the national average. There isn't a systemic bias in favor of small states, they're either advantaged or disadvantaged based on how close they are to having or not having an extra rep.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_population
Copying and pasting from a comment I made in /r/politicaldiscussion recently. Feel free to double-check but either way it's not debatable, it's math. I didn't bother checking prior elections, but at least in 2016 an Electoral College with perfectly proportional representation between the states would not have differed significantly.
Also, I didn't justify anything, I don't even support the electoral college. Pointing out inaccuracies in your argument is not the same thing as justifying what you're arguing against.
1 pizzashill 2018-07-08
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/21/upshot/as-american-as-apple-pie-the-rural-votes-disproportionate-slice-of-power.html
It's many things dude.
The senate might be a bigger problem, the issue might not so much be over-representation in the house as it is we capped the house making the Senate advantage for potent.
https://law.marquette.edu/facultyblog/2010/03/08/how-much-difference-does-the-small-state-advantage-in-the-electoral-college-really-make/
I'm not really talking about last election tbh. Even if we had a bigger house, last election would have probably been lost even with a bigger house, but it wouldn't be as close.
I'm trying to find an article I read a while back that did the math in relation to the electoral college and the house which had the exact numbers for how far the election would have swung. I recall it being at least 30 electoral votes. Though, I don't remember the house numbers he used.
1 rep per 200k citizens or 1 rep per 400k.
1 walkthisway34 2018-07-08
I literally gave you the actual numbers if there was perfectly proportional representation. If there was 1 electoral vote for every person in each state, Trump would have carried 56.3% of electoral votes if you don't account for Maine's 2nd CD, and 56.5% if you do. That comes out to 303 or 304 electoral votes. In real life, he won 306 not counting faithless electors (56.9% of the total).
You can download a file at the link below and verify the numbers for yourself.
https://www.census.gov/data/datasets/2017/demo/popest/nation-total.html
This specific point doesn't need to be correct in order to argue that the electoral college is bad, or that the House is too small, or that rural states/areas are overrepresented in general. The main issue with the EC's divergence from popular vote is that winning a state by 1 vote or 4 million is treated the same, so you get 100% of its electoral votes whether the state actually loves you unanimously or if its bitterly divided and you barely managed to get a plurality of support.
1 pizzashill 2018-07-08
I'm not saying popular vote. I'm saying more house members, giving big states more total electoral votes.
Your numbers seem off, for example if we had something like 600 house members the bigger states would gain more electoral college power.
If we had something like 860, the bigger states would have even more power in the electoral college.
When you increase the size of the house, you're giving states like new york and California more electors. You're increasing their electoral value.
"winner takes all" is another problem, yes. But I don't think winner takes all is going anywhere, so the next best thing is to simply increase the size of the house so the "senate bump" is reduced.
1 acct_118 2018-07-08
holy shit this thread is still going
1 walkthisway34 2018-07-08
I wasn't using the popular vote, I was using the electoral college format (winner take all, aside from small exceptions for Maine and Nebraska CDs) where the # of electoral votes is equal to total state population, which is the scenario of perfectly proportional representation.
I literally linked you the data source. It really doesn't take that long to sort it in Excel based on the 2016 election results and create a couple formulas. I did it in less than 5 minutes. You can verify the numbers for yourself.
1 pizzashill 2018-07-08
Ok, so let's establish a baseline of facts.
If we increased the size of the house, would bigger states gain or more power in the electoral college?
1 walkthisway34 2018-07-08
Gain since the impact of the Senate votes would decrease.
If you increased it sufficiently you would also do away with the effects of unequal House representation, which as I showed previously affects some small states positively and others negatively. Simply getting rid of the Senate votes in the EC totals wouldn't produce completely proportionate representation because the House is not entirely equally represented, which is why I based my numbers on total state population, because that represents the perfectly proportionate scenario.
I really don't know what you're arguing at this point or why. I gave you direct access to the data source to confirm or disprove my argument that disproportionate representation in the electoral college had a small impact on the outcome compared to winner take all.
I'm not saying that increasing the size of the house wouldn't increase the representation of big states, I'm saying that the net effect of representation in the EC as is compared to a perfectly proportionate scenario under the same rules is not very big. I gave you the data necessary to confirm or deny that hypothesis.
1 pizzashill 2018-07-08
M8, my argument is the electoral college isn't fair because small states, due to the senate and other factors have disproportionate power in the college.
That's literally my entire argument.
1 walkthisway34 2018-07-08
You're correct that small states get overrepresented in the EC due to the senate votes. If you're arguing that this overrepresentation is the primary reason the electoral college differs from the popular vote, that's empirically incorrect.
Whether something is fair or bad is obviously more subjective, but that isn't primary objection to the EC. My main two objections are 1) the nature of the EC means that swing states get extremely disproportionate focus in elections and politics than states firmly in one camp or the other, and your vote doesn't really matter if you aren't in a competitive state 2) As I mentioned above, the EC does a very poor job of representing states' opinions because it is winner take all, which means a state that's nearly 50/50 has the same result as if it were 90/10, which obviously doesn't accurately reflect the populace.
1 pizzashill 2018-07-08
It's not empirically incorrect though. If you reduce the electoral power of large states and increase it for small states, it makes sense that the electoral college would be out of whack with the popular vote.
There's a reason these electoral college/popular vote wins are increasingly likely today.
It's going to keep getting worse as large states continue to grow in population and small states remain the same.
1 walkthisway34 2018-07-08
That's not primarily from disproportionate representation, again it's from the winner take all format. With winner take all, it doesn't matter how narrowly you win your states, or how much you lose the states you lose, all that matters is that you win states that have 270 electoral votes. Trump won by narrowly winning the decisive states (about 1% margin or less in Florida, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin). As I've established, the states he won have 40 million more people in them than the states he lost, so the decisive factor isn't that his states got disproportionate representation, it's that Hillary won her states by more than Trump won his, but it doesn't matter because the format is winner take all.
1 pizzashill 2018-07-08
Primarily or not at all?
Because, it's literally possible to win the election with just 23-27% of the popular vote due to how the electoral college works.
https://www.npr.org/2016/11/02/500112248/how-to-win-the-presidency-with-27-percent-of-the-popular-vote
Maybe winner takes all is a big problem - but the electoral college in current form has at least some impact on popular vote losses/electoral wins.
1 walkthisway34 2018-07-08
Possible but astronomically low odds. Heâll theoretically you could win with almost 0% of the vote (even excluding faithless electors). In practice thatâs not how it works. But again that scenario is only possible through winner take all allocation.
Iâve provided you with the numbers for the latest election and it probably wouldnât be that much work to crunch them for prior elections. Disproportionate representation might be able to wing an election like 2000 where Bush barely cleared 270 but doesnât come close to being decisive in an election like trumps where he won over 300.
1 pizzashill 2018-07-08
I'm not against the electoral college because of 2016. Most Americans have been against it since the 40s. I already said I doubt a bigger house would have changed 2016.
1 walkthisway34 2018-07-08
I didnât say you were, Iâm just using 2016 because itâs the most recent election, the one I crunched numbers on and the biggest example of popular-electoral divergence in recent history this the most relevant.
1 alibix 2018-07-08
The EC is anti democratic by design. The candidates voted by the people can be denied by electors by design of the EC
1 CirqueDuFuder 2018-07-08
When does that happen?
1 alibix 2018-07-08
Does that matter? It's a provision in there by design, explicitly anti democratic, just because it hasn't been used to it's full effect doesn't make it democratic
1 CirqueDuFuder 2018-07-08
There are many states that specifically do not allow what you are suggesting.
1 alibix 2018-07-08
Yes it varies by state, at worst is a fine, there isn't any federal or constitutional bind for the electors to follow the vote by design
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector
1 CirqueDuFuder 2018-07-08
That is because states are responsible for their own elections. Has there even been an actual instance of this being an issue in the entire history of the country?
1 alibix 2018-07-08
Does that matter? It's a provision in there by design, explicitly anti democratic, just because it hasn't been used to it's full effect doesn't make it democratic
1 subpoutine 2018-07-08
what are fixed costs & how do they work
1 pizzashill 2018-07-08
This fixed cost argument doesn't actually work in this context.
There's a reason official were pissy about small states getting more money on a per capita basis:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/small-states-big-anti-terror-fund/
The idea "fixed" cost is a valid counter-argument to anything I've ever said on this subject is just not factually correct.
I just never went into it because it was a waste of time, and I didn't think you actually thought "fixed costs" was relevant to anti-terrorism funding.
1 subpoutine 2018-07-08
Lemme know when youâre done editing your comment so I can thoroughly wreck you.
1 pizzashill 2018-07-08
There's nothing you can say to wreck me because the department of homeland security already said you're wrong and the formula was changed.
If the department of homeland security says you're wrong, what makes you think you have the authority to ever argue with them on this subject, considering they're the people, you know, in charge of defending the country from terrorist attacks.
1 Ed_ButteredToast 2018-07-08
Bu bu but daddy lost the popular vote due to the 3-4 million ILLEGAL ALIEN voters đđđđđđđ
1 CirqueDuFuder 2018-07-08
No one said that.
1 Ed_ButteredToast 2018-07-08
The absolute state of daddycels coping this hard đđđđđđđđđđđđđđđđ
1 CirqueDuFuder 2018-07-08
Who the fuck said I was defending Trump? I was referencing the election and prior elections. Holy shit, stop being so lazy and worthless. At no point was I ever talking about illegals.
1 Ed_ButteredToast 2018-07-08
And there it is! The backtracking 2: Electric Boogaloo
No you weren't. You were merely pretending to be retarded đđđ
Cmon, cirque. Your mask is slipping off đ
1 CirqueDuFuder 2018-07-08
...
Get help for your issues.
1 Ed_ButteredToast 2018-07-08
Not mourning at all. Just observing a sad person. I am just glad you haven't pulled the trigger yet so we can still laugh at you.
The shit you get obsessed over is trannies, incels, and you being a hardcore resist lib obsessed with Drumpf.
I just put two and two together and call a spade a spade.
When was the last time you had an actual relationship, Ed? With someone right in front of you. Talking to people from other parts of the world like a fucking weirdo doesn't count.
1 CirqueDuFuder 2018-07-08
Obsessed with me.
1 Ed_ButteredToast 2018-07-08
https://i.imgur.com/aks7kxV.png
1 SmurfPrivilege 2018-07-08
From your linked article:
Got anything that shows she was publicly against the electoral college before it was in her party's interest?
1 pizzashill 2018-07-08
"in her parties interest" also known as "in the interest of most Americans."
1 SmurfPrivilege 2018-07-08
Then she should probably be more vocal about it outside of the immediate aftermath of an embarrassing election loss.
1 I_poop_in_The_Dark 2018-07-08
But it was her turn!!! She had a vagina!!!
1 Matues49 2018-07-08
Wut. The only ones still bemoaning about Hillary 2 years after the election are Trump & his acolytes. He was literally tweeting about 'Crooked Hillary' untill early 2018. You're being willfully blind if you refuse to see that.
Or maybe you just lack self awareness, because two out three paragraphs of your post above boil down to you making it abundently clear to everybody else how much Hilldawg still lives rent-free in your head.
1 CirqueDuFuder 2018-07-08
Dude, she is literally tweeting EnoughTrumpSpam memes in 2018 and if you spend any time in SRD or Politics or any number of places it is filled with Hillary Stans that rage about Trump and Bernie to this day.
1 ComedicSans 2018-07-08
Who the hell cares what Hillary is doing in 2018?
1 CirqueDuFuder 2018-07-08
People who laugh at salty people. I have seen nothing like her in terms of watching a nominee not being able to let a loss go going back decades. I am also not convinced she won't involve herself in future campaigns in some form.
I don't doubt for a second that Trump would have been a sideshow as a loser but that is just speculation on my end. Maybe he outdoes her in terms of sore loser in 2020.
1 Ed_ButteredToast 2018-07-08
đđđđđđđđđđđđđđđđđđ
1 CirqueDuFuder 2018-07-08
I know because it was linked in this very thread you useless person.
1 acct_118 2018-07-08
I linked said tweet. I didn't interpret it as her complaining, more as "y'all are retarded"
1 eva_unit_hung 2018-07-08
obama lost the popular vote in the 2008 primaries
1 pizzashill 2018-07-08
Primaries don't = real elections. They're run by the parties. A party doesn't even have to hold a primary.
1 eva_unit_hung 2018-07-08
like the democratic party does via superdelegates?
1 pizzashill 2018-07-08
They aren't real elections dude. They're private party selections.
The superdelegates have never gone against the way their state has voted.
1 eva_unit_hung 2018-07-08
its just really telling that you used the GOP as your example when there was a much more apt one to be made
1 pizzashill 2018-07-08
I could have used it for either fucking party lol.
Primaries aren't real elections, they're just a party selection process.
Either party could literally just not even have a primary if they wanted.
1 eva_unit_hung 2018-07-08
buuut you didnt
1 pizzashill 2018-07-08
...?
1 CommonThroat 2018-07-08
To maintain concord within the union and to preserve it from disunity and hijacking by the mob.
1 DenuvoCracked 2018-07-08
There is. Rural people's lives are worth more than city degenerates. It's very simple.
1 pizzashill 2018-07-08
Rural people are so hilariously entitled.
1 Ed_ButteredToast 2018-07-08
You need to cope harder đđđđđđ
1 old_grumpy_grandpa 2018-07-08
Federation of states instead of monolithic state, that's the way.
1 Prysorra 2018-07-08
DNC Primaries. Obama literally had less people vote for him. Clinton loss to electoral process twice.
1 pizzashill 2018-07-08
Primaries don't = real elections. They're run by the parties. A party doesn't even have to hold a primary.
If the GOP wanted they could literally say "this guy is our candidate" and that'd be that.
1 CommonThroat 2018-07-08
Obama was not a American so it doesn't count
Also yes there is
Americans > non Americans
1 VioletBroregarde 2018-07-08
A rural vote is worth more than an urban vote because winning 1000 rural votes costs more than winning 1000 urban votes. By a lot. In a system that's 100% decided by popular vote, rural people wouldn't be worth enough points to justify spending any campaign money on. Rural areas perform vital functions like supplying food and raw materials. They deserve consideration, especially since they have fundamentally different needs that may go unmet if catering to them is always a suboptimal strategy.
1 pizzashill 2018-07-08
You are profoundly misinformed.
Rural areas are already ignored:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/campaign.gif?strip=info&w=575&ssl=1
I keep seeing this absurd argument repeated and it doesn't stand up to even 5 minutes of research. The electoral college causes every state in the country to be ignored outside of a few swing states.
1 VioletBroregarde 2018-07-08
Those dots would be clustered in a much smaller area though. Some of those states have multipliers to their popular votes that make them viable places to spend money.
1 pizzashill 2018-07-08
Fam, nearly every state in the country is ignored. Not only that, but the winner take all electoral college suppresses millions of rural people as well.
You understand millions of rural people live in California, right?
I'm dead serious when I say every argument made in favor of the electoral college makes no sense. Every problem they claim removing it would cause is more true of the electoral college.
1 VioletBroregarde 2018-07-08
No, removing the electoral college would exacerbate the existing inequalities that the electoral college was implemented to ease. Instead of the geographically- and culturally-diverse smattering of dots in the graph above you'd have a hyper-concentrated map of the top 10 most populated municipalities in the US and nothing else.
1 pizzashill 2018-07-08
Your arguments make no sense. the idea only 4 states mattering every election is somehow a good thing is absurd.
Not only is the electoral college proven to suppress voter turnout, it robs millions of Americans of their vote.
When you find yourself trying to argue against democracy and make it seem as if one group deserves 3x the political power as another group, you need to take a step back and ask yourself why that is.
Hint: you're just anti-democracy.
1 VioletBroregarde 2018-07-08
I'm not arguing that 4 states mattering is a good thing, I'm saying that the problem will be worse if we switch to a popular vote system because the campaign spending will be even more densely-concentrated than it is now.
1 pizzashill 2018-07-08
No it fucking won't, lol. I have no idea where you're getting this meme at.
1 Bustwe 2018-07-08
SHITPOSTER IN CHEIF
1 aqouta 2018-07-08
I do love this video even if I hate trump.
1 Peepeeopsis 2018-07-08
Absolutely. I don't give a fuck about Trump that much since I'm not an amerilard, but him winning the election was hilarious to watch.
1 GadolBoobies 2018-07-08
How does it feel to lack true drama freedom?
1 spookyguy109 2018-07-08
Do you have a liocense to post on /r/drama?
1 SuperiorExcess 2018-07-08
1 spookyguy109 2018-07-08
1 SuperiorExcess 2018-07-08
Chad
1 AFellowCanadianGuy 2018-07-08
Canada.
1 FreeTedK 2018-07-08
that's a British colony still I think
1 GrovelingPeasant 2018-07-08
You ever met someone from "Canada" irl? You think it's a coincidence they all sound like they're from Minnesota?
1 AFellowCanadianGuy 2018-07-08
Ofcourse Canada is real, we were the ones that burned down your whitehouse remember?
1 dogDroolsCatsRules 2018-07-08
That's a weird way to write France and France. đ¤
1 TheFallenHero 2018-07-08
I giggled at the British version for corbyn and I giggled at the American version for trump.
1 DonnyBravoKingofEire 2018-07-08
What's the version for Corbyn?
1 TheFallenHero 2018-07-08
https://youtu.be/BzuKaTuk_lw
1 GadolBoobies 2018-07-08
I...I don't get that video...
Corbyn didn't win. And Theresa May became Prime Minister.
Yet that video tries to claim the opposite and act if Corbyn ended up winning?
Even the Parliament didn't get a majority Labor.
1 Ultrashitposter 2018-07-08
shh, let labor have their 'victory'. They need it so desperately.
1 SexyTaft 2018-07-08
i mean the turk guy is a literal holocaust denier so it's nice to see him lose
1 tyuijvhvhcfcjf 2018-07-08
Plz link. That sounds hilarious
1 imissyouseattle 2018-07-08
He doubts the Armenian genocide.
Source on Holocaust denial?
1 nanonan 2018-07-08
I think they are saying the Armenian genocide was a literal holocaust. Holocausts are bullshit anyway, I mean if it was really that bad how are all your fucking descendents still everywhere whinging about it?
1 preserved_fish 2018-07-08
I say this to you Chief Running Zack: you will burn in all the seven hells.
1 nanonan 2018-07-08
Gotta give props to the Spanish for actually wiping civilizations from the face of the planet.
1 preserved_fish 2018-07-08
Yeah, all those diseases the Extremaduras contracted from fucking their pigs worked out in their favor.
1 volabimus 2018-07-08
Do they give a Nobel Prize for attempted chemistry?
1 ComedicSans 2018-07-08
being this retarded
Oof.
1 telandrias 2018-07-08
Pretty sad he's reminiscing about the last time he accomplished something. Kinda funny though.
1 Dogfacedgod 2018-07-08
You're too salty of a cuck to play here
1 telandrias 2018-07-08
Dont you have to have a relationship to be a cuck? Sorry I don't understand your memes as a 30yo boomer
1 live_lavish 2018-07-08
I remember when daddy announced his candidacy. I was sitting in my internship and I started cracking the fuck up. Joke was on me though..
1 Strictlybutters 2018-07-08
He left out the BEST clip tho!
The smug, dripping with condescension, dismissive laughter is so rank it almost makes me physically ill đˇ
1 Power_Incarnate 2018-07-08
That's pretty good but the Ann Coulter one's still my favorite
1 Strictlybutters 2018-07-08
Was that when guested on smuglitically incorrect with Bill Maher?
1 Power_Incarnate 2018-07-08
Yeah, was there another clip of her in the video I somehow missed?
1 Strictlybutters 2018-07-08
I never want to miss an opportunity to call bill Maher smug and I wasnât smart enough to think of another way to get that in.
1 Mao_Zedong_Thot 2018-07-08
I love this video and I love Trump.
1 allendrio 2018-07-08
I remember daddy defense force saying he would restore "dignity" to the whitehouse fucking lol mayosphere is more retarded than ever.
1 DoctorFahrenheit 2018-07-08
Thank God they were wrong. I never want another "dignified" president.
1 allendrio 2018-07-08
The problem with Obama wasnt that he was too dignified it was that he was overly diplomatic he avoided ever saying anything that could be remotely considered an insult of the right not like it stopped them from going insane and raving about him being a secret african.
1 TheCodexx 2018-07-08
Worse than that, Americans like a President who won't pull punches all the time. Obama came across as being too soft on everybody and too restrained. People like having a "cowboy" in the office. "We want dignity" is something people only say when they get one.
1 allendrio 2018-07-08
Its funny that Obama was probably the most christian acting president in recent memory and the bible boomers hated him with the passion of Christ.
1 acct_118 2018-07-08
By "funny" do you mean "entirely fucking predictable"?
1 aqouta 2018-07-08
TBF The bible belt probably hated him more for being christian like because it caused cognitive dissonance in their happy view of liberals as all godless heathens.
1 Ed_ButteredToast 2018-07-08
Also, he was a "nigger" and you know what mayo Jesus said about the DINDU people.
1 Matues49 2018-07-08
Has boyoyoyoyong posted his DINDU statistics yet?
1 Ed_ButteredToast 2018-07-08
He needs new material tbh. I hope he's doing some research.
1 westofthetracks 2018-07-08
uh, he was a muslim actually, this is well documented on my wordpress blog "GOD'S Patriot TruthSpeaker For America"
1 Ed_ButteredToast 2018-07-08
The absolute state of christcucks lmao
1 spookyguy109 2018-07-08
What do you mean "christian acting"? Obama bombed Libya, gave weapons to Syrian rebels who kill christians, was the first us president to endorse LGBT rights and was a strong advocate for abortion.
None of that sounds Christian to me. The last Christian president we had was probably Jimmy Carter.
1 xXsnip_ur_ballsXx 2018-07-08
Yeah. "Christian" doesn't really mean "acting like Jesus did", and it hasn't meant that for the last few thousand years. Christianity is a set of shared traditions between many different groups.
1 muck4doo 2018-07-08
Are you a millennial? Carter has Obama beat in that department by far.
1 preserved_fish 2018-07-08
Tru. Carter is just this side of snake-handler. Obama is a Matthew Arnold type: probably doesn't believe in the Xtian god, but appreciates his ethos.
1 imissyouseattle 2018-07-08
Yeah, invading two MENA countries with forced regime change was a total Jesus move.
1 Shitposting_Skeleton 2018-07-08
Nigga do you even DEUS VULT?
1 imissyouseattle 2018-07-08
I'm more of a Teutonic Knight tbh, fam
1 TheCodexx 2018-07-08
It's the old combination of politics and self-loathing.
1 DoctorFahrenheit 2018-07-08
That's just not true. He insulted the right plenty. Unfortunately, it was rarely funny because he was more smug and dignified.
1 SpotNL 2018-07-08
More like right felt insulted than him conciously insulting them.
1 DoctorFahrenheit 2018-07-08
Bit of both to be honest. I don't want to start serious posting but he was certainly mire willing to attack the population on the right and their beliefs than many of the modern presidents before him who stuck to attacking other politicians.
1 Che_Gueporna 2018-07-08
Haha, no.
Name one single example of Obama denigrating the Republican base. Even when those racist fuckers were claiming he was a muslim plant from Kenya, he still maintained the high road.
1 DoctorFahrenheit 2018-07-08
I mean do you actually want me to? I'll dig up a few if you're actually interested in talking about it because I'm bored. But since no one else is still in this old thread the potential for drama is almost nil and I don't actually have a horse in this political race so there is no win for me.
But like I said, if you actually want to shoot the shit about it, I'll dig you up a few decent examples.
1 Che_Gueporna 2018-07-08
Yeah, i'm kinda interested in seeing what milquetoast banality you'll drag up.
1 DoctorFahrenheit 2018-07-08
Bro we agree that they're milquetoast and boring, that was my whole point.
Anyway there was the time he referred to Republican voters as enemies to be punished when addressing Hispanic voters. He later walked it back.
Of course there was the comment about rust belters bitterly clinging to guns and God while blaming immigrants for their own failures.
The swamp of crazy comment about people on the right and how it led to Trump.
Some religious types were deeply offended by his constant use of the "wrong side of history" stuff especially in the context of what he said about Catholic education in the UK
People on the right also got pissy about his comments concerning their failure to pay their fair share and the time he insisted that business owners werent responsible for their own success
1 Che_Gueporna 2018-07-08
Obama is not the first president to refer to the opposing party in adversarial terms. Not by a long shot.
If you actually listened to the full quote by Obama, what he actually said is that previous administrations have ignored and failed to address the rural midwest's concerns, which leads to them feeling ignored and becoming bitter. Which is an objectively true statement. Not to mention that it's not exactly that far off from say Reagan's diatribes about "welfare queen's" or even Kennedy contrasting the patriot who asks what can he can do for his country with the man who holds his hand out and asks what the country can do for him.
I'm not saying Obama hasn't said bad things about Republicans. I'm merely pointing out that all politicians at some point have to point out that their opponents are wrong. It's especially odd when Republicans try to tar Obama with that brush considering that calling democrats godless heathens is pretty much their bread and butter.
1 DoctorFahrenheit 2018-07-08
Isn't being a godless heathen the main selling point of being a democrat though?
1 ComedicSans 2018-07-08
He used three syllable words and they got all het up.
1 Strictlybutters 2018-07-08
You are r/dramas Mary Matalin of hot take political analysis
1 DoctorFahrenheit 2018-07-08
Omg thx đ
1 Strictlybutters 2018-07-08
Youâre vv welcome, canât wait to catch you on the next edition of crossfire with host Joan Wayne Gacy and special guest PizzaShill
1 jubbergun 2018-07-08
Yeah, and he had a "scandal-free presidency," too, right?
1 Matues49 2018-07-08
Stretchin' harder than Mr. Fantastic over here.
1 jubbergun 2018-07-08
How is that "a stretch?" Dude said he basically rolled over for republicans, I'm just pointing to evidence that's not the case.
1 Ed_ButteredToast 2018-07-08
Try harder pls
1 jubbergun 2018-07-08
I am very confused right now. I'm getting downvotes on Reddit for saying Obama wasn't a little bitch. Is this a Daddy Defense Force social experiment or something?
1 evannever 2018-07-08
TBH, without checking your link it looks like you're shitting on Obama for 'political scandals' like Fast and Furious or Benghazi.
1 jubbergun 2018-07-08
Por que no los dos?
1 Ed_ButteredToast 2018-07-08
Try harder
1 jubbergun 2018-07-08
Um, so, por que no los tres?
1 zappapostrophe 2018-07-08
Iâm not educated on American politics, but I donât get the big deal of that article. Shock horror, a president is tougher and less friendly in a professional context away from the public.
1 jubbergun 2018-07-08
"The big deal" is that you can only say he was "diplomatic" if you actually ignore what he did while he was in office, the way a lot of those who say he had a "scandal-free presidency" have to ignore such things as Benghazi and Fast-and-Furious.
1 zappapostrophe 2018-07-08
Wasnât the whole Benghazi situation totally unpredictable despite how some Daddy-lovers insist on blaming Hillary? I donât even know what you mean by fast and furious.
1 jubbergun 2018-07-08
The whole thing was a cluster-fuck and I think they could have honestly made the case that no one was really to blame if they had wanted to do so. Unfortunately, instead of doing that, they lied to the public and said that the terrorists who killed a few Americans were "protesters" who were mad about some YouTube video.
Fast-and-Furious was a DoJ sting operation that sold guns to Mexican cartels. It was a complete failure because they couldn't track the guns after they sold them, which was kind of the whole point of the exercise. Basically, the DoJ armed Mexico's cartels and had nothing of value to show for it.
1 Strictlybutters 2018-07-08
Gunwalking", or "letting guns walk", was a tactic of the Arizona Field Office of the United States Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), which ran a series of sting operations[2][3] between 2006[4] and 2011[2][5]in the Tucson and Phoenix area where the ATF "purposely allowed licensed firearms dealers to sell weapons to illegal straw buyers, hoping to track the guns to Mexican drug cartel leaders and arrest them".[6] These operations were done under the umbrella of Project Gunrunner, a project intended to stem the flow of firearms into Mexico by interdicting straw purchasers and gun traffickers within the United States.[7]
You do realize this program began into 2006 right? Which happens to be the same year Obama was still a junior senator from Illinois. [Hmmm emoji]
1 Imgur_Lurker 2018-07-08
You do realize you never heard about the 2006 because you know
they actually tracked the guns and that you're a literal retard who has no idea what program means?
Wide Receiver
1 Strictlybutters 2018-07-08
Yeah looks like they were doing a great đ job tracking those guns in 2007
Stop being so invested in this tribal bullshit. It was a dumb program when it started in 2006 with the first operation resulting in the majority of the 450 âmonitoredâ guns ending up missing in Mexico, and you can argue it was even dumber to continue the program in 2009 with an even larger scale operation that had the same end results.
1 Imgur_Lurker 2018-07-08
Lmao You're so great at quoting Wikipedia you have such knowlege of this,
You really are such a idiot you don't know what program is, impressive.
It's totally the same program what with those guns being used in terrorist attacks in Paris and killing Americans.
No wonder you're such a retard you can't even click wikipedia links to find out "the guns that were eventually lost as they moved into Mexico" are talking about the Obama era ones
Because you know
There's the entire reason they got lost and Bush's didn't?
Such you are so informed I'm sure you know what technical foulup caused it lol
1 Strictlybutters 2018-07-08
Jesus youâre so invested in this itâs pathetic. I can make up shit without providing any sources to, but I certainly canât match your level of autistic sperglord faggotry.
I find arguments about semantics boring so if youâre not going to link to a credible source for your tabloid caliber accusations or are planing on linking to some boomer tier trash site for literal retards like obamadidthingsillegally.biz or consevathotthreehouse.brainlet Iâm not really interested tbhqhwy.
1 djlewt 2018-07-08
Is this Fentanyl or regular weapons grade autism? Tell me you're playing a character and not literally this retarded.
1 Imgur_Lurker 2018-07-08
Naw it wasn't unpredictable because at the time they said it was caused by a Youtube video that a man was arrested over when we now know they knew at the time that wasn't true
Where one of the guns in the November 13, 2015 Paris terrorist attacks came from
1 djlewt 2018-07-08
Lost by a Bush appointed ATF supervisor in charge of a Bush era program, a gun which was likely lost to Mexico before Obama ever even took office.
1 Imgur_Lurker 2018-07-08
Lmao nice asspull guy who's so butthurt he responds to me twice
1 telandrias 2018-07-08
Now we got the largest human rights crisis in the world and they're shipping people to italy in death boats because America decided to dick around.
1 The_Reason_Trump_Won 2018-07-08
polack death camps, medevev hot mic too
1 GadolBoobies 2018-07-08
Okie dokie.
1 Strictlybutters 2018-07-08
I hope the block chain mining running in the background gives your pc cancer
1 ItsSugar 2018-07-08
Are you posting that article as a substitute for "I am retarded" or "I can't read"?
1 Imgur_Lurker 2018-07-08
Drinking beer is dignified?
The man was lambasted for being too Whole Foods dignified you silly person.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XvgnOqcCYCM
1 SpotNL 2018-07-08
To be entirelt fair, if Obama had the same demeanor as Trump the Tea Part would have gone full jihad. I have no doubt about that.
1 itoucheditforacookie 2018-07-08
Teahadists?
1 saddertadder 2018-07-08
Man thats a pathetic attempt at a joke. Yikes!
1 itoucheditforacookie 2018-07-08
Gas
1 parduscat 2018-07-08
Yeah, they hated from the start because he was black. He should've gone all in after the 2012 election.
1 jubbergun 2018-07-08
Fine. I'll run in 2024, but remember that you made this happen.
1 strathmeyer 2018-07-08
Imagine having to tell your kids about US Presidents who didn't wear trucker hats.
1 Vegan_dogfucker 2018-07-08
To be fair, have you ever seen daddy wear a tan suit?
1 allendrio 2018-07-08
To be fair, have you ever seen daddy with an actual tan?
1 Vegan_dogfucker 2018-07-08
Idk. I don't really pay attention to be honest. It's not like I browse reddit for pictures of daddy in a speedo to jerk off to, unlike some faggots around here.
1 22333444455555666666 2018-07-08
there are no such pictures
trust me I've tried extensively đ
1 Bronafide 2018-07-08
Come on you cant make me believe even members of the ddf thought he would do that
1 UmmahSultan 2018-07-08
They were mad about the president being black. That's always what 'dignity' was code for.
1 muck4doo 2018-07-08
"I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that's a storybook, man."
â Joe Biden
1 mcslibbin 2018-07-08
says it all, really
1 eva_unit_hung 2018-07-08
lol no you don't
1 --duke- 2018-07-08
Not a daddy fan, but that was funny.
1 Papa_Marxs 2018-07-08
The fact that the cons are still gloating about this shit in 2018 shows how pathetic and retarded they are
1 acct_118 2018-07-08
https://twitter.com/hillaryclinton/status/1007376361101582336?lang=en
1 NardDogAndy 2018-07-08
lol, I love how she's openly bragging about committing a federal crime that she evaded punishment for.
1 westofthetracks 2018-07-08
like you wouldnt
1 Matues49 2018-07-08
Go to sleep, grandpa.
1 pizzashill 2018-07-08
What federal law did she violate?
1 NardDogAndy 2018-07-08
Here, I'll quote your bible's account of the state dept. Inspector General's report.
'inconsistent with federal records-keeping laws' is soft talk rhetoric for 'broke federal law'.
1 pizzashill 2018-07-08
No, it's not. The rules weren't even changed until after Clinton left office, something even watchdog groups admitted:
1 NardDogAndy 2018-07-08
I'm going to believe the Inspector General's report over NPR, a 'spokeswoman,' and 'watchdog groups.'
1 pizzashill 2018-07-08
You can believe whatever you'd like. Go read the law your fucking self.
It was changed after she left office.
1 NardDogAndy 2018-07-08
So you disagree with Politifact also?
1 pizzashill 2018-07-08
I disagree with everything that doesn't clearly point out that the law was changed after Hillary Clinton left office, because it being changes is an objective fact.
Even more fatal to your own argument is:
This is the problem with people that like don't understand how this shit works. If you're curious as to how it does in fact work:
https://www.thecipherbrief.com/column_article/sloppiness-in-handling-highly-classified-information-is-widespread
This email shit is the most mundane, absurd attempt at fabricating a scandal I've seen since the "Christmas card" fiasco.
1 Ls777 2018-07-08
Where does the word "law" appear in this snippet? I see the word policy, but surely you havent gotten "policy" and "law" confused together, have you?
1 imissyouseattle 2018-07-08
That's actually really funny.
1 DenuvoCracked 2018-07-08
No it's not.
1 annarchick 2018-07-08
trumplet lmao
1 imissyouseattle 2018-07-08
Reeeeeee
1 22333444455555666666 2018-07-08
if she had tweeted spicy like this for all of 2016 she probably wouldve won lmao
1 ebfasz 2018-07-08
The only one who really cares is Hillary and Trump knows that so he likes to knock her down a few pegs here and there.
1 mphjackson7 2018-07-08
WHEN YOU TROLL A LIBTARD
DESPACITO STYLE
1 Ed_ButteredToast 2018-07-08
đ ąď¸ď¸
1 Bronafide 2018-07-08
Come on daddy, this isnt even close to the best version of this vid, also talk about being late to the party
1 saint2e 2018-07-08
What a world we live in.
1 Kilo_G_looked_up 2018-07-08
Cant wait until this is all archived in the Trump Presidential Library. That will truly be a good day for dramacoin.
1 Strictlybutters 2018-07-08
Located at
Trump University,Trump Atlantic casino, the McDonaldâs on Pennsylvania Ave blocks away from the White House1 ObamaBiden2016 2018-07-08
I hate Trump, but I love this video, but I really hate that he tweeted it out.
It's like he's very happy to have won the presidency, even though he's terrible at the actual job.
1 broden 2018-07-08
Next year Trump tweets a Kek Vs Moloch video
https://youtu.be/jTl80wZv8YE
1 mcslibbin 2018-07-08
I remember that night. We baked chocolate chip cookies (a la Hilldog). We made Jeb's guac recipe. We had a taco bowls in honor of how much Trump "loved the hispanics"
My partner at the time turned to me and said "I swear to god, if you say the name 'Bernie' to me, I will never talk to you again."
1 Not_RCMP_ 2018-07-08
>the second guy down posting about qanon
1 kjmiller7 2018-07-08
The literal insanity of Trumpets is common know at this point
1 jaredschaffer27 2018-07-08
I love Donald Reginald Pubert Trump and nothing you say can convince me otherwise.
1 Mao_Zedong_Thot 2018-07-08
Chunk Yogurt BTFO