Our advanced machine learning algorithm has detected that this comment may violate reddits rule against harassment. This comment was flagged as potentially containing content which could discourage a reasonable person from participating on Reddit because it contained the following word(s):
Trump
This instance will be recorded, and repeated offenses could result in your account being banned from r/drama or suspended from Reddit. If you are looking for a similar sub to /r/drama where foul language is more tolerated, check out /r/subredditdrama. If you would like to use your slurs in a purely illustrative context, type the first letter and then "-slur", or replace one of the vowels in the word with a *. Thank you for your understanding, and have a pleasant day.
I mean I do, I suspect you don't. For example, the modern electoral college has nothing in common with the old electoral college and capping the house knee-capped it.
Either it needs to be restored to what it was or it needs to be abolished.
Considering what it was designed for I think we can agree that a candidate winning the popular vote but losing the election is a clear sign of the electoral college working exactly as intended. Unless you actually don't understand why this could isn't a democracy?
You're repeating yourself. This must be very embarrassing for you. Did you read the article yet? The part about how it is intended to stop majority factions from forcing their will on everyone else?
Ok, but do you understand that capping the house changes the way the electoral college works, and that in those days electors could vote for anyone they wanted?
Dude, this is just embarrassing. You clearly didn't understand how the EC was designed to work (and probably still don't) and now you're calling me slow as if you have been explaining something to me and I'm not getting it, when in reality you have just been making retarded claims and proving that you don't actually understand what you're talking about. Just do like you always do when you've lost an argument and quit replying so you can pretend that this didn't happen.
I'll let you respond to this first because it's more important to the actual question at hand and you ignored it the first time because it destroys your argument.
Considering what it was designed for I think we can agree that a candidate winning the popular vote but losing the election is a clear sign of the electoral college working exactly as intended.
Another camp was dead set against letting the people elect the president by a straight popular vote. First, they thought 18th-century voters lacked the resources to be fully informed about the candidates, especially in rural outposts. Second, they feared a headstrong “democratic mob” steering the country astray. And third, a populist president appealing directly to the people could command dangerous amounts of power.
Out of those drawn-out debates came a compromise based on the idea of electoral intermediaries. These intermediaries wouldn’t be picked by Congress or elected by the people. Instead, the states would each appoint independent “electors” who would cast the actual ballots for the presidency.
So for example, we can see the first one is moot today, considering rurals can be completely informed, the second was proven moot with the election of Donald Trmp.
If the electoral college isn't going to protect the country from a populist demagogue, which was the primary point, why do we still have it?
And for the record, early on, some founders did in fact predict the exact problem we'd have in the future and tried to argue for a solution to it:
If you don't want to read it, here's it summed up:
In 1823, Madison wrote a remarkable letter to George Hay explaining his views of the Electoral College, his strong opposition to states voting as winner-take-all blocs and his view of the origins of the winner-take-all rule. In addition to disenfranchising districts that voted against the preference of the state, Madison worried that statewide voting would increase sectionalism and the strength of geographic parties. He wrote that his views were widely shared by others at the Constitutional Convention, and that the winner-take-all approach had been forced on many states due to its adoption in other states: "The district mode was mostly, if not exclusively in view when the Constitution was framed and adopted; & was exchanged for the general ticket [e.g., winner-take-all rule] & the legislative election, as the only expedient for baffling the policy of the particular States which had set the example."
Madison also discerned that the winner-take-all rule did not actually help small states. When the Constitution was drafted, small states were expected to be helped by the law stating that each state has one vote for president when the election went to the House (as it had had in 1800 and would again in 1824, when John Quincy Adams was elected over the more popular Andrew Jackson). Many Founders anticipated that such outcomes would become routine - meaning the electors would limit the field to three choices that the House would choose among, voting on the basis of one vote per state. George Mason, for one, predicted in 1787 that "nineteen times in twenty" there would be no winner of a majority of electoral votes and the president would be chosen in the House.
Madison saw this provision as highly problematic, however: "The present rule of voting for President by the H. of Reps. is so great a departure from the Republican principle of numerical equality, and even from the federal rule which qualifies the numerical by a State equality, and is so pregnant also with a mischievous tendency in practice, that an amendment of the Constitution on this point is justly called for by all its considerate & best friends."
The founders were just wrong, they clearly thought the president would be chosen by the house most of the time, but that ended up not happening.
The EC was designed to limit the effects of factions, because as it says in federalist number 10 which I still think you haven't read, factions are inevitable.
The first one is moot today, considering rural can be completely informed.
Not everyone has internet access in rural areas so no.
The second was proven moot with the election of Donald Trump.
Except as you love to point out, Trump didn't win the popular vote. The Candidate that was in fact voted for by a headstrong mob steering the country astray is the one who lost. Ipso facto, the EC worked in 2016.
The solution proposed by Madison here would of course have made Trumps victory greater so if you want to propose that system then I'm all for it.
Madison was wrong about the house choosing every president considering that has only happened twice.
The EC was designed to limit the effects of factions, because as it says in federalist number 10 which I still think you haven't read, factions are inevitable.
And I don't think you've read the context behind any of this.
Not everyone has internet access in rural areas so no.
Nobody is talking about the internet.
Except as you love to point out, Trump didn't win the popular vote. The Candidate that was in fact voted for by a headstrong mob steering the country astray is the one who lost. Ipso facto, the EC worked in 2016.
This is completely delusional. The EC was meant to stop someone like Trmp, he was the populist demagogue.
The solution proposed by Madison here would of course have made Trumps victory greater so if you want to propose that system then I'm all for it.
This is outright false.
Like at this point you've made it clear you have no idea what you are talking about.
And I don't think you've read the context behind any of this.
So you still haven't read the document that is considered the single most important document to understand this, but I'm the one who is uninformed.
Nobody is talking about the internet.
It's kind of necessary to be considered informed in the current day. Or do you think watching cable news makes you informed? Funny because I would swear that you use that as a point against rurals.
This is completely delusional. The EC was meant to stop someone like Trmp, he was the populist demagogue
The populist demagogue that lost the popular vote. Strange combo there.
This is outright false.
Go count how many districts Trump won compared to Hillary. Counting every individual district would certainly have made his lead larger. Going off of counties we know who won by a landslide.
Like at this point you've made it clear you have no idea what you are talking about.
Now like I have said before, you were proven wrong and will stop replying and pretend that this never happened.
So you still haven't read the document that is considered the single most important document to understand this, but I'm the one who is uninformed.
It doesn't say what you think it does.
It's kind of necessary to be considered informed in the current day. Or do you think watching cable news makes you informed? Funny because I would swear that you use that as a point against rurals.
Radio, tv, both equally as viable.
The populist demagogue that lost the popular vote. Strange combo there.
The populist demagogue appealed to the uneducated and won in areas vulnerable. Are you unironically trying to argue Trmp wasn't the populist in that election? Really?
Go count how many districts Trump won compared to Hillary. Counting every individual district would certainly have made his lead larger. Going off of counties we know who won by a landslide.
Depends on how districts were weighted, friend. If a district of 6 million people had more electoral power than a bunch of small districts, it wouldn't be relevant. One can only assume any district-based system would be weighted by population size.
Coming from the guy who still probably hasn't read it, and thinks that the popular vote is supposed to decide the election. I think I understood it pretty well.
Radio, tv, both equally as viable.
Not really. All of those combined are nothing compared to the internet.
The populist demagogue appealed to the uneducated and won in areas vulnerable. Are you unironically trying to argue Trmp wasn't the populist in that election?
I just want to clarify one last time, you think that candidate that was literally proven to appeal to 3 million fewer people was the one who appealed to the most?
Depends on how districts were weighted, friend. If a district of 6 million people had more electoral power than a bunch of small districts, it wouldn't be relevant. One can only assume any district-based system would be weighted by population size.
So if you win 55% of the popular vote based on district size, you get 55% of the electoral votes.
55% of the popular vote equals 55% of electoral votes? Thanks so much, I really couldn't have phrased your complete lack of understanding of the EC any better myself.
Coming from the guy who still probably hasn't read it, and thinks that the popular vote is supposed to decide the election. I think I understood it pretty well.
I've read it.
Not really. All of those combined are nothing compared to the internet.
Radio is far larger in rural America than either.
I just want to clarify one last time, you think that candidate that was literally proven to appeal to 3 million fewer people was the one who appealed to the most?
Again, do you have no idea what these terms mean? I'm completely baffled here, are you attempting to claim that Trump was not the populist and the demagogue?
55% of the popular vote equals 55% of electoral votes? Thanks so much, I really couldn't have phrased your complete lack of understanding of the EC any better myself.
We're talking about a district-based system. What he was opposed to was primarily "winner take all."
For example, if a democrat wins 40% of alabama, he gets 40% of the votes. Winner take all devalues the votes of millions of Americans. It makes a republican vote in California completely worthless.
You are quite literally trying to argue against democracy and fair elections.
It's still inferior to internet and doesn't make a person informed.
Again, do you have no idea what these terms mean? I'm completely baffled here, are you attempting to claim that Trump was not the populist and the demagogue?
The person who literally appealed to fewer people is clearly the one that was trying to appeal to the most people. Retard.
We're talking about a district-based system. What he was opposed to was primarily "winner take all."
For example, if a democrat wins 40% of alabama, he gets 40% of the votes. Winner take all devalues the votes of millions of Americans. It makes a republican vote in California completely worthless.
Not what Madison was arguing for. He clearly wanted votes to be distributed by districts won, not popular vote. The system you want is literally just democracy with extra steps. For some reason I don't think that's what he had in mind.
Madison wrote a remarkable letter to George Hay explaining his views of the Electoral College, his strong opposition to states voting as winner-take-all blocs and his view of the origins of the winner-take-all rule. In addition to disenfranchising districts that voted against the preference of the state, Madison worried that statewide voting would increase sectionalism and the strength of geographic parties. He wrote that his views were widely shared by others at the Constitutional Convention, and that the winner-take-all approach had been forced on many states due to its adoption in other states: "The district mode was mostly, if not exclusively in view when the Constitution was framed and adopted; & was exchanged for the general ticket [e.g., winner-take-all rule] & the legislative election, as the only expedient for baffling the policy of the particular States which had set the example."
Well look at that
You are quite literally trying to argue against democracy
True, in the same way James Madison was.
and fair elections.
False, the EC was designed to be more fair than direct democracy.
Populism refers to a range of political stances that emphasise the idea of "the people" and often juxtapose this group against "the elite". The term developed in the 19th century and has been applied to various politicians, parties, and movements since that time, although has rarely been chosen as a self-description. Within political science and other social sciences, several different definitions of populism have been employed, with some scholars proposing that the term be rejected altogether.
1
A common framework for interpreting populism is known as the ideational approach: this defines populism as an ideology which presents "the people" as a morally good force and contrasts them against "the elite", who are portrayed as corrupt and self-serving.
Clinton was the very definition of "the elite." Trump framed his campaign against globalism and the corrupt "elite." He was a standard populist politician. His terminology, his rhetoric, all right out of the populist playbook.
There's no requirement that a populist has majority support. Hitler was a populist, he never enjoyed a majority of electoral support in Germany.
Well look at that
There's nothing in that in conflict with what I said. I don't see him defining anything other than "district." This can be read as each district gets a share of the electoral votes, based on population size, or not.
True, in the same way James Madison was.
No, he wasn't.
In fact, he seemed to want the electors to be selected by districts themselves:
"The Electors to be chosen in districts, not more than two in any one district, and the arrangement of the districts not to be alterable within the period of ------ previous to the election of President. Each Elector to give two votes, one naming his first choice, the other his next choice. If there be a majority of all the votes on the first list for the same person, he of course to be President; if not, and there be a majority, (which may well happen) on the other list for the same person, he then to be the final choice; if there be no such majority on either list, then a choice to be made by joint ballot of the two Houses of Congress, from the two names having the greatest number of votes on the two lists taken together."
Overall it was an argument suited for the time period, it wouldn't work today, but scrapping the winner take all system would likely be the best choice today.
False, the EC was designed to be more fair than direct democracy.
How is giving fewer people more power based on region more fair?
How do you even claim otherwise? If I wanted to know everything possible about the Mueller report for example, I could look it up on the internet and have all the info in an hour. That's totally impossible through radio.
A common approach to defining populism is known as the ideational approach.[29] In this definition, the term populism is applied to political groups and individuals who make appeals to "the people" and then contrast this group against "the elite".[33] Adopting this approach, Albertazzi and McDonnell define populism as an ideology that "pits a virtuous and homogeneous people against a set of elites and dangerous 'others' who are together depicted as depriving (or attempting to deprive) the sovereign people of their rights, values, prosperity, identity, and voice".[13]
In this understanding, note Mudde and Kaltwasser, "populism always involves a critique of the establishment and an adulation of the common people",[29] and according to Ben Stanley, populism itself is a product of "an antagonistic relationship" between "the people" and "the elite", and is "latent wherever the possibility occurs for the emergence of such a dichotomy".[34] This understanding conceives of populism as a discourse, ideology, or worldview.[29] These definitions were initially employed largely in Western Europe, although later became increasingly popular in Eastern Europe and the Americas.[29]
that's one definition, there are others.
Clinton was the very definition of "the elite." Trump framed his campaign against globalism and the corrupt "elite." He was a standard populist politician. His terminology, his rhetoric, all right out of the populist playbook.
You've devolved into right wing talking points now. Trump the New York billionaire was a man of the people. And Hillary never once played up her humble upbringings, she totally embraced that she was "elite".
There's nothing in that in conflict with what I said. I don't see him defining anything other than "district." This can be read as each district gets a share of the electoral votes, based on population size, or not.
It could be defined that way. Using that definition would of course be retarded because Madison clearly was trying to solve problems inherent to democracy, so saying that he just wanted democracy with extra steps doesn't make any sense.
No, he wasn't.
In fact, he seemed to want the electors to be selected by districts themselves:
Completely unrelated.
How is giving fewer people more power based on region more fair?
Combined with
No, he wasn't
You clearly definitely read the federalist number 10 and understood it. And that is why you have such a great understanding of this topic that you somehow think Madison wanted direct democracy and that evening electoral power between regions is unfair.
How do you even claim otherwise? If I wanted to know everything possible about the Mueller report for example, I could look it up on the internet and have all the info in an hour. That's totally impossible through radio.
We aren't talking about the Mueller report. We're talking about policy details, which can be pushed over radio.
that's one definition, there are others.
No, and I'm not going to let you spin out of this. There's no definition of populism that requires a majority of electoral support. You very clearly had no idea what the term meant, you didn't know populism was more of an ideology based in anti-elite sentiments, anti-globalist sentiments.
I don't care if you didn't know, but you attempted to insult me and claim I was wrong. Why did you even try to contest what I said if you clearly had no idea what populism even was? Where did you read that populism somehow requires a majority of electoral support?
You've devolved into right wing talking points now. Trump the New York billionaire was a man of the people. And Hillary never once played up her humble upbringings, she totally embraced that she was "elite".
You're completely retarded. No shit those are right-wing talking points, that's why Trump used them. Furthermore, for as long as populism has been a thing, rich men have been using it to appeal to the common man, Trump isn't the first and he won't be the last.
A good example of what I mean:
Middle-class Americans might be invited to join a new elite by attacks against the corruption of the established rich. The New Yorker Cadwallader Golden, in his Address to the Freeholders in 1747, attacked the wealthy as tax dodgers unconcerned with the welfare of others (although he himself was wealthy) and spoke for the honesty and dependability of "the midling rank of mankind" in whom citizens could best trust "our liberty & Property." This was to become a critically important rhetorical device for the rule of the few, who would speak to the many of "our" liberty, "our" property, "our" country.
1
It could be defined that way. Using that definition would of course be retarded because Madison clearly was trying to solve problems inherent to democracy, so saying that he just wanted democracy with extra steps doesn't make any sense.
There's no "extra steps" in handing out electoral votes based on vote percentage.
You clearly definitely read the federalist number 10 and understood it. And that is why you have such a great understanding of this topic that you somehow think Madison wanted direct democracy and that evening electoral power between regions is unfair.
We can argue about this if you want, but the things the founders said were often retarded and haven't stood the test of time. The founders also intended the country to evolve and change as new discoveries were made and new understandings found. Desperately clinging to things they said in the 1800s isn't going to work out in the long run.
But given you're a person that didn't even know what the term populism meant, I suspect you aren't well suited to discuss the nuances of any political ideology.
Still waiting for you to explain to me how giving people more voting power than others based on region is "fairer" btw.
We aren't talking about the Mueller report. We're talking about policy details, which can be pushed over radio.
We are talking about being an informed voter you fucking retard. Listening to a couple rallies isn't being informed.
No, and I'm not going to let you spin out of this. There's no definition of populism that requires a majority of electoral support. You very clearly had no idea what the term meant, you didn't know populism was more of an ideology based in anti-elite sentiments, anti-globalist sentiments.
I don't care if you didn't know, but you attempted to insult me and claim I was wrong. Why did you even try to contest what I said if you clearly had no idea what populism even was? Where did you read that populism somehow requires a majority of electoral support?
I never said it required majority support, I was saying that the candidate who was appealing to more voters was the candidate who was a populist because populism is about appealing to the average person, and the person who gets more votes from the average person clearly did a better job. This discussion isn't about the definition of populism anyway and this is just you trying to deflect
You're completely retarded. No shit those are right-wing talking points, that's why Trump used them. Furthermore, for as long as populism has been a thing, rich men have been using it to appeal to the common man, Trump isn't the first and he won't be the last.
Every candidate in history had used some degree of populism. I'm just saying he is the less populist between him and Hillary.
Like I said before, Hillary played up her humble upbringing and talked about taxing the ultra rich and other stuff that is also populism. They are both guilty of that.
There's no "extra steps" in handing out electoral votes based on vote percentage.
Yes there are retard. Let's see which one of these systems has fewer steps.
Vote
Votes are counted.
Candidate with most votes wins
Vs
Vote
Votes are counted
Electors cast their own votes based of off first vote
Votes are counted
Candidate with the most votes wins
Name one difference that would ever arise between the first system and the second one. You can't because they are identical in outcomes, therefore the second system is just the first with extra steps. So that means you think that Madison just wanted a less efficient democracy.
We can argue about this if you want, but the things the founders said were often retarded and haven't stood the test of time. The founders also intended the country to evolve and change as new discoveries were made and new understandings found. Desperately clinging to things they said in the 1800s isn't going to work out in the long run
This is you backpedaling. You have now realized that my interpretation is correct and you were wrong so you are desperately trying to change the subject to something else.
Still waiting for you to explain to me how giving people more voting power than others based on region is "fairer" btw.
You wouldn't need me to explain it if you had actually read the federalist number 10. Factions of people are why the EC is necessary in a large and diverse country.
So do you want to say that no. 10 "doesn't mean what I think it does." Or that it says exactly what I think it does but the founders are retarded? Stick with one please.
We are talking about being an informed voter you fucking retard. Listening to a couple rallies isn't being informed.
Listening to policies on the radio doesn't make you less informed than someone browsing fake news on the internet. You have no idea what you are talking about.
I never said it required majority support, I was saying that the candidate who was appealing to more voters was the candidate who was a populist because populism is about appealing to the average person, and the person who gets more votes from the average person clearly did a better job. This discussion isn't about the definition of populism anyway and this is just you trying to deflect
You were trying to claim Clinton was the populist because more people voted for her dude. Do I have to go back and copy paste your own argument? This was all in the context of you claiming the EC worked as intended because it elected Trump after I pointed out the EC was specifically intended to counter a populist demagogue like Trump.
Every candidate in history had used some degree of populism. I'm just saying he is the less populist between him and Hillary.
Yeah, because you have quite literally no idea what the term populsit means. If you think Trump wasn't the populist in that election you have no a basic comprehension of what populism is and I'm not going to waste my time attempting to educate someone that likely can't be educated.
Let me be frank here: You are an actual brainlet if you think a moderate establishment democrat is a populist in an election vs Donald Trump. He ran one of the most populist campaigns in US history. His entire strategy was populist.
Name one difference that would ever arise between the first system and the second one. You can't because they are identical in outcomes, therefore the second system is just the first with extra steps. So that means you think that Madison just wanted a less efficient democracy.
What lol? The electors aren't an extra step if they're bound to the popular vote of that state dude. If they actually had to decide, sure, that'd be an extra step. But they don't.
This is you backpedaling. You have now realized that my interpretation is correct and you were wrong so you are desperately trying to change the subject to something else.
No, it's me simply stating the founders were not infallible.
You wouldn't need me to explain it if you had actually read the federalist number 10. Factions of people are why the EC is necessary in a large and diverse country.
I know what they say, their arguments are stupid and logically incoherent. You can't realistically argue that giving people disproportionate political power is "fair."
Let's apply your retarded logic to everything, then. Each black vote should be worth 2.5 white votes. Is that more fair to you? Should a black person have 2.5 votes for your own vote on the basis you're white?
Listening to policies on the radio doesn't make you less informed than someone browsing fake news on the internet. You have no idea what you are talking about.
Having access to the entire internet gives you much more information and makes you better informed.
You were trying to claim Clinton was the populist because more people voted for her dude. Do I have to go back and copy paste your own argument? This was all in the context of you claiming the EC worked as intended because it elected Trump after I pointed out the EC was specifically intended to counter a populist demagogue like Trump.
She was a populist and her winning the popular vote proves that she was successful with her populism. Instead of fighting the political elite she framed herself as fighting the rich.
Yeah, because you have quite literally no idea what the term populsit means. If you think Trump wasn't the populist in that election you have no a basic comprehension of what populism is and I'm not going to waste my time attempting to educate someone that likely can't be educated.
Ok sounds good, let's get to the issue at hand which is you not understanding the Electoral College.
What lol? The electors aren't an extra step if they're bound to the popular vote of that state dude. If they actually had to decide, sure, that'd be an extra step. But they don't.
But they literally are an extra step. Get rid of the electors and the vote is democratic, keep them under your system and the vote is still decided exactly the same way but for some reason we still have electors.
No, it's me simply stating the founders were not infallible.
Ok then you can admit that you don't understand the federalist number 10.
I know what they say, their arguments are stupid and logically incoherent. You can't realistically argue that giving people disproportionate political power is "fair."
It seems pretty coherent to me but you are so smart that you can understand it better than any of the thousands before you who read it and walked away with the same interpretation of it that I have.
What is more fair to you? Giving every person the same thing regardless of need, or giving it out based off who has the most need so that at the end everyone is on equal ground?
Let'a apply your retarded logic to everything, then. Each black vote should be worth 2.5 white votes. Is that more fair to you? Should a black person have 2.5 votes for your own vote on the basis you're white?
What is the logic behind it? You cant just say that applying the EC somehow makes black people worth more makes sense.
Having access to the entire internet gives you much more information and makes you better informed.
No it doesn't, if anything it can make you less informed, especially if you primarily get your news from facebook, which is where boomers and rurals do get their news from.
She was a populist and her winning the popular vote proves that she was successful with her populism. Instead of fighting the political elite she framed herself as fighting the rich.
That's not what populism means you brainlet.
But they literally are an extra step. Get rid of the electors and the vote is democratic, keep them under your system and the vote is still decided exactly the same way but for some reason we still have electors.
yeah, it's not an extra step though because they're bound to the state vote. You're making my argument for me, why do we have electors if they're bound to the state vote by law?
It seems pretty coherent to me but you are so smart that you can understand it better than any of the thousands before you who read it and walked away with the same interpretation of it that I have.
Most Americans have wanted the electoral college abolished for most of recent US history lol. There was near 75% approval for abolishing it at one point. And it was bi-partisan, both republicans and democrats wanted it gone.
Only after the Bush fiasco did Republicans start supporting it. I wonder why?
What is more fair to you? Giving every person the same thing regardless of need, or giving it out based off who has the most need so that at the end everyone is on equal ground?
Except rurals are the ones exploiting the system and suppressing urban people, across the board.
they get dispassionate federal funding.
Bills favoring rurals are far more likely to pass than bills favoring urban areas.
rurals have repeatedly, in our history, gone out of their way to suppress people that live in urban areas. It's why they capped the house in the first place. We've had to beat them down in the supreme court multiple times just to get reasonable districts.
What is the logic behind it? You cant just say that applying the EC somehow makes black people worth more makes sense.
But you're against a tyranny of the majority, right? Whites are the majority, that means we have to safe-guard against their tyranny by giving blacks equal political power, which means their votes should be worth more.
They're a faction in the united states, just as much of a faction as rurals. Someone as against tyranny of the majority and so in support of equality should have no problem giving blacks equal electoral power. While we're at it, we should talk about hispanics and Asians too, we have to avoid the tyranny of the majority!
No it doesn't, if anything it can make you less informed, especially if you primarily get your news from facebook,
So you are less informed than a Sean Hannity listener.
Wait a second
which is where boomers and rurals do get their news from.
So rurals are uninformed then? So you were wrong when you said that they were informed and Madison's reasoning was flawed?
yeah, it's not an extra step though because they're bound to the state vote. You're making my argument for me, why do we have electors if they're bound to the state vote by law?
Because you keep claiming that Madison wanted the EC to be totally proportional to population, but if that were the case then it wouldn't need to exist. Because that isn't what he wanted it does need to exist.
Most Americans have wanted the electoral college abolished for most of recent US history lol. There was near 75% approval for abolishing it at one point. And it was bi-partisan, both republicans and democrats wanted it gone.
But I guess despite the overwhelming majority they didn't for no reason whatsoever.
Except rurals are the ones exploiting the system and suppressing urban people, across the board.
they get dispassionate federal funding.
Bills favoring rurals are far more likely to pass than bills favoring urban areas.
rurals have repeatedly, in our history, gone out of their way to suppress people that live in urban areas. It's why they capped the house in the first place. We've had to beat them down in the supreme court multiple times just to get reasonable districts.
The poor downtrodden Californian, won't someone think of the guy who makes 4 times as much as the average rural for a change?
But you're against a tyranny of the majority, right? Whites are the majority, that means we have to safe-guard against their tyranny by giving blacks equal political power, which means their votes should be worth more.
They're a faction in the united states, just as much of a faction as rurals. Someone as against tyranny of the majority and so in support of equality should have no problem giving blacks equal electoral power. While we're at it, we should talk about hispanics and Asians too, we have to avoid the tyranny of the majority.
So you are less informed than a Sean Hannity listener.
I don't get my news from tv news, so no.
So rurals are uninformed then? So you were wrong when you said that they were informed and Madison's reasoning was flawed?
The problem doesn't exist today, it's fully possible to be informed today, rural or not. It's a choice. We didn't have the infrastructure back then, we do now.
It was impossible to reach a rural outpost in the 1800s, a president couldn't travel the entire country and reach millions of people fairly easily, he can now.
So no, the reasoning no longer holds.
Because you keep claiming that Madison wanted the EC to be totally proportional to population, but if that were the case then it wouldn't need to exist. Because that isn't what he wanted it does need to exist.
I said it could be construed that way. There's nothing in what he said that argues against it. He was against winner take all,
The poor downtrodden Californian, won't someone think of the guy who makes 4 times as much as the average rural for a change?
Except, you know, the fact that more poor people live in California than rural America. By total number far more poor people live in urban America than rural America, so this alone reveals how misinformed you are.
Ok, give every race equal power.
It's actually amazing to me how far you anti-democracy loons will go to maintain this worldview.
But you literally just claimed that the radio was more informative than the internet.
The problem doesn't exist today, it's fully possible to be informed today, rural or not. It's a choice. We didn't have the infrastructure back then, we do now.
It was impossible to reach a rural outpost in the 1800s, a president couldn't travel the entire country and reach millions of people fairly easily, he can now.
So no, the reasoning no longer holds.
I forgot, what year did they invent newspapers?
I said it could be construed that way. There's nothing in what he said that argues against it. He was against winner take all,
Oh that's right, you're never wrong and you never lie so you were just making a hypothetical argument and that's why you appeared to be wrong.
Except, you know, the fact that more poor people live in California than rural America. By total number far more poor people live in urban America than rural America, so this alone reveals how misinformed you are.
More people live in urban America?!? What? That's crazy! Maybe all of those people living in close proximity could be considered a faction or something, and would wield considerable power over rural America in a direct democracy.
New York and California are 19th and 20th for poverty rates while Mississippi and New Mexico are first. Maybe just counting the numbers of people is retarded.
It's actually amazing to me how far you anti-democracy loons will go to maintain this worldview
But can you actually find a problem with putting every race on equal footings?
The electoral college hasn't been abandoned because to do so would require 75% of the states to ratify an amendment. Which all the tiny states full of buffalo and a few meth addicts won't do.
You understand that pointing out republicans are more spread out is not the same thing as saying land-mass is where electoral votes come from, correct?
Our advanced machine learning algorithm has detected that this comment may violate reddits rule against harassment. This comment was flagged as potentially containing content which could discourage a reasonable person from participating on Reddit because it contained the following word(s):
gay
This instance will be recorded, and repeated offenses could result in your account being banned from r/drama or suspended from Reddit. If you are looking for a similar sub to /r/drama where foul language is more tolerated, check out /r/subredditdrama. If you would like to use your slurs in a purely illustrative context, type the first letter and then "-slur", or replace one of the vowels in the word with a *. Thank you for your understanding, and have a pleasant day.
remember when wikileaks openly exposed that and the former head of the DNC, debbie wausserman schultz, was booed off stage at the dnc convention for her role in the rigging, then resigned and was instantly named the head of the clinton campaign?
was the not enough of a smoking gun for you, pizza? haha
yeah for anyone who doesn't remember that whole bit: the chick who took over for Wasserman-Schults, donna brazille, wrote a book outright stating that the DNC had rigged the primaries for hilldawg lmao
I can’t wait for Hitlerly jump back in and seeing an image if warren crying in the background, with Bernie sitting in a chair having a heart attack, Beto ranting about guns. All with Hillary’s smug smile she has in front of if it all.
Our advanced machine learning algorithm has detected that this comment may violate reddits rule against harassment. This comment was flagged as potentially containing content which could discourage a reasonable person from participating on Reddit because it contained the following word(s):
white
This instance will be recorded, and repeated offenses could result in your account being banned from r/drama or suspended from Reddit. If you are looking for a similar sub to /r/drama where foul language is more tolerated, check out /r/subredditdrama. If you would like to use your slurs in a purely illustrative context, type the first letter and then "-slur", or replace one of the vowels in the word with a *. Thank you for your understanding, and have a pleasant day.
Don't forget that the DNC chair before DWS was Tim Kaine. I wonder if he was promised anything to step down and give control of the DNC to a Clinton ally?
Cant forget that the Shillary campaigne was in charge of the dnc finances from the beginning of the primaries. Like how.can you have a fair primary election when one of the candidates is already lording over the Piggy bank? It's an obvious conflict of interests. Also dont forget when the dnc was sued they had to admit in court that they didnt have to honor any elections within the DNC or ensure that the competition was fair. They basically admitted that they can ensure one of their chosen candidates will be elected by the people or they reserve the right to rig it
Our advanced machine learning algorithm has detected that this comment may violate reddits rule against harassment. This comment was flagged as potentially containing content which could discourage a reasonable person from participating on Reddit because it contained the following word(s):
black
This instance will be recorded, and repeated offenses could result in your account being banned from r/drama or suspended from Reddit. If you are looking for a similar sub to /r/drama where foul language is more tolerated, check out /r/subredditdrama. If you would like to use your slurs in a purely illustrative context, type the first letter and then "-slur", or replace one of the vowels in the word with a *. Thank you for your understanding, and have a pleasant day.
I think you're misunderstanding me. Did the DNC favor Clinton? Yeah, because Clinton is a democrat and Sanders isn't. You'd have to be beyond delusional to think a party isn't going to favor one of their own over an outsider.
That doesn't mean he lost because of it. There's nothing the DNC could have done to make Bernie lose by the massive margins he lost by.
There's nothing the DNC could have done to make him lose blck voters by such a large margin.
Blck voters are one of the most important demographics in a democratic primary, if you lose them by that much, you're almost invariably going to lose the primary.
All of the "but the DNC did x y and z" is just a convenient narrative for progressives to spin after the fact, but it doesn't stand up to any scrutiny.
Our advanced machine learning algorithm has detected that this comment may violate reddits rule against harassment. This comment was flagged as potentially containing content which could discourage a reasonable person from participating on Reddit because it contained the following word(s):
clown
This instance will be recorded, and repeated offenses could result in your account being banned from r/drama or suspended from Reddit. If you are looking for a similar sub to /r/drama where foul language is more tolerated, check out /r/subredditdrama. If you would like to use your slurs in a purely illustrative context, type the first letter and then "-slur", or replace one of the vowels in the word with a *. Thank you for your understanding, and have a pleasant day.
Idk man I moved from a major city in CA to a rural ass town in the south and at least I don't have to worry about slipping on human feces as I walk down the sidewalk anymore.
Our advanced machine learning algorithm has detected that this comment may violate reddits rule against harassment. This comment was flagged as potentially containing content which could discourage a reasonable person from participating on Reddit because it contained the following word(s):
Jews
This instance will be recorded, and repeated offenses could result in your account being banned from r/drama or suspended from Reddit. If you are looking for a similar sub to /r/drama where foul language is more tolerated, check out /r/subredditdrama. If you would like to use your slurs in a purely illustrative context, type the first letter and then "-slur", or replace one of the vowels in the word with a *. Thank you for your understanding, and have a pleasant day.
Our advanced machine learning algorithm has detected that this comment may violate reddits rule against harassment. This comment was flagged as potentially containing content which could discourage a reasonable person from participating on Reddit because it contained the following word(s):
cope
This instance will be recorded, and repeated offenses could result in your account being banned from r/drama or suspended from Reddit. If you are looking for a similar sub to /r/drama where foul language is more tolerated, check out /r/subredditdrama. If you would like to use your slurs in a purely illustrative context, type the first letter and then "-slur", or replace one of the vowels in the word with a *. Thank you for your understanding, and have a pleasant day.
And I'll expand on this because I suspect you really don't get it.
It's like saying "people don't want to live there, it's just that the schools are so amazing" or something. The schools being good creates a desire to be there.
The jobs being in these places creates a demand to live there, thus making them desirable.
You really don’t get it do you? People don’t want to live there, they have to. Having to live somewhere doesn’t make it desirable. Is living on the street desirable? Because plenty of people are forced to live on the street.
No. The demand doesn’t exist because it’s a desirable place to live. Literally no one wants to actually live in somewhere like San Francisco, they would all leave if they could and do when they can.
I'm honestly baffled as to how you are this dumb of a person.
the jobs create the demand, the areas are desirable because of the jobs.
There are tons of high-value areas in the world that people would leave if they weren't so high value. Saying "people would leave if they could find this same thing somewhere else" is not a valid argument to counter what I am saying.
No argument has changed. You're trying to claim a demand doesn't mean people want to live there.
Jobs/local economies are one of the primary reasons people move. Real estate prices are high in these places because demand outstrips supply, meaning they're desirable locations.
When we look at the desirability of a real estate market, we look at a bunch of different factors:
Our advanced machine learning algorithm has detected that this comment may violate reddits rule against harassment. This comment was flagged as potentially containing content which could discourage a reasonable person from participating on Reddit because it contained the following word(s):
retarded
This instance will be recorded, and repeated offenses could result in your account being banned from r/drama or suspended from Reddit. If you are looking for a similar sub to /r/drama where foul language is more tolerated, check out /r/subredditdrama. If you would like to use your slurs in a purely illustrative context, type the first letter and then "-slur", or replace one of the vowels in the word with a *. Thank you for your understanding, and have a pleasant day.
and they don't leave, because the the alternatives aren't any better.
In order for your argument to be correct, we'd have to pretend economics isn't a contributing factor to desirability in a real estate market.
If the only grocery store in town sold nothing but shitty beyond burgers, do the residents actually want shitty beyond burgers? Or do they just buy them because the need to eat?
It doesn't matter, because if that was all that was available, there's still demand.
You're completely inability to comprehend what demand here is the problem.
If I move to a city to work in STEM, I did that because I wanted to do it. Nobody held a gun to my head, I could have just have easily moved somewhere else and accepted less pay.
No, I moved to the city because I wanted more money. I wanted it I didn't need it.
Nobody is forced into this, and I'm not going to entertain this drivel anymore where you pretend economic factors aren't a primary driving force behind the desirability of a location.
It's completely ridiculous and would get you laughed at in any academic circle that deals with this stuff. It's just bat-shit insane.
limpwrist crybabies who spend more time policing impossibly complex social issues than fundamental human rights and basically restructuring our entire economy
Our advanced machine learning algorithm has detected that this comment may violate reddits rule against harassment. This comment was flagged as potentially containing content which could discourage a reasonable person from participating on Reddit because it contained the following word(s):
cope
This instance will be recorded, and repeated offenses could result in your account being banned from r/drama or suspended from Reddit. If you are looking for a similar sub to /r/drama where foul language is more tolerated, check out /r/subredditdrama. If you would like to use your slurs in a purely illustrative context, type the first letter and then "-slur", or replace one of the vowels in the word with a *. Thank you for your understanding, and have a pleasant day.
Our advanced machine learning algorithm has detected that this comment may violate reddits rule against harassment. This comment was flagged as potentially containing content which could discourage a reasonable person from participating on Reddit because it contained the following word(s):
c0pe
This instance will be recorded, and repeated offenses could result in your account being banned from r/drama or suspended from Reddit. If you are looking for a similar sub to /r/drama where foul language is more tolerated, check out /r/subredditdrama. If you would like to use your slurs in a purely illustrative context, type the first letter and then "-slur", or replace one of the vowels in the word with a *. Thank you for your understanding, and have a pleasant day.
I think the former young libs just turn into neoliberals as they age. So it will never actually disappear. Just like the Republican Party was suppose to have died out thirty years ago.
From even the most Neo of liberals I’ve spoken with, they disliked the obvious pay to play nature of her ‘foundation’. Which was confirmed when she closed up shop after she lost.
Our advanced machine learning algorithm has detected that this comment may violate reddits rule against harassment. This comment was flagged as potentially containing content which could discourage a reasonable person from participating on Reddit because it contained the following word(s):
Trump
This instance will be recorded, and repeated offenses could result in your account being banned from r/drama or suspended from Reddit. If you are looking for a similar sub to /r/drama where foul language is more tolerated, check out /r/subredditdrama. If you would like to use your slurs in a purely illustrative context, type the first letter and then "-slur", or replace one of the vowels in the word with a *. Thank you for your understanding, and have a pleasant day.
Because of many factors, including, but not limited to the fact that people dislike the Clintons heavily, especially Hillary or her politics:
Russia;
people disliking Obama;
the fact that she fucked with berniebros tendies or because she and her supporters forgot the golden rule of election- you can shit on undecided hicks all you want before and after the election, but not during them.
Drump is better at one, well two things: Nickelback memes and hick populism.
Our advanced machine learning algorithm has detected that this comment may violate reddits rule against harassment. This comment was flagged as potentially containing content which could discourage a reasonable person from participating on Reddit because it contained the following word(s):
Trump
This instance will be recorded, and repeated offenses could result in your account being banned from r/drama or suspended from Reddit. If you are looking for a similar sub to /r/drama where foul language is more tolerated, check out /r/subredditdrama. If you would like to use your slurs in a purely illustrative context, type the first letter and then "-slur", or replace one of the vowels in the word with a *. Thank you for your understanding, and have a pleasant day.
Because of many factors, including, but not limited to the fact that people dislike the Clintons heavily, especially Hillary or her politics:
You aren't being specific, you claimed the DNC did everything to lose, I ask you to be specific, and you say "but bro, people didn't like Clinton."
Ignoring the fact she had a higher approval rating than Trmp, that isn't very tangible.
the fact that she fucked with berniebros tendies or because she and her supporters forgot the golden rule of election- you can shit on undecided hicks all you want before and after the election, but not during them.
By my recollection there was a rather heavily publicized blowing off of coal miners in West Virginia, and other similarly depressed blue collar work. A great deal of talk about 'retraining' aka 'Learn to code'.
I'm glad you invoked this, because it's a great example of how dishonest the right-wing media is. The reality is, coal is dead. It's never coming back, regulations didn't kill coal, market forces killed coal and continue to kill coal.
Clinton went there and gave the following speech:
Instead of dividing people the way Donald Trmp does, let’s reunite around politics that will bring jobs and opportunities to all these under-served poor communities. So, for example, I’m the only candidate who has a policy about how to bring economic opportunity using clean renewable energy as the key into coal country. Because we’re going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business, right, Tim? [Rep. Tim Ryan (D-OH) was in the audience.]
And we’re going to make it clear that we don’t want to forget those people. Those people labored in those mines for generations, losing their health, often losing their lives to turn on our lights and power our factories. Now we’ve got to move away from coal and all the other fossil fuels, but I don’t want to move away from the people who did the best they could to produce energy that we relied on.
The media cut out the full context. Clinton was the only person offering real solutions. She didn't blow them off, she was just honest with them.
I can definitely see how that would come across as blowing them off. Actually, giving into cynicism and interpreting that in the worst light possible, that's only a breath away from telling them and their families to fuck off and die because they aren't needed anymore.
You can't put a statement in a political speech that you're going to put an entire community's livelihood out of business, not even in what may have been intended as a joke, and counterbalance that with flattery and vague promises. That's the one issue that will supersede any other political issue to a person.
This was when Hillary was embracing not being “PC”. Like when she called all basketball Americans “super predators”. It’s wasn’t her fault! If drunpf hadn’t started being so plain spoken mommy would have never expressed her true feelings and likely won!
If I were a really smart anthropologist I would study why people living in urban areas are so disconnected from nature, ability, and self sustainability. Individualism matters. Group think is consensus, but on a micro level it usually doesn’t pan out ime
I can't tell you how many people born and raised in dense urban areas have told me that they cannot fathom the need for carrying a pocket knife on your person.
Our advanced machine learning algorithm has detected that this comment may violate reddits rule against harassment. This comment was flagged as potentially containing content which could discourage a reasonable person from participating on Reddit because it contained the following word(s):
moid
This instance will be recorded, and repeated offenses could result in your account being banned from r/drama or suspended from Reddit. If you are looking for a similar sub to /r/drama where foul language is more tolerated, check out /r/subredditdrama. If you would like to use your slurs in a purely illustrative context, type the first letter and then "-slur", or replace one of the vowels in the word with a *. Thank you for your understanding, and have a pleasant day.
Our advanced machine learning algorithm has detected that this comment may violate reddits rule against harassment. This comment was flagged as potentially containing content which could discourage a reasonable person from participating on Reddit because it contained the following word(s):
white
This instance will be recorded, and repeated offenses could result in your account being banned from r/drama or suspended from Reddit. If you are looking for a similar sub to /r/drama where foul language is more tolerated, check out /r/subredditdrama. If you would like to use your slurs in a purely illustrative context, type the first letter and then "-slur", or replace one of the vowels in the word with a *. Thank you for your understanding, and have a pleasant day.
Let me know if you like it, you can have first dips for karma, if not then I'm gonna share this masterpiece in your honor, unironically cause you've been on a roll today and I dig it.
Our advanced machine learning algorithm has detected that this comment may violate reddits rule against harassment. This comment was flagged as potentially containing content which could discourage a reasonable person from participating on Reddit because it contained the following word(s):
Trump
This instance will be recorded, and repeated offenses could result in your account being banned from r/drama or suspended from Reddit. If you are looking for a similar sub to /r/drama where foul language is more tolerated, check out /r/subredditdrama. If you would like to use your slurs in a purely illustrative context, type the first letter and then "-slur", or replace one of the vowels in the word with a *. Thank you for your understanding, and have a pleasant day.
Our advanced machine learning algorithm has detected that this comment may violate reddits rule against harassment. This comment was flagged as potentially containing content which could discourage a reasonable person from participating on Reddit because it contained the following word(s):
f0ids
This instance will be recorded, and repeated offenses could result in your account being banned from r/drama or suspended from Reddit. If you are looking for a similar sub to /r/drama where foul language is more tolerated, check out /r/subredditdrama. If you would like to use your slurs in a purely illustrative context, type the first letter and then "-slur", or replace one of the vowels in the word with a *. Thank you for your understanding, and have a pleasant day.
Our advanced machine learning algorithm has detected that this comment may violate reddits rule against harassment. This comment was flagged as potentially containing content which could discourage a reasonable person from participating on Reddit because it contained the following word(s):
incel
This instance will be recorded, and repeated offenses could result in your account being banned from r/drama or suspended from Reddit. If you are looking for a similar sub to /r/drama where foul language is more tolerated, check out /r/subredditdrama. If you would like to use your slurs in a purely illustrative context, type the first letter and then "-slur", or replace one of the vowels in the word with a *. Thank you for your understanding, and have a pleasant day.
I can't believe how common this belief is on the right. And they accuse democrats of not being able to get over the 2016 election. They're like those guys in their forties who still talk about being quarterback of the football team in high school
Our advanced machine learning algorithm has detected that this comment may violate reddits rule against harassment. This comment was flagged as potentially containing content which could discourage a reasonable person from participating on Reddit because it contained the following word(s):
Trump
This instance will be recorded, and repeated offenses could result in your account being banned from r/drama or suspended from Reddit. If you are looking for a similar sub to /r/drama where foul language is more tolerated, check out /r/subredditdrama. If you would like to use your slurs in a purely illustrative context, type the first letter and then "-slur", or replace one of the vowels in the word with a *. Thank you for your understanding, and have a pleasant day.
In your mind POTUS being accused of doing the exact same thing as he was accused of doing in the Mueller investigation somehow absolves him of both crimes
Our advanced machine learning algorithm has detected that this comment may violate reddits rule against harassment. This comment was flagged as potentially containing content which could discourage a reasonable person from participating on Reddit because it contained the following word(s):
cucked
This instance will be recorded, and repeated offenses could result in your account being banned from r/drama or suspended from Reddit. If you are looking for a similar sub to /r/drama where foul language is more tolerated, check out /r/subredditdrama. If you would like to use your slurs in a purely illustrative context, type the first letter and then "-slur", or replace one of the vowels in the word with a *. Thank you for your understanding, and have a pleasant day.
Our advanced machine learning algorithm has detected that this comment may violate reddits rule against harassment. This comment was flagged as potentially containing content which could discourage a reasonable person from participating on Reddit because it contained the following word(s):
Trump
This instance will be recorded, and repeated offenses could result in your account being banned from r/drama or suspended from Reddit. If you are looking for a similar sub to /r/drama where foul language is more tolerated, check out /r/subredditdrama. If you would like to use your slurs in a purely illustrative context, type the first letter and then "-slur", or replace one of the vowels in the word with a *. Thank you for your understanding, and have a pleasant day.
Our advanced machine learning algorithm has detected that this comment may violate reddits rule against harassment. This comment was flagged as potentially containing content which could discourage a reasonable person from participating on Reddit because it contained the following word(s):
cuck
This instance will be recorded, and repeated offenses could result in your account being banned from r/drama or suspended from Reddit. If you are looking for a similar sub to /r/drama where foul language is more tolerated, check out /r/subredditdrama. If you would like to use your slurs in a purely illustrative context, type the first letter and then "-slur", or replace one of the vowels in the word with a *. Thank you for your understanding, and have a pleasant day.
Why can't Americans elect a leader who isn't decrepit? People in their 70s shouldn't be allowed to drive a car and America is letting five of them duke it out for control of their nation. I bet every one of them smells like cheese and has Wurthers Originals in their pockets.
She would be reborn as a 12 year old Hillary, finally free to live a carefree life of abandon and pursue her real dreams, freed from the shackles of her past.
There would still be people wanting her to run again. Nothing can break their delusions.
This w*man cannot become president. The fates have weaved her thread. The will of the cosmos has spoken: she is to forever to be known as a loser whose husband got his dick sucked.
302 comments
1 SnapshillBot 2019-10-08
Seriously. If pornhub is suggesting cuck porn for you, it's because their algorithm has determined, scientifically, that you're a cuck. That's all.
Snapshots:
I am just a simple bot, *not** a moderator of this subreddit* | bot subreddit | contact the maintainers
1 professorshillphd 2019-10-08
How did someone with an actual learning disability become president?
Rural America is a hell of a place.
1 YaBoyStevieF 2019-10-08
Because he was the better choice
1 professorshillphd 2019-10-08
Based on what?
1 YaBoyStevieF 2019-10-08
Who the current president is
1 professorshillphd 2019-10-08
By what metric was he better?
1 YaBoyStevieF 2019-10-08
306 is a bigger number than 232.
He's actually 32% better. That's a lot of better!
1 professorshillphd 2019-10-08
Everyone knows land-mass = people.
1 YaBoyStevieF 2019-10-08
Everyone knows that ass-mad = you
1 professorshillphd 2019-10-08
How am I mad?
1 YaBoyStevieF 2019-10-08
Because you don't know about numbers. Also because Killary was the worse candidate
1 professorshillphd 2019-10-08
What number is it I don't know about? How was she a worse candidate, be specific.
1 YaBoyStevieF 2019-10-08
The numbers 306 and 232. One of them is the better number
1 [deleted] 2019-10-08
[removed]
1 AutoModerator 2019-10-08
Our advanced machine learning algorithm has detected that this comment may violate reddits rule against harassment. This comment was flagged as potentially containing content which could discourage a reasonable person from participating on Reddit because it contained the following word(s):
TrumpThis instance will be recorded, and repeated offenses could result in your account being banned from r/drama or suspended from Reddit. If you are looking for a similar sub to /r/drama where foul language is more tolerated, check out /r/subredditdrama. If you would like to use your slurs in a purely illustrative context, type the first letter and then "-slur", or replace one of the vowels in the word with a *. Thank you for your understanding, and have a pleasant day.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1 YaBoyStevieF 2019-10-08
Cücked
1 GeauxHouston22 2019-10-08
ladies and gentleman: we got xim
1 professorshillphd 2019-10-08
I suspect you don't have a very firm comprehension of the electoral college.
More Americans voted for Clinton than Trmp.
1 YaBoyStevieF 2019-10-08
More Killaries lost the 2016 presidential election than Daddies
1 gunowner63 2019-10-08
If you think popular vote decided the American election then you probably aren't the one with the firm grasp on what the EC actually is.
1 professorshillphd 2019-10-08
I never said the popular vote does.
1 gunowner63 2019-10-08
So you're just too stupid to understand why that is then.
1 professorshillphd 2019-10-08
I mean I do, I suspect you don't. For example, the modern electoral college has nothing in common with the old electoral college and capping the house knee-capped it.
Either it needs to be restored to what it was or it needs to be abolished.
1 gunowner63 2019-10-08
Considering what it was designed for I think we can agree that a candidate winning the popular vote but losing the election is a clear sign of the electoral college working exactly as intended. Unless you actually don't understand why this could isn't a democracy?
1 professorshillphd 2019-10-08
The electoral college doesn't work as intended because the house was capped.
And the country is a representative democracy. I suggest you go back to the 5th grade.
1 gunowner63 2019-10-08
Why don't you read the wikipedia page on the federalist number 10 and get back to me on how the more electoral college doesn't work as intended.
1 professorshillphd 2019-10-08
We capped the house, the electoral college no longer works as intended.
1 gunowner63 2019-10-08
You're repeating yourself. This must be very embarrassing for you. Did you read the article yet? The part about how it is intended to stop majority factions from forcing their will on everyone else?
0 professorshillphd 2019-10-08
Ok, but do you understand that capping the house changes the way the electoral college works, and that in those days electors could vote for anyone they wanted?
You seem to be a little slow.
1 gunowner63 2019-10-08
Dude, this is just embarrassing. You clearly didn't understand how the EC was designed to work (and probably still don't) and now you're calling me slow as if you have been explaining something to me and I'm not getting it, when in reality you have just been making retarded claims and proving that you don't actually understand what you're talking about. Just do like you always do when you've lost an argument and quit replying so you can pretend that this didn't happen.
1 professorshillphd 2019-10-08
Ok, let's try to walk you into reality.
Does capping the house change the way the EC works? And if so, how does it?
This is a pilot question to see if you even know how the EC operates.
1 gunowner63 2019-10-08
I'll let you respond to this first because it's more important to the actual question at hand and you ignored it the first time because it destroys your argument.
1 professorshillphd 2019-10-08
So that's you not answering the question because you don't know how the EC works, ok, that's fine.
The EC was primarily to prevent a populist demagogue:
https://www.history.com/news/electoral-college-founding-fathers-constitutional-convention
So for example, we can see the first one is moot today, considering rurals can be completely informed, the second was proven moot with the election of Donald Trmp.
If the electoral college isn't going to protect the country from a populist demagogue, which was the primary point, why do we still have it?
And for the record, early on, some founders did in fact predict the exact problem we'd have in the future and tried to argue for a solution to it:
If you don't want to read it, here's it summed up:
The founders were just wrong, they clearly thought the president would be chosen by the house most of the time, but that ended up not happening.
1 LongPostBot 2019-10-08
K
I am a bot. Contact for questions
1 gunowner63 2019-10-08
I must have hit a nerve.
The EC was designed to limit the effects of factions, because as it says in federalist number 10 which I still think you haven't read, factions are inevitable.
Not everyone has internet access in rural areas so no.
Except as you love to point out, Trump didn't win the popular vote. The Candidate that was in fact voted for by a headstrong mob steering the country astray is the one who lost. Ipso facto, the EC worked in 2016.
The solution proposed by Madison here would of course have made Trumps victory greater so if you want to propose that system then I'm all for it.
Madison was wrong about the house choosing every president considering that has only happened twice.
1 professorshillphd 2019-10-08
And I don't think you've read the context behind any of this.
Nobody is talking about the internet.
This is completely delusional. The EC was meant to stop someone like Trmp, he was the populist demagogue.
This is outright false.
Like at this point you've made it clear you have no idea what you are talking about.
1 gunowner63 2019-10-08
So you still haven't read the document that is considered the single most important document to understand this, but I'm the one who is uninformed.
It's kind of necessary to be considered informed in the current day. Or do you think watching cable news makes you informed? Funny because I would swear that you use that as a point against rurals.
The populist demagogue that lost the popular vote. Strange combo there.
Go count how many districts Trump won compared to Hillary. Counting every individual district would certainly have made his lead larger. Going off of counties we know who won by a landslide.
Now like I have said before, you were proven wrong and will stop replying and pretend that this never happened.
1 professorshillphd 2019-10-08
It doesn't say what you think it does.
Radio, tv, both equally as viable.
The populist demagogue appealed to the uneducated and won in areas vulnerable. Are you unironically trying to argue Trmp wasn't the populist in that election? Really?
Depends on how districts were weighted, friend. If a district of 6 million people had more electoral power than a bunch of small districts, it wouldn't be relevant. One can only assume any district-based system would be weighted by population size.
1 gunowner63 2019-10-08
Coming from the guy who still probably hasn't read it, and thinks that the popular vote is supposed to decide the election. I think I understood it pretty well.
Not really. All of those combined are nothing compared to the internet.
I just want to clarify one last time, you think that candidate that was literally proven to appeal to 3 million fewer people was the one who appealed to the most?
55% of the popular vote equals 55% of electoral votes? Thanks so much, I really couldn't have phrased your complete lack of understanding of the EC any better myself.
1 professorshillphd 2019-10-08
I've read it.
Radio is far larger in rural America than either.
Again, do you have no idea what these terms mean? I'm completely baffled here, are you attempting to claim that Trump was not the populist and the demagogue?
We're talking about a district-based system. What he was opposed to was primarily "winner take all."
For example, if a democrat wins 40% of alabama, he gets 40% of the votes. Winner take all devalues the votes of millions of Americans. It makes a republican vote in California completely worthless.
You are quite literally trying to argue against democracy and fair elections.
1 gunowner63 2019-10-08
It's still inferior to internet and doesn't make a person informed.
The person who literally appealed to fewer people is clearly the one that was trying to appeal to the most people. Retard.
Not what Madison was arguing for. He clearly wanted votes to be distributed by districts won, not popular vote. The system you want is literally just democracy with extra steps. For some reason I don't think that's what he had in mind.
Well look at that
True, in the same way James Madison was.
False, the EC was designed to be more fair than direct democracy.
1 LongPostBot 2019-10-08
Mommy is soooo proud of you, sweaty. Let's put this sperg out up on the fridge with all your other failures.
I am a bot. Contact for questions
1 professorshillphd 2019-10-08
How so?
Yeah, you don't know what these terms mean:
1
Clinton was the very definition of "the elite." Trump framed his campaign against globalism and the corrupt "elite." He was a standard populist politician. His terminology, his rhetoric, all right out of the populist playbook.
There's no requirement that a populist has majority support. Hitler was a populist, he never enjoyed a majority of electoral support in Germany.
There's nothing in that in conflict with what I said. I don't see him defining anything other than "district." This can be read as each district gets a share of the electoral votes, based on population size, or not.
No, he wasn't.
In fact, he seemed to want the electors to be selected by districts themselves:
Overall it was an argument suited for the time period, it wouldn't work today, but scrapping the winner take all system would likely be the best choice today.
How is giving fewer people more power based on region more fair?
1 LongPostBot 2019-10-08
I've known more coherent downies.
I am a bot. Contact for questions
1 gunowner63 2019-10-08
How do you even claim otherwise? If I wanted to know everything possible about the Mueller report for example, I could look it up on the internet and have all the info in an hour. That's totally impossible through radio.
that's one definition, there are others.
You've devolved into right wing talking points now. Trump the New York billionaire was a man of the people. And Hillary never once played up her humble upbringings, she totally embraced that she was "elite".
It could be defined that way. Using that definition would of course be retarded because Madison clearly was trying to solve problems inherent to democracy, so saying that he just wanted democracy with extra steps doesn't make any sense.
Completely unrelated.
Combined with
You clearly definitely read the federalist number 10 and understood it. And that is why you have such a great understanding of this topic that you somehow think Madison wanted direct democracy and that evening electoral power between regions is unfair.
1 LongPostBot 2019-10-08
😴😴😴
I am a bot. Contact for questions
1 professorshillphd 2019-10-08
We aren't talking about the Mueller report. We're talking about policy details, which can be pushed over radio.
No, and I'm not going to let you spin out of this. There's no definition of populism that requires a majority of electoral support. You very clearly had no idea what the term meant, you didn't know populism was more of an ideology based in anti-elite sentiments, anti-globalist sentiments.
I don't care if you didn't know, but you attempted to insult me and claim I was wrong. Why did you even try to contest what I said if you clearly had no idea what populism even was? Where did you read that populism somehow requires a majority of electoral support?
You're completely retarded. No shit those are right-wing talking points, that's why Trump used them. Furthermore, for as long as populism has been a thing, rich men have been using it to appeal to the common man, Trump isn't the first and he won't be the last.
A good example of what I mean:
1
There's no "extra steps" in handing out electoral votes based on vote percentage.
We can argue about this if you want, but the things the founders said were often retarded and haven't stood the test of time. The founders also intended the country to evolve and change as new discoveries were made and new understandings found. Desperately clinging to things they said in the 1800s isn't going to work out in the long run.
But given you're a person that didn't even know what the term populism meant, I suspect you aren't well suited to discuss the nuances of any political ideology.
Still waiting for you to explain to me how giving people more voting power than others based on region is "fairer" btw.
1 LongPostBot 2019-10-08
https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/001/038/094/0a1.jpg
I am a bot. Contact for questions
1 gunowner63 2019-10-08
We are talking about being an informed voter you fucking retard. Listening to a couple rallies isn't being informed.
I never said it required majority support, I was saying that the candidate who was appealing to more voters was the candidate who was a populist because populism is about appealing to the average person, and the person who gets more votes from the average person clearly did a better job. This discussion isn't about the definition of populism anyway and this is just you trying to deflect
Every candidate in history had used some degree of populism. I'm just saying he is the less populist between him and Hillary.
Like I said before, Hillary played up her humble upbringing and talked about taxing the ultra rich and other stuff that is also populism. They are both guilty of that.
Yes there are retard. Let's see which one of these systems has fewer steps.
Vs
Name one difference that would ever arise between the first system and the second one. You can't because they are identical in outcomes, therefore the second system is just the first with extra steps. So that means you think that Madison just wanted a less efficient democracy.
This is you backpedaling. You have now realized that my interpretation is correct and you were wrong so you are desperately trying to change the subject to something else.
You wouldn't need me to explain it if you had actually read the federalist number 10. Factions of people are why the EC is necessary in a large and diverse country.
So do you want to say that no. 10 "doesn't mean what I think it does." Or that it says exactly what I think it does but the founders are retarded? Stick with one please.
1 LongPostBot 2019-10-08
If only you could put that energy into your relationships
I am a bot. Contact for questions
1 professorshillphd 2019-10-08
Listening to policies on the radio doesn't make you less informed than someone browsing fake news on the internet. You have no idea what you are talking about.
You were trying to claim Clinton was the populist because more people voted for her dude. Do I have to go back and copy paste your own argument? This was all in the context of you claiming the EC worked as intended because it elected Trump after I pointed out the EC was specifically intended to counter a populist demagogue like Trump.
Yeah, because you have quite literally no idea what the term populsit means. If you think Trump wasn't the populist in that election you have no a basic comprehension of what populism is and I'm not going to waste my time attempting to educate someone that likely can't be educated.
Let me be frank here: You are an actual brainlet if you think a moderate establishment democrat is a populist in an election vs Donald Trump. He ran one of the most populist campaigns in US history. His entire strategy was populist.
https://academic.oup.com/fpa/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/fpa/orz021/5554177?redirectedFrom=fulltext
You are completely clueless.
What lol? The electors aren't an extra step if they're bound to the popular vote of that state dude. If they actually had to decide, sure, that'd be an extra step. But they don't.
No, it's me simply stating the founders were not infallible.
I know what they say, their arguments are stupid and logically incoherent. You can't realistically argue that giving people disproportionate political power is "fair."
Let's apply your retarded logic to everything, then. Each black vote should be worth 2.5 white votes. Is that more fair to you? Should a black person have 2.5 votes for your own vote on the basis you're white?
1 LongPostBot 2019-10-08
Your pulitzer's in the mail
I am a bot. Contact for questions
1 gunowner63 2019-10-08
Having access to the entire internet gives you much more information and makes you better informed.
She was a populist and her winning the popular vote proves that she was successful with her populism. Instead of fighting the political elite she framed herself as fighting the rich.
Ok sounds good, let's get to the issue at hand which is you not understanding the Electoral College.
But they literally are an extra step. Get rid of the electors and the vote is democratic, keep them under your system and the vote is still decided exactly the same way but for some reason we still have electors.
Ok then you can admit that you don't understand the federalist number 10.
It seems pretty coherent to me but you are so smart that you can understand it better than any of the thousands before you who read it and walked away with the same interpretation of it that I have.
What is more fair to you? Giving every person the same thing regardless of need, or giving it out based off who has the most need so that at the end everyone is on equal ground?
What is the logic behind it? You cant just say that applying the EC somehow makes black people worth more makes sense.
1 LongPostBot 2019-10-08
That was a mistake. You're about to find out the hard way why.
I am a bot. Contact for questions
1 professorshillphd 2019-10-08
No it doesn't, if anything it can make you less informed, especially if you primarily get your news from facebook, which is where boomers and rurals do get their news from.
That's not what populism means you brainlet.
yeah, it's not an extra step though because they're bound to the state vote. You're making my argument for me, why do we have electors if they're bound to the state vote by law?
Most Americans have wanted the electoral college abolished for most of recent US history lol. There was near 75% approval for abolishing it at one point. And it was bi-partisan, both republicans and democrats wanted it gone.
Only after the Bush fiasco did Republicans start supporting it. I wonder why?
Except rurals are the ones exploiting the system and suppressing urban people, across the board.
they get dispassionate federal funding.
Bills favoring rurals are far more likely to pass than bills favoring urban areas.
rurals have repeatedly, in our history, gone out of their way to suppress people that live in urban areas. It's why they capped the house in the first place. We've had to beat them down in the supreme court multiple times just to get reasonable districts.
But you're against a tyranny of the majority, right? Whites are the majority, that means we have to safe-guard against their tyranny by giving blacks equal political power, which means their votes should be worth more.
They're a faction in the united states, just as much of a faction as rurals. Someone as against tyranny of the majority and so in support of equality should have no problem giving blacks equal electoral power. While we're at it, we should talk about hispanics and Asians too, we have to avoid the tyranny of the majority!
1 LongPostBot 2019-10-08
That's nice sweaty. Why don't you have a seat in the time out corner with Pizzashill until you calm down, then you can have your Capri Sun.
I am a bot. Contact for questions
1 gunowner63 2019-10-08
So you are less informed than a Sean Hannity listener.
Wait a second
So rurals are uninformed then? So you were wrong when you said that they were informed and Madison's reasoning was flawed?
Because you keep claiming that Madison wanted the EC to be totally proportional to population, but if that were the case then it wouldn't need to exist. Because that isn't what he wanted it does need to exist.
But I guess despite the overwhelming majority they didn't for no reason whatsoever.
The poor downtrodden Californian, won't someone think of the guy who makes 4 times as much as the average rural for a change?
Ok, give every race equal power.
1 LongPostBot 2019-10-08
Good job bobby, here's a star
I am a bot. Contact for questions
1 professorshillphd 2019-10-08
I don't get my news from tv news, so no.
The problem doesn't exist today, it's fully possible to be informed today, rural or not. It's a choice. We didn't have the infrastructure back then, we do now.
It was impossible to reach a rural outpost in the 1800s, a president couldn't travel the entire country and reach millions of people fairly easily, he can now.
So no, the reasoning no longer holds.
I said it could be construed that way. There's nothing in what he said that argues against it. He was against winner take all,
Except, you know, the fact that more poor people live in California than rural America. By total number far more poor people live in urban America than rural America, so this alone reveals how misinformed you are.
It's actually amazing to me how far you anti-democracy loons will go to maintain this worldview.
1 gunowner63 2019-10-08
But you literally just claimed that the radio was more informative than the internet.
I forgot, what year did they invent newspapers?
Oh that's right, you're never wrong and you never lie so you were just making a hypothetical argument and that's why you appeared to be wrong.
More people live in urban America?!? What? That's crazy! Maybe all of those people living in close proximity could be considered a faction or something, and would wield considerable power over rural America in a direct democracy.
New York and California are 19th and 20th for poverty rates while Mississippi and New Mexico are first. Maybe just counting the numbers of people is retarded.
But can you actually find a problem with putting every race on equal footings?
1 LongPostBot 2019-10-08
😴😴😴
I am a bot. Contact for questions
1 taytaybraps 2019-10-08
A republic is a type of democracy. A representative democracy, not a direct democracy.
1 taytaybraps 2019-10-08
The electoral college hasn't been abandoned because to do so would require 75% of the states to ratify an amendment. Which all the tiny states full of buffalo and a few meth addicts won't do.
1 211sAndMacallan 2019-10-08
Compared to other wins it is kinda a small electoral lead. And he lost by 3million v@tes.
But who cares anymore let’s just enjoy the ride and see what happens next time
1 taytaybraps 2019-10-08
Says the guy stepping in to protect daddy from pizza's bullying
1 YaBoyStevieF 2019-10-08
I'm sorry he's just the perfect man. Check out Ben Garrison comics for more info.
1 Pinksister 2019-10-08
This is fucking poetry Steve, you're my new favourite dramatard.
1 Penis_Retard 2019-10-08
Thanks buddy
1 A_Big_Teletubby 2019-10-08
Lmao
1 ImJustaBagofHammers 2019-10-08
Please stop parroting the meme that the electoral votes are allocated according to land area.
1 professorshillphd 2019-10-08
When did anyone claim electoral votes are allocated to land area?
1 ImJustaBagofHammers 2019-10-08
You did. 10 minutes ago.
1 professorshillphd 2019-10-08
You understand that pointing out republicans are more spread out is not the same thing as saying land-mass is where electoral votes come from, correct?
1 ImJustaBagofHammers 2019-10-08
Yes.
1 Giulio-Cesare 2019-10-08
In all fairness why shouldn't my radish farm have the right to vote for who they believe would best serve the country?
1 Kat_B0T 2019-10-08
Ps are you upset that drunpft is pulling the remaining Troops out of Syria? I know this is somewhere Neo liber@ls and neocons align.
1 RBLXTalk 2019-10-08
Americans are mass.
1 [deleted] 2019-10-08
[removed]
1 AutoModerator 2019-10-08
Our advanced machine learning algorithm has detected that this comment may violate reddits rule against harassment. This comment was flagged as potentially containing content which could discourage a reasonable person from participating on Reddit because it contained the following word(s):
gayThis instance will be recorded, and repeated offenses could result in your account being banned from r/drama or suspended from Reddit. If you are looking for a similar sub to /r/drama where foul language is more tolerated, check out /r/subredditdrama. If you would like to use your slurs in a purely illustrative context, type the first letter and then "-slur", or replace one of the vowels in the word with a *. Thank you for your understanding, and have a pleasant day.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1 Giulio-Cesare 2019-10-08
Entertaining tweets.
1 Mayos_side 2019-10-08
I was wondering why this one post had over 150 comments in it and then I saw your name.
1 911roofer 2019-10-08
Hillary's track record.
1 professorshillphd 2019-10-08
With what?
1 ImJustaBagofHammers 2019-10-08
The DNC tried everything possible to lose.
1 professorshillphd 2019-10-08
Like what, be specific.
1 YaBoyStevieF 2019-10-08
They ran Killary
1 Kaiser-romulus 2019-10-08
1 Giulio-Cesare 2019-10-08
The Hillary Artillerys are still going strong.
1 GeauxHouston22 2019-10-08
sabotaging the guy everyone actually liked
1 professorshillphd 2019-10-08
Really, so the DNC is why Sanders lost the primary in a landslide?
1 GeauxHouston22 2019-10-08
remember when wikileaks openly exposed that and the former head of the DNC, debbie wausserman schultz, was booed off stage at the dnc convention for her role in the rigging, then resigned and was instantly named the head of the clinton campaign?
was the not enough of a smoking gun for you, pizza? haha
1 Kaiser-romulus 2019-10-08
Don’t forget the Donna Brazil scandal
1 GeauxHouston22 2019-10-08
yeah for anyone who doesn't remember that whole bit: the chick who took over for Wasserman-Schults, donna brazille, wrote a book outright stating that the DNC had rigged the primaries for hilldawg lmao
1 Kaiser-romulus 2019-10-08
I can’t wait for Hitlerly jump back in and seeing an image if warren crying in the background, with Bernie sitting in a chair having a heart attack, Beto ranting about guns. All with Hillary’s smug smile she has in front of if it all.
1 GeauxHouston22 2019-10-08
lmao
beto skateboarding off the stage
1 Kaiser-romulus 2019-10-08
Lmao with Corey booker running around spartan kicking shit.
Now they I put it all out like this... this is the best the Dems got lol. Dudes having heart attacks and skateboarders. Are they trying to lose.
1 GeauxHouston22 2019-10-08
it is absolutely OVER for you hoes when bernie gets the robocop surgery tbh
1 [deleted] 2019-10-08
[removed]
1 AutoModerator 2019-10-08
Our advanced machine learning algorithm has detected that this comment may violate reddits rule against harassment. This comment was flagged as potentially containing content which could discourage a reasonable person from participating on Reddit because it contained the following word(s):
whiteThis instance will be recorded, and repeated offenses could result in your account being banned from r/drama or suspended from Reddit. If you are looking for a similar sub to /r/drama where foul language is more tolerated, check out /r/subredditdrama. If you would like to use your slurs in a purely illustrative context, type the first letter and then "-slur", or replace one of the vowels in the word with a *. Thank you for your understanding, and have a pleasant day.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1 Giulio-Cesare 2019-10-08
With Marianne floating behind him.
1 Giulio-Cesare 2019-10-08
Don't forget that the DNC chair before DWS was Tim Kaine. I wonder if he was promised anything to step down and give control of the DNC to a Clinton ally?
1 GeauxHouston22 2019-10-08
cllnton hooked him up with her baby blood guy
1 Giulio-Cesare 2019-10-08
Well that and made him VP.
1 GeauxHouston22 2019-10-08
that was just for appearances. what he really wanted was the baby blood and the round trip voucher tickets to lil saint james
1 Giulio-Cesare 2019-10-08
He had me fooled all this time.
1 charming_tatum 2019-10-08
Cant forget that the Shillary campaigne was in charge of the dnc finances from the beginning of the primaries. Like how.can you have a fair primary election when one of the candidates is already lording over the Piggy bank? It's an obvious conflict of interests. Also dont forget when the dnc was sued they had to admit in court that they didnt have to honor any elections within the DNC or ensure that the competition was fair. They basically admitted that they can ensure one of their chosen candidates will be elected by the people or they reserve the right to rig it
1 [deleted] 2019-10-08
[removed]
1 AutoModerator 2019-10-08
Our advanced machine learning algorithm has detected that this comment may violate reddits rule against harassment. This comment was flagged as potentially containing content which could discourage a reasonable person from participating on Reddit because it contained the following word(s):
blackThis instance will be recorded, and repeated offenses could result in your account being banned from r/drama or suspended from Reddit. If you are looking for a similar sub to /r/drama where foul language is more tolerated, check out /r/subredditdrama. If you would like to use your slurs in a purely illustrative context, type the first letter and then "-slur", or replace one of the vowels in the word with a *. Thank you for your understanding, and have a pleasant day.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1 YaBoyStevieF 2019-10-08
That's all well and good, but it was Her Turn, so you're wrong.
1 GeauxHouston22 2019-10-08
YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAS
1 professorshillphd 2019-10-08
I think you're misunderstanding me. Did the DNC favor Clinton? Yeah, because Clinton is a democrat and Sanders isn't. You'd have to be beyond delusional to think a party isn't going to favor one of their own over an outsider.
That doesn't mean he lost because of it. There's nothing the DNC could have done to make Bernie lose by the massive margins he lost by.
There's nothing the DNC could have done to make him lose blck voters by such a large margin.
Blck voters are one of the most important demographics in a democratic primary, if you lose them by that much, you're almost invariably going to lose the primary.
All of the "but the DNC did x y and z" is just a convenient narrative for progressives to spin after the fact, but it doesn't stand up to any scrutiny.
1 YaBoyStevieF 2019-10-08
The DNC favored Daddy, actually. That's why they served him the election on a golden platter
1 professorshillphd 2019-10-08
I think you guys have a very simplistic understanding of elections in the US.
1 YaBoyStevieF 2019-10-08
Not really. The better man for the job won the election
1 professorshillphd 2019-10-08
You aren't good at this.
1 YaBoyStevieF 2019-10-08
I'm better at this than Killary is at winning the 2016 presidential election
1 professorshillphd 2019-10-08
You aren't entertaining.
1 [deleted] 2019-10-08
[removed]
1 AutoModerator 2019-10-08
Our advanced machine learning algorithm has detected that this comment may violate reddits rule against harassment. This comment was flagged as potentially containing content which could discourage a reasonable person from participating on Reddit because it contained the following word(s):
clownThis instance will be recorded, and repeated offenses could result in your account being banned from r/drama or suspended from Reddit. If you are looking for a similar sub to /r/drama where foul language is more tolerated, check out /r/subredditdrama. If you would like to use your slurs in a purely illustrative context, type the first letter and then "-slur", or replace one of the vowels in the word with a *. Thank you for your understanding, and have a pleasant day.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1 YaBoyStevieF 2019-10-08
Watching Daddy being Killary in the 2016 presidential election was. And watching him beat whatever cIown the DNC sharts out will also be.
1 professorshillphd 2019-10-08
Nah, I prefer to watch the rural suicide rates sky rocket due to a trade war they wanted sending them to the poor house.
1 YaBoyStevieF 2019-10-08
You hate them because they're worth more 🤭🤭🤭
1 Giulio-Cesare 2019-10-08
Idk man I moved from a major city in CA to a rural ass town in the south and at least I don't have to worry about slipping on human feces as I walk down the sidewalk anymore.
1 professorshillphd 2019-10-08
You know why real estate prices are so high in those places? Because they're where people actually want to live.
1 AnnoyinTheGoyim 2019-10-08
No, people don’t want to live there. They are forced to live there because it’s where the high paying tech jobs are located.
1 professorshillphd 2019-10-08
So people want to live there.
1 AnnoyinTheGoyim 2019-10-08
No. Can you read? They want to live somewhere else but are forced to live there for work.
1 professorshillphd 2019-10-08
It doesn't matter why they live there, if the jobs exist there, thus the desire to live there exists.
You have very real cognitive problems if you can't see why your argument makes no sense.
1 [deleted] 2019-10-08
[removed]
1 AutoModerator 2019-10-08
Our advanced machine learning algorithm has detected that this comment may violate reddits rule against harassment. This comment was flagged as potentially containing content which could discourage a reasonable person from participating on Reddit because it contained the following word(s):
JewsThis instance will be recorded, and repeated offenses could result in your account being banned from r/drama or suspended from Reddit. If you are looking for a similar sub to /r/drama where foul language is more tolerated, check out /r/subredditdrama. If you would like to use your slurs in a purely illustrative context, type the first letter and then "-slur", or replace one of the vowels in the word with a *. Thank you for your understanding, and have a pleasant day.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1 [deleted] 2019-10-08
[removed]
1 AutoModerator 2019-10-08
Our advanced machine learning algorithm has detected that this comment may violate reddits rule against harassment. This comment was flagged as potentially containing content which could discourage a reasonable person from participating on Reddit because it contained the following word(s):
copeThis instance will be recorded, and repeated offenses could result in your account being banned from r/drama or suspended from Reddit. If you are looking for a similar sub to /r/drama where foul language is more tolerated, check out /r/subredditdrama. If you would like to use your slurs in a purely illustrative context, type the first letter and then "-slur", or replace one of the vowels in the word with a *. Thank you for your understanding, and have a pleasant day.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1 professorshillphd 2019-10-08
And I'll expand on this because I suspect you really don't get it.
It's like saying "people don't want to live there, it's just that the schools are so amazing" or something. The schools being good creates a desire to be there.
The jobs being in these places creates a demand to live there, thus making them desirable.
1 AnnoyinTheGoyim 2019-10-08
You really don’t get it do you? People don’t want to live there, they have to. Having to live somewhere doesn’t make it desirable. Is living on the street desirable? Because plenty of people are forced to live on the street.
1 professorshillphd 2019-10-08
You honestly can't comprehend this, can you?
It doesn't matter what creates the demand, just that the demand exists.
1 AnnoyinTheGoyim 2019-10-08
Demand doesn’t equal desirability you dolt.
1 professorshillphd 2019-10-08
Yes, it literally does.
If there's a high demand for housing in one area of the country, it means that area is desirable.
The demand exists only because it's desirable.
1 AnnoyinTheGoyim 2019-10-08
No. The demand doesn’t exist because it’s a desirable place to live. Literally no one wants to actually live in somewhere like San Francisco, they would all leave if they could and do when they can.
1 professorshillphd 2019-10-08
I'm honestly baffled as to how you are this dumb of a person.
the jobs create the demand, the areas are desirable because of the jobs.
There are tons of high-value areas in the world that people would leave if they weren't so high value. Saying "people would leave if they could find this same thing somewhere else" is not a valid argument to counter what I am saying.
This is like 6th grade shit dude.
1 AnnoyinTheGoyim 2019-10-08
You clearly have a room temperature IQ. It’s so desirable that more than half of California residents want to leave the state.
1 professorshillphd 2019-10-08
You literally don't have a basic understanding of what demand is.
1 AnnoyinTheGoyim 2019-10-08
I see you’ve changed the argument. You truly are r*tarded.
1 professorshillphd 2019-10-08
No argument has changed. You're trying to claim a demand doesn't mean people want to live there.
Jobs/local economies are one of the primary reasons people move. Real estate prices are high in these places because demand outstrips supply, meaning they're desirable locations.
When we look at the desirability of a real estate market, we look at a bunch of different factors:
1 AnnoyinTheGoyim 2019-10-08
People clearly don’t want to live there if they want to leave. Holy shit, you’re just stupid.
1 professorshillphd 2019-10-08
You literally have not even a basic comprehension of how any of this works.
1 AnnoyinTheGoyim 2019-10-08
Fuck off, you said:
But they don’t. You’re wrong. Deal with it you a*tist.
1 professorshillphd 2019-10-08
If people move there for a job, they want to be there for that job.
You have no idea what you are talking about and not a basic understanding of any of this.
1 AnnoyinTheGoyim 2019-10-08
Rub your two brain cells together and realize you’re wrong.
1 professorshillphd 2019-10-08
I don't know how I can word this in a way a HS drop out can comprehend.
1 AutoModerator 2019-10-08
Our advanced machine learning algorithm has detected that this comment may violate reddits rule against harassment. This comment was flagged as potentially containing content which could discourage a reasonable person from participating on Reddit because it contained the following word(s):
retardedThis instance will be recorded, and repeated offenses could result in your account being banned from r/drama or suspended from Reddit. If you are looking for a similar sub to /r/drama where foul language is more tolerated, check out /r/subredditdrama. If you would like to use your slurs in a purely illustrative context, type the first letter and then "-slur", or replace one of the vowels in the word with a *. Thank you for your understanding, and have a pleasant day.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1 DaySee 2019-10-08
STREEEERRRRRIIIIKE
1 professorshillphd 2019-10-08
and they don't leave, because the the alternatives aren't any better. In order for your argument to be correct, we'd have to pretend economics isn't a contributing factor to desirability in a real estate market.
Pure insanity.
1 AnnoyinTheGoyim 2019-10-08
In order for your argument to be correct, we’d have to pretend people actually want to live there.
1 professorshillphd 2019-10-08
If the demand exists, then people do in fact want to live there, if they didn't, then no demand would exist.
1 AnnoyinTheGoyim 2019-10-08
False. If everyone is forced to buy tampons, does that mean everyone wants tampons?
1 professorshillphd 2019-10-08
Nobody is forced to work in STEM. Nobody is forced to move out there, they move out there because that's where the highest paying jobs are.
Migrating for better economic conditions is not you being forced into anything.
1 AnnoyinTheGoyim 2019-10-08
If the only grocery store in town sold nothing but shitty beyond burgers, do the residents actually want shitty beyond burgers? Or do they just buy them because the need to eat?
1 professorshillphd 2019-10-08
It doesn't matter, because if that was all that was available, there's still demand.
You're completely inability to comprehend what demand here is the problem.
If I move to a city to work in STEM, I did that because I wanted to do it. Nobody held a gun to my head, I could have just have easily moved somewhere else and accepted less pay.
No, I moved to the city because I wanted more money. I wanted it I didn't need it.
Nobody is forced into this, and I'm not going to entertain this drivel anymore where you pretend economic factors aren't a primary driving force behind the desirability of a location.
It's completely ridiculous and would get you laughed at in any academic circle that deals with this stuff. It's just bat-shit insane.
1 AnnoyinTheGoyim 2019-10-08
God. You are literally more r*tarded than Jacob Wohl.
1 professorshillphd 2019-10-08
No, you are legit just low IQ and have no formal education in any of this.
1 AnnoyinTheGoyim 2019-10-08
It doesn’t. More than half of people don’t want to live there, thus it’s not actually desirable. Lay off the fent.
1 professorshillphd 2019-10-08
Actual HS drop out.
1 AnnoyinTheGoyim 2019-10-08
Don’t put yourself down like that.
1 seenten 2019-10-08
This might unironically have been the stupidest comment chain I've ever seen on this sub. 2+2=5
1 Mayos_side 2019-10-08
Wrong.
1 GeauxHouston22 2019-10-08
hilldawg dominated with old bl@cks, bernie dominated with young bl@cks - older people just happen to actually leave the house and cast a vote
old bl@ck people voted for hilldawg then turned around voted for daddy in the general lmao OWNED
1 professorshillphd 2019-10-08
Literally no.
1 GeauxHouston22 2019-10-08
eventually the boomers will die off, and the neolibs will lose their last foothold on american politics.
and I want you to know that when that happens, your entire political ideological will get buried in the ground with them
and you'll look to the sky, and scream, *"why god?????"8
but instead of god it will be me
urinating in your mouth.
1 professorshillphd 2019-10-08
Define "neoliberal' for me using your own words.
1 GeauxHouston22 2019-10-08
limpwrist crybabies who spend more time policing impossibly complex social issues than fundamental human rights and basically restructuring our entire economy
1 professorshillphd 2019-10-08
So you have no idea what neoliberal means.
1 [deleted] 2019-10-08
[removed]
1 AutoModerator 2019-10-08
Our advanced machine learning algorithm has detected that this comment may violate reddits rule against harassment. This comment was flagged as potentially containing content which could discourage a reasonable person from participating on Reddit because it contained the following word(s):
copeThis instance will be recorded, and repeated offenses could result in your account being banned from r/drama or suspended from Reddit. If you are looking for a similar sub to /r/drama where foul language is more tolerated, check out /r/subredditdrama. If you would like to use your slurs in a purely illustrative context, type the first letter and then "-slur", or replace one of the vowels in the word with a *. Thank you for your understanding, and have a pleasant day.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1 [deleted] 2019-10-08
[removed]
1 AutoModerator 2019-10-08
Our advanced machine learning algorithm has detected that this comment may violate reddits rule against harassment. This comment was flagged as potentially containing content which could discourage a reasonable person from participating on Reddit because it contained the following word(s):
c0peThis instance will be recorded, and repeated offenses could result in your account being banned from r/drama or suspended from Reddit. If you are looking for a similar sub to /r/drama where foul language is more tolerated, check out /r/subredditdrama. If you would like to use your slurs in a purely illustrative context, type the first letter and then "-slur", or replace one of the vowels in the word with a *. Thank you for your understanding, and have a pleasant day.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1 GeauxHouston22 2019-10-08
справляться
1 professorshillphd 2019-10-08
I don't speak rat.
1 YaBoyStevieF 2019-10-08
Nice
1 trexmundi 2019-10-08
Hot except for the pizzashill part.
1 [deleted] 2019-10-08
[removed]
1 Kaiser-romulus 2019-10-08
I think the former young libs just turn into neoliberals as they age. So it will never actually disappear. Just like the Republican Party was suppose to have died out thirty years ago.
1 Giulio-Cesare 2019-10-08
There was also the fact that Hillary literally bankrolled the DNC after they ran out of money.
1 Kat_B0T 2019-10-08
From even the most Neo of liberals I’ve spoken with, they disliked the obvious pay to play nature of her ‘foundation’. Which was confirmed when she closed up shop after she lost.
1 diggity_md 2019-10-08
Just imagine being the sort of sad sack that still carries water for Hillary Clin-Tron after she bungled the easiest election win in human history
1 GeauxHouston22 2019-10-08
there's still millions of them out there. I guess they lack the courage to kill themselves, which is a real shame.
1 diggity_md 2019-10-08
They'll claim they like rational, fact based p*litics and then go in to dæddy's mentions to tweet pathetic and unfunny jokes at him for four hours
Absolutely embarrassing
1 GeauxHouston22 2019-10-08
the people who go to war every day in d@ddy's menchies deserve to be rounded up and gassed, regardless of their political affiliation.
1 OnlyRacistOnReddit 2019-10-08
I can get behind this.
1 ItsSugar 2019-10-08
MasterLawlz hasn't tried to run for president AFAIK.
1 shitpersonality 2019-10-08
Tim Kaine was her fucking running mate.
1 [deleted] 2019-10-08
[removed]
1 AutoModerator 2019-10-08
Our advanced machine learning algorithm has detected that this comment may violate reddits rule against harassment. This comment was flagged as potentially containing content which could discourage a reasonable person from participating on Reddit because it contained the following word(s):
TrumpThis instance will be recorded, and repeated offenses could result in your account being banned from r/drama or suspended from Reddit. If you are looking for a similar sub to /r/drama where foul language is more tolerated, check out /r/subredditdrama. If you would like to use your slurs in a purely illustrative context, type the first letter and then "-slur", or replace one of the vowels in the word with a *. Thank you for your understanding, and have a pleasant day.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1 tonguelessnitch 2019-10-08
Because of many factors, including, but not limited to the fact that people dislike the Clintons heavily, especially Hillary or her politics:
Russia;
people disliking Obama;
the fact that she fucked with berniebros tendies or because she and her supporters forgot the golden rule of election- you can shit on undecided hicks all you want before and after the election, but not during them.
Drump is better at one, well two things: Nickelback memes and hick populism.
1 [deleted] 2019-10-08
[removed]
1 AutoModerator 2019-10-08
Our advanced machine learning algorithm has detected that this comment may violate reddits rule against harassment. This comment was flagged as potentially containing content which could discourage a reasonable person from participating on Reddit because it contained the following word(s):
TrumpThis instance will be recorded, and repeated offenses could result in your account being banned from r/drama or suspended from Reddit. If you are looking for a similar sub to /r/drama where foul language is more tolerated, check out /r/subredditdrama. If you would like to use your slurs in a purely illustrative context, type the first letter and then "-slur", or replace one of the vowels in the word with a *. Thank you for your understanding, and have a pleasant day.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1 CountChadvonCisberg 2019-10-08
Drumpf
1 professorshillphd 2019-10-08
You aren't being specific, you claimed the DNC did everything to lose, I ask you to be specific, and you say "but bro, people didn't like Clinton."
Ignoring the fact she had a higher approval rating than Trmp, that isn't very tangible.
When did she "shit on the hicks."
1 trexmundi 2019-10-08
By my recollection there was a rather heavily publicized blowing off of coal miners in West Virginia, and other similarly depressed blue collar work. A great deal of talk about 'retraining' aka 'Learn to code'.
1 professorshillphd 2019-10-08
I'm glad you invoked this, because it's a great example of how dishonest the right-wing media is. The reality is, coal is dead. It's never coming back, regulations didn't kill coal, market forces killed coal and continue to kill coal.
Clinton went there and gave the following speech:
The media cut out the full context. Clinton was the only person offering real solutions. She didn't blow them off, she was just honest with them.
1 trexmundi 2019-10-08
I can definitely see how that would come across as blowing them off. Actually, giving into cynicism and interpreting that in the worst light possible, that's only a breath away from telling them and their families to fuck off and die because they aren't needed anymore.
1 professorshillphd 2019-10-08
Are you high?
1 trexmundi 2019-10-08
You can't put a statement in a political speech that you're going to put an entire community's livelihood out of business, not even in what may have been intended as a joke, and counterbalance that with flattery and vague promises. That's the one issue that will supersede any other political issue to a person.
1 professorshillphd 2019-10-08
She's not putting anyone out of business, reality is putting them out of business.
1 trexmundi 2019-10-08
That's a poor choice of phrasing then.
People don't blame reality, they blame politicians.
1 professorshillphd 2019-10-08
Ok, but reality is to blame. Coal is not competitive.
1 Kat_B0T 2019-10-08
They were deplorable rurals, why would you even think they deserved Hillary’s praise?
1 trexmundi 2019-10-08
I mean, they don't. But it's not PC to say that on the news.
1 Kat_B0T 2019-10-08
This was when Hillary was embracing not being “PC”. Like when she called all basketball Americans “super predators”. It’s wasn’t her fault! If drunpf hadn’t started being so plain spoken mommy would have never expressed her true feelings and likely won!
1 911roofer 2019-10-08
Because we also have to pretend that the "urban" population isn't a burden to the Majority.
1 Kat_B0T 2019-10-08
If I were a really smart anthropologist I would study why people living in urban areas are so disconnected from nature, ability, and self sustainability. Individualism matters. Group think is consensus, but on a micro level it usually doesn’t pan out ime
1 Wordshark 2019-10-08
Huh.
1 jaredschaffer27 2019-10-08
I can't tell you how many people born and raised in dense urban areas have told me that they cannot fathom the need for carrying a pocket knife on your person.
The disconnect is real.
1 Kat_B0T 2019-10-08
Yup it genuinely blows my mind. I spent all day building a deck, these people likely couldn’t even operate a saw .
1 Platycel 2019-10-08
No, but I wish I was.
1 Giulio-Cesare 2019-10-08
First thing you've ever said in your entire life that I actually agree with.
1 muck4doo 2019-10-08
Welcome back PizzaShillary :)
1 [deleted] 2019-10-08
[removed]
1 AutoModerator 2019-10-08
Our advanced machine learning algorithm has detected that this comment may violate reddits rule against harassment. This comment was flagged as potentially containing content which could discourage a reasonable person from participating on Reddit because it contained the following word(s):
moidThis instance will be recorded, and repeated offenses could result in your account being banned from r/drama or suspended from Reddit. If you are looking for a similar sub to /r/drama where foul language is more tolerated, check out /r/subredditdrama. If you would like to use your slurs in a purely illustrative context, type the first letter and then "-slur", or replace one of the vowels in the word with a *. Thank you for your understanding, and have a pleasant day.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1 Giulio-Cesare 2019-10-08
https://i.imgur.com/4h8yNWy.png
1 professorshillphd 2019-10-08
She didn't, but she did need white women.
1 AutoModerator 2019-10-08
Our advanced machine learning algorithm has detected that this comment may violate reddits rule against harassment. This comment was flagged as potentially containing content which could discourage a reasonable person from participating on Reddit because it contained the following word(s):
whiteThis instance will be recorded, and repeated offenses could result in your account being banned from r/drama or suspended from Reddit. If you are looking for a similar sub to /r/drama where foul language is more tolerated, check out /r/subredditdrama. If you would like to use your slurs in a purely illustrative context, type the first letter and then "-slur", or replace one of the vowels in the word with a *. Thank you for your understanding, and have a pleasant day.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1 RecallRethuglicans 2019-10-08
On a technicality after having Russia hack the election.
1 DaySee 2019-10-08
Yo Pizza I found the fucking perfect theme song for you, coincidentally by a really good band named Personal and The Pizzas.
Let me know if you like it, you can have first dips for karma, if not then I'm gonna share this masterpiece in your honor, unironically cause you've been on a roll today and I dig it.
1 Mayos_side 2019-10-08
I mean c'mon, jeeze.
1 BussyBlastBismallah 2019-10-08
I've missed you pizza.
1 Matues49 2019-10-08
pls do it Hilldawg
1 Tzar-Romulus 2019-10-08
It's finally her turn
1 SJCards 2019-10-08
...and this time, she'll win!
1 BurgerLaowai 2019-10-08
For realsies!
Can’t wait for more sides of beef gifs.
1 Platycel 2019-10-08
If she loses for the third time, it will be the first suicide she'll do to herself.
1 ImJustaBagofHammers 2019-10-08
If I were a well-connected amoral mass murder, I probably would post something like this to amuse myself.
1 AutoModerator 2019-10-08
Our advanced machine learning algorithm has detected that this comment may violate reddits rule against harassment. This comment was flagged as potentially containing content which could discourage a reasonable person from participating on Reddit because it contained the following word(s):
TrumpThis instance will be recorded, and repeated offenses could result in your account being banned from r/drama or suspended from Reddit. If you are looking for a similar sub to /r/drama where foul language is more tolerated, check out /r/subredditdrama. If you would like to use your slurs in a purely illustrative context, type the first letter and then "-slur", or replace one of the vowels in the word with a *. Thank you for your understanding, and have a pleasant day.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1 Kaiser-romulus 2019-10-08
She’s gonna jump in the race. She can’t help herself. Chad move tbh
1 Tzar-Romulus 2019-10-08
Lmao the amount of drama. 🤤
1 [deleted] 2019-10-08
[removed]
1 AutoModerator 2019-10-08
Our advanced machine learning algorithm has detected that this comment may violate reddits rule against harassment. This comment was flagged as potentially containing content which could discourage a reasonable person from participating on Reddit because it contained the following word(s):
f0idsThis instance will be recorded, and repeated offenses could result in your account being banned from r/drama or suspended from Reddit. If you are looking for a similar sub to /r/drama where foul language is more tolerated, check out /r/subredditdrama. If you would like to use your slurs in a purely illustrative context, type the first letter and then "-slur", or replace one of the vowels in the word with a *. Thank you for your understanding, and have a pleasant day.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1 WholesomeDrama 2019-10-08
i would actually vote for her this time, it would be too fucking funny for her to steal his 2nd term 🤣🤣🤣
1 [deleted] 2019-10-08
[removed]
1 AutoModerator 2019-10-08
Our advanced machine learning algorithm has detected that this comment may violate reddits rule against harassment. This comment was flagged as potentially containing content which could discourage a reasonable person from participating on Reddit because it contained the following word(s):
incelThis instance will be recorded, and repeated offenses could result in your account being banned from r/drama or suspended from Reddit. If you are looking for a similar sub to /r/drama where foul language is more tolerated, check out /r/subredditdrama. If you would like to use your slurs in a purely illustrative context, type the first letter and then "-slur", or replace one of the vowels in the word with a *. Thank you for your understanding, and have a pleasant day.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1 WholesomeDrama 2019-10-08
thx 4 looking out 4 me
1 taytaybraps 2019-10-08
I'd illegally vote for her 😔
1 freet0 2019-10-08
The DDF butthurt would be off the charts
1 OnlyRacistOnReddit 2019-10-08
True, too bad she's a Stacy.
1 Kaiser-romulus 2019-10-08
She’s not feminine enough to be a Stacy
1 OnlyRacistOnReddit 2019-10-08
Ouch, true, but ouch!
Would she be a Tara, or is this something new.
1 Kaiser-romulus 2019-10-08
Yeah a Tara sounds like a solid name for explaining this
1 preserved_fish 2019-10-08
She was a politics nerd Stacy back on the day, but Bill's chadded it out of her.
1 collectijism 2019-10-08
Shes a karen
1 alphetaboss 2019-10-08
She's a Hillary. She's in a category all by herself, there will never be another like her.
1 RecallRethuglicans 2019-10-08
She should bring Chelsea in as her VP
1 Kaiser-romulus 2019-10-08
No, bring you in as her VP
1 shitpersonality 2019-10-08
Pizzashill should be VP
1 taytaybraps 2019-10-08
Pizzashill assasinates her, becomes president, and pardons himself
1 Plexipus 2019-10-08
I can't believe how common this belief is on the right. And they accuse democrats of not being able to get over the 2016 election. They're like those guys in their forties who still talk about being quarterback of the football team in high school
1 Kaiser-romulus 2019-10-08
Okay but what happens when she does jump back in?
1 Plexipus 2019-10-08
I'll use the points in my account to ban you for a day
1 big_papa_stiffy 2019-10-08
youre literally still trying to impeach him over pretend russia conspiracies and now ukraine lol
its been years and you guys havent stopped reeeeing for a minute
1 [deleted] 2019-10-08
[removed]
1 AutoModerator 2019-10-08
Our advanced machine learning algorithm has detected that this comment may violate reddits rule against harassment. This comment was flagged as potentially containing content which could discourage a reasonable person from participating on Reddit because it contained the following word(s):
TrumpThis instance will be recorded, and repeated offenses could result in your account being banned from r/drama or suspended from Reddit. If you are looking for a similar sub to /r/drama where foul language is more tolerated, check out /r/subredditdrama. If you would like to use your slurs in a purely illustrative context, type the first letter and then "-slur", or replace one of the vowels in the word with a *. Thank you for your understanding, and have a pleasant day.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1 Plexipus 2019-10-08
In your mind POTUS being accused of doing the exact same thing as he was accused of doing in the Mueller investigation somehow absolves him of both crimes
1 big_papa_stiffy 2019-10-08
no it just means that democrats have zero imagination
1 Plexipus 2019-10-08
Give us a break not all of us can play 4th demential chess
1 [deleted] 2019-10-08
[removed]
1 AutoModerator 2019-10-08
Our advanced machine learning algorithm has detected that this comment may violate reddits rule against harassment. This comment was flagged as potentially containing content which could discourage a reasonable person from participating on Reddit because it contained the following word(s):
cuckedThis instance will be recorded, and repeated offenses could result in your account being banned from r/drama or suspended from Reddit. If you are looking for a similar sub to /r/drama where foul language is more tolerated, check out /r/subredditdrama. If you would like to use your slurs in a purely illustrative context, type the first letter and then "-slur", or replace one of the vowels in the word with a *. Thank you for your understanding, and have a pleasant day.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1 ImJustaBagofHammers 2019-10-08
Dementia Daddy probably assisted in the murder of Epstein.
1 [deleted] 2019-10-08
[removed]
1 AutoModerator 2019-10-08
Our advanced machine learning algorithm has detected that this comment may violate reddits rule against harassment. This comment was flagged as potentially containing content which could discourage a reasonable person from participating on Reddit because it contained the following word(s):
TrumpThis instance will be recorded, and repeated offenses could result in your account being banned from r/drama or suspended from Reddit. If you are looking for a similar sub to /r/drama where foul language is more tolerated, check out /r/subredditdrama. If you would like to use your slurs in a purely illustrative context, type the first letter and then "-slur", or replace one of the vowels in the word with a *. Thank you for your understanding, and have a pleasant day.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1 LightUmbra 2019-10-08
Shid
1 YaBoyStevieF 2019-10-08
Is Killary the centrist choice? It seems both sides want her to run again
1 ImJustaBagofHammers 2019-10-08
You seem to have forgotten the horseshoe theory.
1 YaBoyStevieF 2019-10-08
We need to elect Hong Kong
1 211sAndMacallan 2019-10-08
Dude imagine if she gets the nom and loses to him again.
1 YaBoyStevieF 2019-10-08
I think she would just turn to Ash right then and there
1 [deleted] 2019-10-08
[removed]
1 AutoModerator 2019-10-08
Our advanced machine learning algorithm has detected that this comment may violate reddits rule against harassment. This comment was flagged as potentially containing content which could discourage a reasonable person from participating on Reddit because it contained the following word(s):
cuckThis instance will be recorded, and repeated offenses could result in your account being banned from r/drama or suspended from Reddit. If you are looking for a similar sub to /r/drama where foul language is more tolerated, check out /r/subredditdrama. If you would like to use your slurs in a purely illustrative context, type the first letter and then "-slur", or replace one of the vowels in the word with a *. Thank you for your understanding, and have a pleasant day.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1 211sAndMacallan 2019-10-08
Well his heart may cück him first. Dude is old as fuck
1 -Kite-Man- 2019-10-08
i thought they were all basically the same age
1 211sAndMacallan 2019-10-08
Kinda
Bérnie is 78
Joe is 76
Dónald is 73
Hillarÿ is 71
Warren is 70
Yáng is 44 which means he is not a böomer.
1 HodorTheDoorHolder_ 2019-10-08
Yang looks between 14-44 as all Asians do until they hit menopause.
1 muck4doo 2019-10-08
They go from looking hot as fuck to Yoda in the space of 3 months when that happens.
1 Infidel6 2019-10-08
Damn. Why don't these rich assholes just fucking retire already.
1 211sAndMacallan 2019-10-08
Ya I don’t get it. I’d be in a beautiful mansion surrounded by gorgeous cats. Why would you wanna waste time and take in so much stress by running
1 preserved_fish 2019-10-08
And Pete is 17.
1 Pinksister 2019-10-08
Why can't Americans elect a leader who isn't decrepit? People in their 70s shouldn't be allowed to drive a car and America is letting five of them duke it out for control of their nation. I bet every one of them smells like cheese and has Wurthers Originals in their pockets.
1 Giulio-Cesare 2019-10-08
She would be reborn as a 12 year old Hillary, finally free to live a carefree life of abandon and pursue her real dreams, freed from the shackles of her past.
1 Mayos_side 2019-10-08
The only true ending to all this.
1 Infidel6 2019-10-08
There would still be people wanting her to run again. Nothing can break their delusions.
This w*man cannot become president. The fates have weaved her thread. The will of the cosmos has spoken: she is to forever to be known as a loser whose husband got his dick sucked.
1 big_papa_stiffy 2019-10-08
she literally cant win lol
1 ManBearFridge 2019-10-08
Dems absolutely don't want her to run again
1 RecallRethuglicans 2019-10-08
Speak for yourself.
1 KaaraRaven 2019-10-08
MOMMY YES 😍😍😍
1 Giulio-Cesare 2019-10-08
Sounds like some Diablo II mob.
1 JustLions 2019-10-08
The best possible result would be her winning the Dem primary, then getting MeTooed.
1 MayorPeteBootycheck 2019-10-08
YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAASSSSSS
FUCKING QUEEN HILLARY LET'S GET IT WHOOP WHOOP
I'M UNIRONICALLY SO EXCITED I FUCKING LOVE HILL
1 allendrio 2019-10-08
Holy shit hes still talking about her emails lmao.
1 big_papa_stiffy 2019-10-08
yeah because they were an actual big deal lmao
only partisans downplayed or outright ignored them
1 TheColdTurtle 2019-10-08
Shes going to do it god damnit
1 Ghdust2 2019-10-08
2020 is gonna be a shitshow of unimaginable proportions
1 911roofer 2019-10-08
I cannot wait.
1 r4chan-cancer 2019-10-08
BUT HER EMAILS
1 BussyBlastBismallah 2019-10-08
God fuckin bless my tepid heart if she does it.
1 911roofer 2019-10-08
YES