Posted on 09 November 2016 - 11:16 AM
Blaszczak wrote
He is the most under qualified candidate for the presidency. He does horrific things. Both Clinton and Trump arent amazing but Clinton is the one. Trump hasn't payed federal taxes in the past 18 years, which is illegal, he has harassed women and men, made women feel powerless, he does not follow the rules of the debates. His twitter got closed for a period of time because he got mad at SNL for talking bad at him so he started talking back. How are we suppose to trust someone that gets mad so easily with government nuclear codes…. Clinton on the other had has experience. She has been secretary of state in New York, first lady, etc. She works in the buisness of politics for years while Trump has a strong business background. This is not an election for the CEO of a company but moreso the president of our country. Trump wants to takeep away the 2nd amendment which he is not allowed to do since it is submerged deeply in the constitution. He claims that he will build a wall and make Mexico pay for it, which is also not possible because Mexico will not pay for it and Trump would not pay for it because that would be a huge cost. What has this presidency come to lol
You know, I was prepared for a long rebuttal to all of your invalid points, but Trump won.
We won.
Posted on 09 November 2016 - 11:23 AM
LordBowser wrote
Blaszczak wrote...
You know, I was prepared for a long rebuttal to all of your invalid points, but Trump won.
We won.
yea but the world didnt win
Posted on 09 November 2016 - 11:34 AM
ThatOneCombo wrote
Lynkkis wrote...
Not like America affects the rest of the world…
Posted on 09 November 2016 - 11:35 AM
Lynkkis wrote
ThatOneCombo wrote...
ok
Posted on 09 November 2016 - 11:47 AM
Lynkkis wrote
ThatOneCombo wrote...
Posted on 09 November 2016 - 12:25 PM
This just shows how stupid Americans are.Posted on 09 November 2016 - 12:46 PM
LordBowser wrote
Blaszczak wrote...
You know, I was prepared for a long rebuttal to all of your invalid points, but Trump won.
We won.
I respect all political views I'm just stating what I believe
Posted on 09 November 2016 - 12:47 PM
ThatOneCombo wrote
That's not democracy, it could be used to abuse the working class… Uneducated can also have an opinion! And not all 'educated' people should be seen as people with university degrees. A hardworking and good plumber for example should also be counted as 'educated'. (I thought you only meant people with university degrees but I'm not sure, some people can't afford university in the US)
Posted on 09 November 2016 - 12:53 PM
Unshift wrote
Lynkkis wrote...
And the European Union, maybe Japan and North Korea (maybe not)
Apparently Hillary Clinton had more votes but she still lost. Of course the conservatives don't want get rid of a 200 year old system!
I think I know why it was used but still!
Last edited on 09 November 2016 - 01:01 PM by KingEli_
I am moving to Africa right now f thisPosted on 09 November 2016 - 12:57 PM
Hexus wrote
Unshift wrote...
And the European Union, maybe Japan and North Korea (maybe not)
Apparently Hillary Clinton had more votes but she still lost. Of course the conservatives don't want get rid of a 200 year old system!
I think I know why it was used but still!
Last edited on 09 November 2016 - 01:02 PM by SuperNeil64
Unshift wrote
Hexus wrote...
You have a lot to learn.
Posted on 09 November 2016 - 01:07 PM
Hexus wrote
ThatOneCombo wrote...
That's not democracy, it could be used to abuse the working class… Uneducated can also have an opinion! And not all 'educated' people should be seen as people with university degrees. A hardworking and good plumber for example should also be counted as 'educated'. (I thought you only meant people with university degrees but I'm not sure, some people can't afford university in the US)
No, I meant people educated abt the candidates and the election over all
Posted on 09 November 2016 - 01:07 PM
SuperNeil64 wrote
Unshift wrote...
You have a lot to learn.
Posted on 09 November 2016 - 01:29 PM
Unshift wrote
Hexus wrote...
yes, the electoral college system is basically the same as the popular vote system, but it's the winner take's it all system that's bad
It means that 1 man/woman doesn't equal 1 vote and it basically means you throw away a vote if you vote opposite to the nature of your state.
for example if candiDate 1 gets 50.5% in 48 states, but 20% in the other 2 states it would mean candifate 2 has more popular votes but she would lose because of the winner takes it all system (depends on amount per state) but I think it's made to make the other 48 states 'feel happier' because they had a majority of voters on candidate 1 (not sure though)
Posted on 09 November 2016 - 01:33 PM
Hexus wrote
Unshift wrote...
yes, the electoral college system is basically the same as the popular vote system, but it's the winner take's it all system that's bad
It means that 1 man/woman doesn't equal 1 vote and it basically means you throw away a vote if you vote opposite to the nature of your state.
for example if candiDate 1 gets 50.5% in 48 states, but 20% in the other 2 states it would mean candifate 2 has more popular votes but she would lose because of the winner takes it all system (depends on amount per state) but I think it's made to make the other 48 states 'feel happier' because they had a majority of voters on candidate 1 (not sure though)
Posted on 09 November 2016 - 01:37 PM
Hexus wrote
yes, the electoral college system is basically the same as the popular vote system, but it's the winner take's it all system that's bad
It means that 1 man/woman doesn't equal 1 vote and it basically means you throw away a vote if you vote opposite to the nature of your state.
for example if candiDate 1 gets 50.5% in 48 states, but 20% in the other 2 states it would mean candifate 2 has more popular votes but she would lose because of the winner takes it all system (depends on amount per state) but I think it's made to make the other 48 states 'feel happier' because they had a majority of voters on candidate 1 (not sure though)
I'm sorry pal, I can't understand any of that. Without commas or punctuation it's just one really long run on sentence and it causes confusion. And then you're also talking about candifates whatever that is…
Last edited on 09 November 2016 - 01:42 PM by Hexus
Unshift wrote
Hexus wrote...
I know (I meant 50.1%) but the problem with this system is the winner takes it all system. I don't understand why they should use electoral college if they're basing it off population anyways. Maybe because voting is not compulsary? They can still use the electoral college system but without the winner takes it all system in my opinion.
edit: and then still the popularity vote would be more democratic. I don't understand what you're trying to say with the Rhode island example, with the popularity vote it obviously gets less votes
Posted on 09 November 2016 - 01:46 PM
Hexus wrote
Unshift wrote...
I know (I meant 50.1%) but the problem with this system is the winner takes it all system. I don't understand why they should use electoral college if they're basing it off population anyways. Maybe because voting is not compulsary? They can still use the electoral college system but without the winner takes it all system in my opinion.
edit: and then still the popularity vote would be more democratic. I don't understand what you're trying to say with the Rhode island example, with the popularity vote it obviously gets less votes
and yeah, the electoral college would be perfect if it wasn't a winners take all
Posted on 09 November 2016 - 01:54 PM
Unshift wrote
Hexus wrote...
and yeah, the electoral college would be perfect if it wasn't a winners take all
isn't the popular vote solely based on the number of votes, regardless of what state?? and yeah the winner takes it system doesn't give small parties a chance