Posted November 09, 2016
low rated
pearnon
Perilous Pooh
Registered: Dec 2010
From Portugal
Tauto
MY BUDDY NES
Registered: Jul 2015
From Australia
Posted November 09, 2016
low rated
What do you want a blue for?Just ask tinye (KINGSHIT) and the piece of shit followers to spam it into deletion.
sanscript
Choose τ over π
Registered: Jul 2011
From Norway
Posted November 09, 2016
What's wrong with the words "new world order" and youtube? Even EU and especially UN has such an agenda.that can be associated with that (how about the Roman Empire?), to create a unified collective order/power. There's neither evil nor good in that.
Throughout the history, what people had considered to be just a hypothesis or a myth have turned out to be true... Everything that is considered too radical or too foreign, is not covered.. Subsequently, books and newspapers won't always draw the whole picture as they're often coloured by the political agendas of that country.
And yet people are still pouring in. Also, as an American such as him would be given a hospitality that is worthy for a king. Don't forget - it really matters where you come from, right? :p
Post edited November 09, 2016 by sanscript
Zabohad
New User
Registered: Aug 2009
From Czech Republic
Posted November 09, 2016
People fell for a populist and now they will have to live with that. Maybe the weakness of Hillary played a certainly role but I think mostly they just fell for Trump.
1) Most of people are average (by definition),
2) Average people can be rather easily tricked, threatened, bribed or confused (general experience),
3) All votes are equal, majority wins.
I still think sticking with this system is worth occasional Trump, compared to other tempting options.
Yes, 3) technically isn't true in the system of electoral votes, but all players knew the rules before the game and played by them, and Rule of Law is itself valuable principle.
Chacranajxy
New User
Registered: Mar 2009
From United States
Posted November 09, 2016
So much for good luck...
Klumpen0815
+91
Registered: Dec 2012
From Germany
Posted November 09, 2016
The top five most populous states comprise less than 40% of the population, it includes blue states, red states and a swing state, so campaigning there alone is not sufficient to win any election. Besides, the fact that historically the candidates are rarely more than one or two million votes apart in the popular vote, in this election even less, shows that the candidates could not afford to neglect any potential voters under a popular vote system.
The electoral college system not only forgoes equality and makes some persons' votes weigh more than others, but it also makes many of these votes worth nothing at all, since 50% plus one vote is all it takes for a candidate to gain all the state's electoral college votes in almost all states. This means that in their misguided attempt at equal representation they've created a system with even less representation in which a democrat's vote in a red state, or a republican's vote in a blue state, are worth nothing. All it does is ensure that instead of the candidates focusing their attention on reaching the maximum number of voters, they'll spend the majority of their campaign on a few swing states, who more often than not determine the election's results by themselves.
Imho there is no way to justify this since it goes directly against la égalité.
Post edited November 09, 2016 by Klumpen0815
Telika
Registered: Apr 2012
From Switzerland
Posted November 09, 2016
They are new to you ? When a neonazi militant (actively supporting the neonazi formations in his country) who foams post after post after posts about jews controllong the world, about his fantasies of beating up homosexuals (and his ex-gf), about subhuman primitive foreigner "cannibals" creeping in his country, who drools with admiration at each military dictatorship popping up in the world, who keeps openly expecting a global cycle of violence to cleanse the world, and rejoices openly at any sign of polarization leading to it, keeps mentionning the threat of a "new world order", you think that it is three random words arriving together out of chance, because it's about some order that would be new in the world ?
Some other people with a minimum of culture tend to situate and contextualize a bit better the concepts and notions that keep popping up in his rants. And that are extremely tracable.
Some other people with a minimum of culture tend to situate and contextualize a bit better the concepts and notions that keep popping up in his rants. And that are extremely tracable.
Post edited November 09, 2016 by Telika
GlorFindel
Boycott - April 2020.- ?
Registered: Dec 2009
From Croatia
Posted November 09, 2016
The top five most populous states comprise less than 40% of the population, it includes blue states, red states and a swing state, so campaigning there alone is not sufficient to win any election. Besides, the fact that historically the candidates are rarely more than one or two million votes apart in the popular vote, in this election even less, shows that the candidates could not afford to neglect any potential voters under a popular vote system.
The electoral college system not only forgoes equality and makes some persons' votes weigh more than others, but it also makes many of these votes worth nothing at all, since 50% plus one vote is all it takes for a candidate to gain all the state's electoral college votes in almost all states. This means that in their misguided attempt at equal representation they've created a system with even less representation in which a democrat's vote in a red state, or a republican's vote in a blue state, are worth nothing. All it does is ensure that instead of the candidates focusing their attention on reaching the maximum number of voters, they'll spend the majority of their campaign on a few swing states, who more often than not determine the election's results by themselves.
Imho there is no way to justify this since it goes directly against la égalité.
http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/7/12315574/electoral-college-explained-presidential-elections-2016
Post edited November 09, 2016 by GlorFindel
Ariod
New User
Registered: Mar 2014
From United States
Posted November 09, 2016
high rated
While there is a whole lot of things that you could criticize most American senators and congressmen for, the idea that there is something outstandingly bad about Hillary Clinton is really ridiculous. I'm really disappointed that so many people are so naive (or uninterested in the truth) that they fail to see that the whole "Crooked Hillary" narrative is just a creation of the Trump campaign. These people ride on you, and you are loving it!
Mrs Clinton does not appear as a person that would make a great president, but she is not the antichrist!
But in defense of my imbecilic-seeming countrymen, let me just say that this took the "perfect storm" to create a Trump presidency. Indeed, I have watched this sorry shit-show play out all year since working for the Sanders campaign in the primary, and as much as I never wanted to admit this outcome was possible, if I'm to be honest here I saw this coming ever since Bernie lost.
And the real "Kingmaker" here (yeah that term seems appropriate somehow) was the Democratic party.. Here the two primaries showed all of us, clearly, without a fucking doubt that this election was and would be dominated by an anti-establishment sentiment. Bernie's rise from nowhere to giving Clinton the run of her life, plus Trump dominating the Republican side from the get-go thru the finish made that incredibly clear to anybody with half a brain.
But here the idiot DNC had already decided years ago that this was "Hillary's turn" (stemming back to '08), so the Democratic leadership worked from day 1 to squelch the Sanders campaign, and there was no quesition to them from day 1 that Hillary was "their girl". COMPLETELY ignoring the overall mood of the nation, and the fact that if people had to single out one politician who represents "the status quo", Hillary would be first on the list.
Ever wonder why there were so few Dem primary candidates compared to the Republicans? Cuz they knew the leadership had already decided the thing beforehand, and they'd be fighting against the party from the get-go. Only a select few were willing to take all that on.
If the Dems had run Sanders, who had the same kind of "outsider cred" as Trump, minus the side-helping of idiocy and authoritarianism... well this would be a vastly different conversation in this thread today. But running Hillary during a period of intense anti-establishment feeling, against a perceived "outsider", made it possible for even one of the weakest, least popular candidates in our history to win. So, in the endless irony that we live with here in good ol America, the Democratic party leadership and Hillary herself turned out be Trump's MVPs. I don't believe he could have won it without them. They created the perfect storm that allowed some zero-experience zero-intelligence reality star buffoon to win.
And if you're not sure if what I'm saying is true, just look at the exit polling. 38%, I believe, was the number of Trump voters who said they don't like him and their choice was a "lesser of 2 evils" thing. Nobody thinks "evil" about Sanders, even those who disagree with him. His track record of integrity and fighting for the small guy and working people is quite the opposite of Clinton, and his overall "favorable rating" was recently noted as the highest of any politican in America. This guy would have won over my Midwestern working class neighbors who are the ones (well along with Florida i guess) who handed this thing to Trump. Rather than handing the presidency to Trump, Bernie woulda handed him his ass.
So Trump fans, toast the DNC today as you celebrate your win. Without their game-playing we'd be talking about president-elect Sanders today.
Edit: I don't think I quite tied things together completely here with my response. Having said the above then, the reason people were so susceptible to believing any number of nasty claims about Clinton was because of that intense anger towards the establishment. You could have probably directed at least part of that vitriol on anybody perceived as an "insider", and it would have stuck - at least enough to have a significant effect. And beyond that, the Republicans had been working on destroying Clinton's reputation for years, in anticipation of a presidential contest against her.
Bottom line there: never doubt the ability of someone to believe something they *want* to believe, however far from the truth it might be. People wanted to believe that bad stuff about "the insider Clinton" so it was an easy sell, honestly. This is kinda the same principle at work with conspiracy theorists, as has been much discussed in another thread here.
Post edited November 09, 2016 by Ariod
Klumpen0815
+91
Registered: Dec 2012
From Germany
Posted November 09, 2016
For whoever is interested: Tomorrow are the first Somalian elections since 1984.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somali_parliamentary_election,_2016
This is a rarity and should get way more coverage than the regular bollocks from the US.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somali_parliamentary_election,_2016
This is a rarity and should get way more coverage than the regular bollocks from the US.
Post edited November 09, 2016 by Klumpen0815
Goodaltgamer
New User
Registered: Oct 2014
From Germany
Posted November 09, 2016
low rated
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somali_parliamentary_election,_2016
This is a rarity and should get way more coverage than the regular bollocks from the US.
That IS something to celebrate!
Klumpen0815
+91
Registered: Dec 2012
From Germany
Posted November 09, 2016
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somali_parliamentary_election,_2016
This is a rarity and should get way more coverage than the regular bollocks from the US.
That IS something to celebrate!
https://www.gog.com/forum/general/tomorrow_are_the_first_somalian_elections_since_1984
Post edited November 09, 2016 by Klumpen0815
richlind33
bong hits for beelzebub
Registered: Jan 2016
From United States
Posted November 09, 2016
low rated
Given his actions and his cynicism, I suspect that, no matter their differences of motives, Trotsky's hands being less bloody than Stalin's is mostly a matter of circumstances.
Post edited November 09, 2016 by richlind33
Goodaltgamer
New User
Registered: Oct 2014
From Germany
Posted November 09, 2016
low rated
contributed ;)
Luned
Dude, I'm a Lady
Registered: Oct 2008
From United States
Posted November 09, 2016
I partly agree with your thoughts. Clinton certainly didn't come off looking like anything but the embodiment of all the worst parts of the DC status quo from the Democratic primary, but I'm not certain Sanders would have won, either. On the other hand, I also think only maybe two of the other Republican primary candidates had any shot of winning the general, no matter how much the pundits claimed otherwise.
As an "ABC" voter this election (the behavior of both Clintons back in the 1990s helped me to decide that I didn't really identify with either party, and I'm not the only Gen X'er who feels that way), I'm also not certain that I would have voted for Sanders. As an example, I'd be happy to see 18-year-olds who have busted their butts off in high school to make the grades get some help to earn a degree in something with a real career path, but I have no desire to pay for someone who wants to slouch around for four years drinking and smoking weed to excess and doing the absolute minimum necessary to not flunk out while they "find themselves". And knowing how Washington works, that's the way that program would probably end up functioning, no matter how well-intentioned its creators.
More than anything else, this election has shown that both Democrats and Republicans are increasingly out of touch with voter J.Q. Public. The old party lines and definitions just don't fit comfortably for a majority of citizens anymore.
As an "ABC" voter this election (the behavior of both Clintons back in the 1990s helped me to decide that I didn't really identify with either party, and I'm not the only Gen X'er who feels that way), I'm also not certain that I would have voted for Sanders. As an example, I'd be happy to see 18-year-olds who have busted their butts off in high school to make the grades get some help to earn a degree in something with a real career path, but I have no desire to pay for someone who wants to slouch around for four years drinking and smoking weed to excess and doing the absolute minimum necessary to not flunk out while they "find themselves". And knowing how Washington works, that's the way that program would probably end up functioning, no matter how well-intentioned its creators.
More than anything else, this election has shown that both Democrats and Republicans are increasingly out of touch with voter J.Q. Public. The old party lines and definitions just don't fit comfortably for a majority of citizens anymore.