Herbert Jablonski Wrote:If the popular vote was the sole decider in each election then population dense cities would be the only part of the entire country that would have any true representation. California, New York, and a few others would be among the few states that would get representation. With the electoral college in place every state gets some guaranteed representation. Trump managed to get parts of the Rust Belt that haven't voted Red in close to thirty years and the swing they gave helped decide this election.

Satellite Wrote:Lol@Trump supporters posting colored maps of US to prove that the election was democratic. In a true democracy every vote is equal, 1 vote is 1 vote. Trump lost the popular vote. Do these dumbasses think that dirt and trees have a vote?

VerrKol Wrote:This is a ridiculous argument. The electoral college doesn't increase rural representation at all. The required number of senators and limited number of house members does! The real problem with the electoral college, and some state primaries, is the sheer number of "winner takes all" states. This marginalizes the minority party of either color in many states. Instead of having a president competing for votes across the country, you have candidates pandering to a handful of "swing states" while the rest of the country is left stagnant and ignored.

There is nothing more frustrating in a presidential election than knowing that your vote doesn't matter because you live in the wrong state.

We could argue the merits of rural vs urban representation in Congress all day, but there is no reason to skew votes for a president that is intended to represent the ENTIRE country. The founding father's reasons for creating the Electoral College are archaic and defunct in an age where communication from Alaska to New Hampshire happens instantaneously.

Herbert Jablonski Wrote:If the popular vote was the sole decider in each election then population dense cities would be the only part of the entire country that would have any true representation. California, New York, and a few others would be among the few states that would get representation. With the electoral college in place every state gets some guaranteed representation. Trump managed to get parts of the Rust Belt that haven't voted Red in close to thirty years and the swing they gave helped decide this election.

Herbert Jablonski Wrote:The fact of the matter is Trump had to work with the system the way it is now and he found a demographic of disenfranchised people to support him.

VerrKol Wrote:True enough. It's a weird year when we start calling the white majority disenfranchised, but Trump supporters clearly felt that way.
Flonne; I don't know anyone who seriously thought Texas would go blue. The media was definitively way off everywhere.

Flonne Wrote:and people are rioting in the streets of major cities and calling for the immediate assassination of Trump.

Flonne Wrote:Apparently Obama already signed an executive order to "look into the election results"

VerrKol Wrote:Jesus dude, don't believe everything you read on FB. Or shock the monkey

Conversion therapy of any form is bad enough anyway. This is the plantain Cheney insurance plan all over again.

EDIT: Lol at the filter. I'm leaving it

VerrKol Wrote:Conversion therapy of any form is bad enough anyway. This is the plantain Cheney insurance plan all over again.

xparasite9 Wrote:lol. it's just an application of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy. It's widely accepted and endorsed for just about every other thing, but when it comes to one small spectrum of behavioral anomalies, even if it's sought out voluntarily it's HOW FUCKING DARE YOU by progressives.

VerrKol Wrote:We've now entered the philosophical realm. CBT is fine when a willing participant is being treated for a (harmful) disorder. Homosexuality is not a disorder by current definitions nor all participants in "conversion therapy" willing. If we were willing to call homosexuality a disorder and treat it as such... where do we draw the line? Should left handed people get CBT? When we start using CBT to "correct" non-harmful differences we start replacing people with robots. We've reached much the same moral conundrum as genetic modifications in humans.

xparasite9 Wrote:So you think that even in a case where someone actually wants to undergo CBT, they shouldn't be allowed to do so, just because they are homosexual. Does this denial of choice of medical/psychological procedure sound familiar to you?

Satellite Wrote:Irony...

Marksman Bryan Wrote:Most of my friends (liberal) aren't upset about losing. We're afraid of the hate, racism, other catchphrases, etc. that Trump's campaign has normalized.

As a straight white male in New York, I have absolutely nothing to worry about. But I am able to see beyond my immediate situation and worry about what this means for other people and the course of this country.

A Trump presidency isn't going to take any more or less rights away than any other republican, but if you don't think the violence and hate that has been voted as 'okay' and a lot of his supporters will be involved in is a bad thing, you're part of the moral problem America has.

Justin Wrote:So you're afraid of words? Okay. The law exists to punish those who commit crimes. This fear mongering bullpomegranate needs to stop. Have there been a few outbreaks of racism and bigotry as a result of the election? Most likely. Does that mean Trump actually condones it or that it's his fault? pineapple no. Quit drinking the far left kool-aid, man. I'd expect more skepticism from a guy like you, Bryan.