Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
PurpleGaga27

Trump has made history!

Recommended Posts

Yep, he's winning to become the next POTUS with a possible rigged vote.

 

Yep, Uncle Sam is doomed, but Putin will be happy because he supports Trump. Now comes the question of population control with immigration policy, the economy and the war against ISIS and other terrorist networks. The minorities and women are probably going to be pissed, but I neither vote nor support Trump anyway because he's going to fire anyone that gets in his way rather than hire.

 

So much for Clinton's effort to win, but her email scandals and insecurity had hurt her election campaign.

Edited by PurpleGaga27

Share this post


Link to post

Clinton was a bad candidate from the start. If you want to blame someone for the loss, then you should start with her and her campaign.

 

American's wanted change in 2008 and they didn't get, maybe in 2016 they will. :P hahaha.

 

 

AMERICAN WHAT HAVE YOU DONE?!!!! :o

 

QjFuLX7.jpg

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

This is how democracy ends and a new one begins.

 

Btw, where is Sonic anyway?

Share this post


Link to post

This is how democracy ends and a new one begins.

 

Please, just stop.

Share this post


Link to post

Here's a copy of Hillary Clinton's certificate of participation in the US Presidential Elections! I was going to post something more offensive but I thought I better not, considering that some members here are from Europe.

post-10461-0-40721300-1479420163_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post

I was going to post something more offensive but I thought I better not, considering that some members here are from Europe.

What's that supposed to mean?

Share this post


Link to post

It was on during work hours, so I had it refreshing on my computer. I was like a deer mesmerised in the headlights. I have friends in South Bend Indiana area, and boy do thy HATE Hilary. I'm always struck by this quote from Mike Moore...

nALZTM.png

Share this post


Link to post

Thinking in binary is what only sheep are capable of. "If you're not with me, you're against me" and "If you're not left, you're right, and vice versa" mentality is what I thought to be characteristic to the anti-intellectual peasants from the ****ing Balkans.

 

Sigh. People need to stop streamlining themselves to two options, both of which are terrible in their own way, and use something called a brain to think of new options. Revolt if necessary. Neoliberal capitalism taught everyone there's only dualities in everything, and used that to bring the world to its knees. It needs to go down.

Share this post


Link to post

As for career politicians hating Trump: That's true for a good chunk of the Republican Party, but that won't stop Trump from filling the White House with them. Good thing he's "against the establishment".

Share this post


Link to post

Yeah it doesn't seem like he's going to, 'drain the swamp' as he put it. Who would have thought that Donald Trump was just as two faced as every other politician... Well I guess we will find out.

Share this post


Link to post

People need to stop streamlining themselves to two options

It isn't the people doing it, it is the system.

 

I saw a lot of people were saying, "If you don't like either candidate, vote third party." Which is an absolutely terrible idea unless the person saying it is saying it to their opponents.

 

The problem is that for a third party candidate to win, a majority from both sides would need to move to the same third party candidate - something that would never realistically happen.

 

A certain percentage of both parties actually like their parties (for some reason) and will vote for them no matter what. You can't convince those people to vote third party. If you can convince 100% of indecisive voters to vote third party, nobody would agree on which third party is the best second choice and it would still be decided between the two big parties supported by their loyalists and perhaps a few indecisive voters who conclude none of the third parties are actually better, perhaps leaving the victor with only 27% of the vote instead of 47%. Of course, under the first-past-the-post voting system, 27%=100% as long as all the other parties individually got less than 27%.

 

So why is it a de facto two-party system? Not because people think in binary, but because America uses first-past-the-post. First-past-the-post will inevitably always reduce itself to a two-party system over time. If a third party were to ever grow in power enough to challenge the big two (no mean feat; first-past-the-post strongly resists this from happening), one of the three would eventually die out and reduce it back down to a two-party system again.

Who would have thought that Donald Trump was just as two faced as every other politician...

I have always predicted, and still predict, the most likely outcome of a Trump presidency is that he will transform into a standard politician and do nothing of lasting significance, just like most presidents before him.

 

If he becomes either a great president or a disastrous one, I will be surprised.

 

Extra note: Since the media loves him so much (hate=love in the media), the coverage of Trump may paint him to be great/disastrous, regardless of his irrelevance.

Share this post


Link to post

It isn't the people doing it, it is the system.

 

If you vote left, you're a "godless communist". If you vote right, you're a "filthy redneck". How is that not binary thinking from the people?

 

The problem is that for a third party candidate to win, a majority from both sides would need to move to the same third party candidate - something that would never realistically happen.

 

Even the existence of a strong third side would remove the complacent main two parties that are the same exploitative bull****, just packaged in different coating. If a strong third party exists, the other two would have to change their way of operations and actually do something productive if they want to stay relevant, even going as far as doing something for the benefit of their people, even if it's actually just for their own sake. If this doesn't happen, the people will just have to deal with alternating between two evils.

 

Existence of more strong parties (say 3, 4...), however idealistic, would be the key of progress. Society can't advance while sitting on the status quo that is visibly destroying it.

 

A certain percentage of both parties actually like their parties (for some reason) and will vote for them no matter what.

 

Of course, there's always people who just believe what the TV tells them to believe. There's a lack of intellectualism and no urge to think outside the streamlines. This needs to end, not just in politics, but generally in everyday life.

 

So why is it a de facto two-party system? Not because people think in binary, but because America uses first-past-the-post. First-past-the-post will inevitably always reduce itself to a two-party system over time. If a third party were to ever grow in power enough to challenge the big two (no mean feat; first-past-the-post strongly resists this from happening), one of the three would eventually die out and reduce it back down to a two-party system again.

 

Really? How fundamentally stupid.

 

I have always predicted, and still predict, the most likely outcome of a Trump presidency is that he will transform into a standard politician and do nothing of lasting significance, just like most presidents before him.

 

If he becomes either a great president or a disastrous one, I will be surprised.

 

The entire world prays you're right.

Share this post


Link to post

If you vote left, you're a "godless communist". If you vote right, you're a "filthy redneck". How is that not binary thinking from the people?

The people who say those types of things are a small minority. I would agree that anyone who willfully dismisses their opponents with insults without hearing them out, especially if their opponent isn't their polar opposite (centralists are deemed leftist by the far right and conservatives by the far left) are binary thinkers. Again, they are the minority, a loud minority with the power to influence, but a minority by whom the majority should not be judged.

 

The entire world prays you're right.

Anyone praying for Trump to be irrelevant need to be judged by whatever god they are praying to as deserving of damnation. People should be praying that he will be as great as he thinks he will be, and settle for irrelevant if it comes to that.

Share this post


Link to post

The people who say those types of things are a small minority. I would agree that anyone who willfully dismisses their opponents with insults without hearing them out, especially if their opponent isn't their polar opposite (centralists are deemed leftist by the far right and conservatives by the far left) are binary thinkers. Again, they are the minority, a loud minority with the power to influence, but a minority by whom the majority should not be judged.

 

And what about people who live by the rule of excluding the third - those thinking if they vote for someone else, their vote will be basically moot (though if enough people voted like that, it'd be relevant as you said)? Or those who, disappointed in one party votes for the other in the next elections in an endless loop?

 

Anyone praying for Trump to be irrelevant need to be judged by whatever god they are praying to as deserving of damnation. People should be praying that he will be as great as he thinks he will be, and settle for irrelevant if it comes to that.

 

If he'll be as great as he thinks he'll be, then we can start cosplaying STALKER and Fallout characters - for real. :P

Share this post


Link to post

And what about people who live by the rule of excluding the third - those thinking if they vote for someone else, their vote will be basically moot

As I said, their vote is moot. Unless America does away with the ridiculous first-past-the-post voting system, it will always and forever be a two-party system.

 

If he'll be as great as he thinks he'll be, then we can start cosplaying STALKER and Fallout characters - for real. :P

You mistake "as great as he thinks he will be" with "doing everything his way". He thinks he will be great, but that doesn't necessarily mean what he thinks will lead to greatness actually will. The world should hope he will be great as history would define his accomplishments, not based on his personal vision of what that takes.

Share this post


Link to post

Nmenth I think your comments are purely pessimistic not like one of 'Anthony Green's laws of politics' (joke).

What I still don't get, and what troubles me the most of the system, is the voluntary system.
In effect a candidate loses because not enough people turned up to vote, rather than more/most people vote that particular candidate.

And besides, it's on a Tuesday.

Why isn't it on Saturday with a sausage sizzle like civilised democracies?

364343-12dd369a-00b9-11e3-9cff-2014e57d9

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

If you want to learn more about first-past-the-post and why it is bad (as well as alternative systems and other nuances involved), but researching it is too boring, you should watch

. The videos are short, easy to understand, and not boring.

Share this post


Link to post

When you really think about it, Trump isn't the problem. By himself, he's an okay candidate. Not great, not horrible... just middle of the road. The problem is that he has no real opposition in Congress and he's putting some genuinely terrible people in high places. I hope not to see a dumpster fire for four years, but I have a suspicion that it will be the case.

Share this post


Link to post

I watched 3 of your suggested videos Nmenth.

I stand by my observation that your attitude is based on pessimism.

 

senate-atl-sample.png

hor-paper.jpg

 

^ It also occurs to me, that you should move to Australia which has variations of the alternative voting system and mixed-member proportion systems.

And as a result, we had Clive Palmer and Pauline Hanson, and don't forget Ricky Muir... or Kevin Rudd and Tony Abbott.

 

We have the 'two-party-preferred' system, the lowest voted person's votes are redistributed either by individual voters choice or by default party preference deals.

And as a result, we got Ricky Muir who won his seat on 0.51% of the primary vote!

 

Personally, I think people are idiots and should not have the power to elect their leader. Sometimes you need disciple, and to take your yucky medicine.

Who's going to VOTE for that?

Share this post


Link to post

we got Ricky Muir who won his seat on 0.51% of the primary vote!

Seems to me like the system is working then. People were allowed to vote for someone they liked more than him, and when their first choice failed, still got someone who they liked better than the opposition.

 

Personally, I think people are idiots and should not have the power to elect their leader.

As I see it, your response mainly is not debating the system at all, rather you are arguing against the ability of voters to vote rationally. This is somewhat amusing, considering you were just being critical of a voluntary vote. I do not contend that, if giving the choice, stupid people are less likely to vote, but if not given the choice, they most definitely will.

 

I think most people would say stupid people shouldn't be allowed to vote - including stupid people. But by what standards are you measuring a person's ability to vote? You would need to have a required qualification test, but the problems with this would be tremendous:

  • This would be moving from Democracy toward Oligarchy.
  • The test would need to be passed every election as people change over time.
  • Whoever writes the test would have power to manipulate eligible voters; where there is power, there is corruption.
  • To reduce corruption, an entire government body would need to oversee the writing of the test, which would cost money.
  • In a voluntary voting system, this would be such a nuisance, attendance would plummet.
  • In an involuntary system, it would be quite the overreach of government toward tyranny.
  • The logistics would be unmanageable, especially with involuntary attendance.
Edit: I just noticed you didn't say "some people are idiots", you said "people are idiots" (and you call me the pessimist :haha:). So what are you wishing for, a Monarchy?

Share this post


Link to post

He, everybody could agree that stupid people shouldn't vote - it's just that nobody can agree on who the stupid people are.

 

As for tests being used to manipulate elections: That's not even theoretical. Some southern U.S. states used this to prevent black people from voting, exploiting that a large portion of the black population wasn't educated well.

Share this post


Link to post

Giving only the educated-enough people the right to vote would be a good idea. If one doesn't have enough intellectual capacity, he does not know who a good candidate is and is voting just on the one who looks/talks prettier on the telly. Sure, it won't be perfect, but better than the idiot-fest seen now.

Share this post


Link to post

Giving only the educated-enough people the right to vote would be a good idea.

Since you specifically wrote "educated" rather than smart/intelligent/wise/etc., I'll assume you mean those with degrees are automatically allowed and those without are automatically disqualified, avoiding the logistics of retesting. Thus the only "test" is finishing a certain level of schooling.

 

This is also a terrible idea:

  • This would be a significant move from Democracy toward Oligarchy with a close semblance to Meritocracy.
  • Education does not make people more rational, wise, or even intelligent, it makes them more knowledgeable.
  • Lower education (primary/secondary) is generally mandatory, with a small percentage dropping out, failing to cull stupid people.
  • If you judged by grades rather than merely passing, you cull the lazy, not the stupid people who worked hard or cheated.
  • Higher education (tertiary) usually costs money, weeding out poor people instead of dumb people.
  • Even if all education was free, poor people are more likely to work to help their families' immediate needs than gain tertiary education.
  • Smart people probably won't earn a degree for the right to vote, but might choose not to earn one if their career choice does not require one.
  • People who pursue a tertiary education are a demographic that does not accurately represent the needs of the population.
  • Plenty of stupid courses exist for stupid people, tertiary-level education should in no way imply intelligence.
  • If some courses have to be "smart enough" for qualifying to vote, who decides? This causes the same problems as the test writers above.
  • With only one "test", you are assuming educated people won't become stupid later, when that happens all the time.
  • Older generations who are more experienced are less likely to have been educated*, culling experience for knowledge.
* For this current period in history. This may change in the future as people who seek tertiary-level education seems to be rising, but as technology becomes a larger part of employment and everyday life, the trend may also reverse in the future. Other possible unknown variables in the future may also affect the demographics of who and how many would seek tertiary-level education.

Share this post


Link to post

[Nmenth you are an interesting person, with a bizarre point of view, and unique set of values. You are always making provocative contributions to conversations.]

 

To clarify, a point on your current diversion, I should have said 'most people make idiotic decisions', rather than abbreviate it to 'most people are idiots'.

 

[i believe one person one vote is the norm. Where you live, what education, what wealth you have is immaterial.

Whether you a mensa club member or struck with downs syndrome, your voice is important.]

 

I believe it is improbable to expect people to make rational decisions when self-interest is involved.

 

[Mum told me to my vegetables as a kid, when all I wanted was to eat ice cream...]

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×