• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
  • Hi Guest. We've rebooted and consolidated our Communities section, so be sure to check it out and subscribe to some threads. Thanks!

The White House releases transcript of Trump call with Ukraine (OP Updated)

Foxbat

is on their last warning for console warring
May 30, 2018
649
704
425
Absolutely. And, in his favor, he clearly loves America and is trying to reclaim it from a corrupt establishment cartel. I'll take that, because what he does have is a very particular set of skills. Skills he has acquired over a very long career. Skills that make him a nightmare for his political opponents and other countries.

.
Absolutely. And, in his favor, he clearly loves America and is trying to reclaim it from a corrupt establishment cartel. I'll take that, because what he does have is a very particular set of skills. Skills he has acquired over a very long career. Skills that make him a nightmare for his political opponents and other countries.

.
I hear things like "Trump doesn't act anything like a President should", or "A President shouldn't say or do those kinds of things".

I'm like "And that's exactly why I voted for him."

Funny how 'change' was one of Obama's main selling points during his first election. Just like all the rest, he maintained the status quo by not really changing anything. It took electing Trump to actually get any sort of change done.

Like him, love him, or hate him you have to admit that he's at least shook things up. Bernie, Warren, and Biden will be a return to normal if either of them gets elected.

Bernie- For all he's pitched and promised, none of his policies will get enacted. At best, he'll get some watered down version that won't benefit 90% of people.

Warren - Nothing she's campaigned on will actually happen. Big business will buy her off as soon as she gets in the White House.

Biden - Nothing he's campaigned on will get accomplished.... Unless it's like a continuation of Obama.... Where nothing actually gets done.

That's not a slant against Democrats in any way. Any Republican would be the exact same. Jeb, Cruz, Rubio... They all would have played politics, and not rocked the boat had they been elected. Most any Republican elected in the future would do the same.

Trump is crazy. Nobody should deny this. It's what makes him appealing, and able to actually get things done. If Trump had said he'd close Gitmo as a major running point.... He'd sure a s shit close it. Not like Obama.

Sometimes you need someone who's crazy like a fox. At least they're capable of getting things done.
 

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
Jun 26, 2007
37,171
3,265
1,520
Best Coast
Like him, love him, or hate him you have to admit that he's at least shook things up. Bernie, Warren, and Biden will be a return to normal if either of them gets elected.
Warren maybe, Biden definitely, but Bernie? No. He's a changer and a shaker upper.

Bernie- For all he's pitched and promised, none of his policies will get enacted. At best, he'll get some watered down version that won't benefit 90% of people.
You could make the same argument about Trump. It doesn't mean he hasn't made an impact though.

You don't have a consistent message for 50 years only to give it up at the last second.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tesseract

V4skunk

Member
Nov 20, 2018
809
642
315
I've been reading Trump has activated the Marines for a national emergency on US home soil stating something like an internal threat.
 

Thaedolus

Member
Jun 9, 2004
8,274
448
1,600
She did beat him, though. By nearly 3 million votes. Trump won via an artifact of an antiquated electoral system still giving winner-takes-all votes in states that he barely scraped by in.

Them's the rules and them's the breaks, and mock Clinton's team for not recognizing that, but let's not kid ourselves into believing Trump's hilariously self-deluded fantasy that he won big time. He scraped into the White House by the narrowist of margins in key swing states. America didn't vote him in there by any stretch, given the popular vote. Americans have voted for the Democratic candidate for president in 4 of the last 5 general elections. The fact Republicans have held the office in 3 of those 5 terms is ridiculous.
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
15,194
29,102
1,260
USA
dunpachi.com
She did beat him, though. By nearly 3 million votes.
Yo dude I like making up rules as much as the next guy but I think we should be serious since we're talking about the office of president in the USA.

Trump won via an artifact of an antiquated electoral system still giving winner-takes-all votes in states that he barely scraped by in.
Change the law, then.

In the meanwhile:



Them's the rules and them's the breaks, and mock Clinton's team for not recognizing that, but let's not kid ourselves into believing Trump's hilariously self-deluded fantasy that he won big time. He scraped into the White House by the narrowist of margins in key swing states. America didn't vote him in there by any stretch, given the popular vote. Americans have voted for the Democratic candidate for president in 4 of the last 5 general elections. The fact Republicans have held the office in 3 of those 5 terms is ridiculous.
You seem like the sort of person to get personally troubled when elected officials do not share the same mentality and viewpoints as you do.

For that, I have no remedy.
 
Last edited:

Thaedolus

Member
Jun 9, 2004
8,274
448
1,600
Yo dude I like making up rules as much as the next guy but I think we should be serious since we're talking about the office of president in the USA.


Change the law, then.

In the meanwhile:




You seem like the sort of person to get personally troubled when elected officials do not share the same mentality and viewpoints as you do.

For that, I have no remedy.
Yeah, that's a cute map of a bunch of empty space which also doesn't represent population (i.e. votes) at all. That's what Trump sleeps with under his pillow at night. It's not accurate as far as representing how people voted, at all.

I'm not denying he won, given the laws and the rules. But 2.8 million more Americans voted for Clinton than Trump. He only won because of the system, not because most voters wanted him. Trump supporters are outnumbered.
 
  • LOL
Reactions: Shaqazooloo

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
15,194
29,102
1,260
USA
dunpachi.com
Yeah, that's a cute map of a bunch of empty space which also doesn't represent population (i.e. votes) at all.
"Blue wall 2012" to "flyover states" to "basket of deplorables" to "bunch of empty space".

And when the votes dissipate you'll blame someone else, too.

That's what Trump sleeps with under his pillow at night. It's not accurate as far as representing how people voted, at all.
We literally have a system to tally votes, assign electoral votes, and then announce it to the nation. Are you unfamiliar with the mechanics of the election system? Did your school not have a civics class?

I'm not denying he won, given the laws and the rules. But 2.8 million more Americans voted for Clinton than Trump. He only won because of the system, not because most voters wanted him. Trump supporters are outnumbered.
Ouch, take an Advil for this cognitive dissonance.
 

transformer

Member
Nov 5, 2013
535
194
365
She did beat him, though. By nearly 3 million votes.
No, she did not beat him. She lost the 2016 election. The fact that Donal Trump is currently president is testament to this. Your logic in in line saying that football team with 9 points (three FG) would beat a team with 14 points (two TD) because 3 >2.

Trump won via an artifact of an antiquated electoral system still giving winner-takes-all votes in states that he barely scraped by in.
Trump won via the clearly defined election rules that were known well ahead of the election. If this is, or is not, antiquated is up for debate. I for one think that the concept of a republic, which avoids a mob mentality of a pure democracy, is worth retaining. It provides everyone with a voice in their country.

Them's the rules and them's the breaks, and mock Clinton's team for not recognizing that, but let's not kid ourselves into believing Trump's hilariously self-deluded fantasy that he won big time.
The result was 304 (Trump) to 227 (Clinton). I'd say it was far from a landslide, and perhaps not "big time'. But he wont pretty handily.

He scraped into the White House by the narrowist of margins in key swing states. America didn't vote him in there by any stretch, given the popular vote. Americans have voted for the Democratic candidate for president in 4 of the last 5 general elections. The fact Republicans have held the office in 3 of those 5 terms is ridiculous.
Yeah, swing states are narrow by definition. Otherwise it wouldn't be a swing state. Nearly 63 million people voted for Trump in 2016 and he won 304-227. To act as if America didn't vote him in there is pure delusion on your part.
 

Thaedolus

Member
Jun 9, 2004
8,274
448
1,600
Why? Because the president continually cites his huge victory that didn't exist? That he keeps showing off inaccurate maps to prove he's so popular? That he's so obviously insecure about it? Kiss my ass.

"Blue wall 2012" to "flyover states" to "basket of deplorables" to "bunch of empty space".

And when the votes dissipate you'll blame someone else, too.
You're lumping together multiple topics. "Bunch of empty space" refers to how the map appears when it's doled out by counties. It's not to say "flyover" states are deplorable or to be disregarded. But you look at a state like Utah or Arizona on that map, and it's incredibly misleading. That tiny speck of blue in Utah represents about 2/3rds the population of the entire state. But given the way that map represents the data, it looks tiny. It's very misleading.

We literally have a system to tally votes, assign electoral votes, and then announce it to the nation. Are you unfamiliar with the mechanics of the election system? Did your school not have a civics class?


Ouch, take an Advil for this cognitive dissonance.
I've literally acknowledged all of that. I'm not denying Trump won given the system we have. I'm pushing back against the idea that it was some sort of grand victory of huge proportions or a triumph on his part. He barely beat a historically unpopular candidate by the slimmest of margins and lost the popular vote by maybe the biggest margin I think ever? Dancing on Hillary's political grave, considering all that, seems a bit ridiculous.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarkMage619
May 17, 2018
477
272
310
She did beat him, though. By nearly 3 million votes. Trump won via an artifact of an antiquated electoral system still giving winner-takes-all votes in states that he barely scraped by in.

Them's the rules and them's the breaks, and mock Clinton's team for not recognizing that, but let's not kid ourselves into believing Trump's hilariously self-deluded fantasy that he won big time. He scraped into the White House by the narrowist of margins in key swing states. America didn't vote him in there by any stretch, given the popular vote. Americans have voted for the Democratic candidate for president in 4 of the last 5 general elections. The fact Republicans have held the office in 3 of those 5 terms is ridiculous.
You're aware, that a lot of Republicans in CA and NY don't even vote.
He won, what he had to win and tried to win that.
If they would change to a national popular vote (which would be stupid) FPTP people would campaign for that and try to win that.

I'm for a proportional Electoral college and Trump would've won that, too
Because no one would've made the 270 majority and in that case each states gets one vote.

I calculated the vote allocation using the Webster/Sainte-Laguë method (based on results as of November 9, 2016) applied to each individual state:
  • Clinton 263
  • Trump 262
  • Johnson 10
  • Stein 2
  • McMullin 1
In the spirit of the Electoral College giving less populous states a boost in the vote, I altered the formula to award 2 votes per state to the winner of the popular vote of that state, and the remainder allocated via Webster/Sainte-Laguë:
  • Trump 269
  • Clinton 259
  • Johnson 7
  • Stein 2
  • McMullin 1
For comparison, here I applied Webster/Sainte-Laguë to the entire United States population without splitting them based on state:
  • Clinton 256
  • Trump 255
  • Johnson 17
  • Stein 1
  • McMullin 1
  • Other 8 (these were not separated in the data source)


I can't comprehend how one could argue for a national popular vote with winner takes it all.
That is 1000 times more unfair and fucked up than the current system.
Also in that case one political party should just run a opposing ideology candidate to steal votes. So you can with with 40% instead of the other party winning with 40%


No voting system is perfect. Some are just worse than others.

You can also play with this:
 
Last edited:

dolabla

Member
Oct 9, 2013
3,917
4,717
740
She did beat him, though. By nearly 3 million votes. Trump won via an artifact of an antiquated electoral system still giving winner-takes-all votes in states that he barely scraped by in.
LMAO.

This is the football equivalent of running up the total yardage in garbage time all while you got your ass handed to you on the scoreboard.
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
15,194
29,102
1,260
USA
dunpachi.com
You're lumping together multiple topics. "Bunch of empty space" refers to how the map appears when it's doled out by counties. It's not to say "flyover" states are deplorable or to be disregarded. But you look at a state like Utah or Arizona on that map, and it's incredibly misleading. That tiny speck of blue in Utah represents about 2/3rds the population of the entire state. But given the way that map represents the data, it looks tiny. It's very misleading.
I'm quoting statements made by Democrats, actually, and added your own "bunch of empty space" at the end to hammer the point home.

Since this went over your head, I'm suspicious you lack the qualifications to exercise free will.

I've literally acknowledged all of that. I'm not denying Trump won given the system we have.
What's your point, then? Are you being pedantic and argumentative just for the sake of it, then?

I'm pushing back against the idea that it was some sort of grand victory of huge proportions or a triumph on his part.
Ah, so you're tone policing (because some people might get the impression... *gasp* that Trump won!!!) and fighting a strawman all in one. Thank you for your service to this videogame forum.

He barely beat a historically unpopular candidate by the slimmest of margins and lost the popular vote by maybe the biggest margin I think ever? Dancing on Hillary's political grave, considering all that, seems a bit ridiculous.
Why wring your hands over Hillary's ruined reputation when the Democrats take every opportunity in indulging smears against Trump and other Republicans? Seems like a very hypocritical concern in light of the past 3 years, to say nothing about whether Hillary's track record deserves the criticism or not.
 
Dec 15, 2011
4,909
11,260
980
Because you're rejecting real-world facts and, in their place, inserting fantasies you think up about what someone has under their pillow every night.
That's why.

You come across as rabid and unhinged.

Seek professional help.
 
Last edited:

Thaedolus

Member
Jun 9, 2004
8,274
448
1,600
LMAO.

This is the football equivalent of running up the total yardage in garbage time all while you got your ass handed to you on the scoreboard.
Given the electoral college system we have, this is probably pretty accurate. Look, I'm not arguing the fact Trump won and is in office legally right now. I do think there's an argument to be made that a federal office like the president should be voted on in a purely popular vote, and in that sense I'm saying Clinton actually beat him. Not in a way that counts, obviously, but in the way I think should've counted. We are where we are, though.

You're aware, that a lot of Republicans in CA and NY don't even vote.
He won, what he had to win and tried to win that.
If they would change to a national popular vote (which would be stupid) FPTP people would campaign for that and try to win that.

I'm for a proportional Electoral college and Trump would've won that, too
Because no one would've made the 270 majority and in that case each states gets one vote.

I can't comprehend how one could argue for a national popular vote with winner takes it all.
That is 1000 times more unfair and fucked up than the current system.
Also in that case one political party should just run a opposing ideology candidate to steal votes. So you can with with 40% instead of the other party winning with 40%

No voting system is perfect. Some are just worse than others.
Does this account for Democrats in other states that don't bother to vote? I am in a deeply red state and know quite a few that don't bother to get out, given the impossibility of winning this state and the winner-take-all rules. I'm more interested in this conversation than anything else being brought up tbh.
 

Tesseract

Crushed by Thanos
Dec 7, 2008
39,940
15,556
1,395
The Pentagon
she did not beat him lmao

trump could have ratcheted up the popular vote if he wanted, relevancy is a sliding scale

and i'll fucking cringe if the electoral college is ever eliminated, city dwellers already have too much power
 
Last edited:

Thaedolus

Member
Jun 9, 2004
8,274
448
1,600
Because you're rejecting real-world facts and, in their place, inserting fantasies you think up about what someone has under their pillow every night.

That's why.
I can see in plain sight what an insecure child the president is given his real world behavior. The under-the-pillow thing is obviously a joke, if you're willing to accept some sort of rhetorical banter, but he whips this shit out and brags about his victory whenever he has a chance. It's clear to anyone he's insecure about it.

I'm quoting statements made by Democrats, actually, and added your own "bunch of empty space" at the end to hammer the point home.
Great, that's not very helpful in a conversation with me, though. I was addressing the stupidity of showing a map of a bunch of empty space painted red like it was some sort of representation of how America voted. It isn't. You can lump a bunch of other shit other people have said into what I said, but that's not helpful to any sort of discussion about what I've put forward.

Since this went over your head, I'm suspicious you lack the qualifications to exercise free will.
O...k?

What's your point, then? Are you being pedantic and argumentative just for the sake of it, then?
Not really, I think it's important to keep some sense of context. The context I'm trying to give is that Trump's victory was incredibly narrow and actually didn't validate his platform the way he and his supporters want to pretend it did. I don't think that's pedantry, I think it's looking at the real numbers and acknowledging that 2.8 million more voters went for his opponent, as unpopular as she was.


Ah, so you're tone policing (because some people might get the impression... *gasp* that Trump won!!!) and fighting a strawman all in one. Thank you for your service to this videogame forum.


Why wring your hands over Hillary's ruined reputation when the Democrats take every opportunity in indulging smears against Trump and other Republicans? Seems like a very hypocritical concern in light of the past 3 years, to say nothing about whether Hillary's track record deserves the criticism or not.
Not really tone policing, just giving the context that I see (like I said above). The "videogame forum" thing is stupid, given this is the Politics sub forum. And I don't care about Hillary's reputation as much as I just want to call out stupidity when I see it, and I'm seeing a lot of it in this thread. But you could be right, maybe it's time to just go back to videogames.
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
15,194
29,102
1,260
USA
dunpachi.com
Great, that's not very helpful in a conversation with me, though. I was addressing the stupidity of showing a map of a bunch of empty space painted red like it was some sort of representation of how America voted. It isn't.
It's literally a map of how America voted.

You can lump a bunch of other shit other people have said into what I said, but that's not helpful to any sort of discussion about what I've put forward.
Seems like your stance is made up of a few different things: she should've won, the rules are not the way it should be, and you're upset that people think Trump won by a landslide. I'm directly responding to these standpoints.

Not really, I think it's important to keep some sense of context. The context I'm trying to give is that Trump's victory was incredibly narrow and actually didn't validate his platform the way he and his supporters want to pretend it did.
So you're tone policing and strawmanning. You take no issue with the facts of the situation, but you're bothered that some people might come away with the "wrong impression" when observing those facts.

A waste of time, but feel free to continue the crusade. It is meaningless to me.

I don't think that's pedantry, I think it's looking at the real numbers and acknowledging that 2.8 million more voters went for his opponent, as unpopular as she was.
See above. You have an unhealthy concern for what a group of strawmen think about the results of the election.

Not really tone policing, just giving the context that I see (like I said above). The "videogame forum" thing is stupid, given this is the Politics sub forum. And I don't care about Hillary's reputation as much as I just want to call out stupidity when I see it, and I'm seeing a lot of it in this thread. But you could be right, maybe it's time to just go back to videogames.
Yeah man, play games. This isn't worth your mental anguish and headache. It's not really a central issue to our political circumstances anyway.
 
May 17, 2018
477
272
310
Does this account for Democrats in other states that don't bother to vote? I am in a deeply red state and know quite a few that don't bother to get out, given the impossibility of winning this state and the winner-take-all rules. I'm more interested in this conversation than anything else being brought up tbh.
No, but democrats are more likely to vote anyways.
And they have less upside in those deep red states.
Just look at the electorate, the voter turn out and the margins for each party.

At the end of the day, that is obviously just an extrapolation game.


Here is a voter turnout map by county. Orange is lower, purple is higher and white is average


Big cities and more democratic states have higher turnouts.
With some exceptions, of course.

Iowa for example.
 
Dec 15, 2011
4,909
11,260
980
I can see in plain sight what an insecure child the president is given his real world behavior.
So you start off your justification of rejecting facts and arguing fantasies with petty snark.

The under-the-pillow thing is obviously a joke,
If you had never been challenged on it, you would not now try to weasel out of saying it.
People who say things for effect and then squirm when challenged aren't to be taken seriously.

if you're willing to accept some sort of rhetorical banter, but he whips this shit out and brags about his victory whenever he has a chance. It's clear to anyone he's insecure about it.
And it's clear you're rabid and uhinged with your reasoning, reliance on petty snark and employment of fantasy.

Seek professional help.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DunDunDunpachi

TheContact

Member
Jan 22, 2016
2,389
285
475
Yo dude I like making up rules as much as the next guy but I think we should be serious since we're talking about the office of president in the USA.


Change the law, then.

In the meanwhile:




You seem like the sort of person to get personally troubled when elected officials do not share the same mentality and viewpoints as you do.

For that, I have no remedy.
The map here is misleading.

This map by xkcd is more accurate:




More people are in favor of impeachment than not

More people disapprove of Trump than approve

You can like Trump for your own reasons and that's fine--he's done some good things for this country, but I don't think combining low intelligence with an incredibly narcissistic personality is a good trait for the President of the USA.
 
Last edited:

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
15,194
29,102
1,260
USA
dunpachi.com
The map here is misleading.

This map by xkcd is more accurate:




More people are in favor of impeachment than not

More people disapprove of Trump than approve

You can like Trump for your own reasons and that's fine--he's done some good things for this country, but I don't think combinding low intelligence with an incredibly narcesstic personality is a good trait for the President of the USA.
Your personal opinions are fine. Don't expect me to care when the results are better than what the Democrat candidates are pulling off. How embarrassing to be outperformed by a low-intelligence narcissist. One would think all the puffed-up virtue and education would result in a superior candidate, yet here we are.

That cartoon represents the popular vote and appears to be ignorant of the sovereignty of individual States (a big reason why we have the electoral college in the first place).

Take a civics class. People can have opinions about how they think the system should be run, but you are making empty arguments when the rules are clear and easily available for anyone to read.

If you had never been challenged on it, you would not now try to weasel out of saying it.
People who say things for effect and then squirm when challenged aren't to be taken seriously.
Relax, cat, it was just a parody.



War will follow.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: desertdroog

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
15,194
29,102
1,260
USA
dunpachi.com
Please help me understand the unfounded and misplaced anger at Trump being elected according to the rules of the system. Is there any depth beyond stomping of feet and insisting that it's not fair?

Hillary Clinton tied/won the popular vote against Obama in 2012 and didn't make it then, either.


Thanks Obama. We should investigate him from blocking Her Turn.
 
Last edited:
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: autoduelist

TheContact

Member
Jan 22, 2016
2,389
285
475
It doesn't look like you're suitably qualified to be making judgements on the intelligence of others.
lol i did have a typo and spelled narcissistic wrong but i did fix it after i realized it. also i'm not the president so i think i can get away with some typos and misspellings here and there
 

autoduelist

Member
Aug 30, 2014
10,093
13,236
840
She did beat him, though. By nearly 3 million votes. Trump won via an artifact of an antiquated electoral system still giving winner-takes-all votes in states that he barely scraped by in.

Them's the rules and them's the breaks, and mock Clinton's team for not recognizing that, but let's not kid ourselves into believing Trump's hilariously self-deluded fantasy that he won big time. He scraped into the White House by the narrowist of margins in key swing states. America didn't vote him in there by any stretch, given the popular vote. Americans have voted for the Democratic candidate for president in 4 of the last 5 general elections. The fact Republicans have held the office in 3 of those 5 terms is ridiculous.
Antiquated? It's an important and neccessary measure.

We are not one giant mass of people. We are 50 United States. 50 states, as in 50, as in, not 1. United.

The electoral college prevents the 2-3 most populated states from running roughshod over the other 47. It's absolutely vital to the health of this Republic.

The problem with modern voting isn't the electoral college, it's that most people have so little knowledge of basic civics they arguably shouldn't even be voting. The Electoral College protects our Republic from tyranny of the majority, and gives voice to those who would otherwise be silenced.




it's actually worse than that, though, because not even each large state is actually represented.

The blue counties below represent 50% of US population according to Business Insider:




That's 146 out of 3000 counties.

Now think about a country that let so few areas command a country. Where do power plants end up? Where do rivers get rerouted? Which states get federal funding? Why would any federal politician care about making most states happy?
 
Last edited:

autoduelist

Member
Aug 30, 2014
10,093
13,236
840
I've been reading Trump has activated the Marines for a national emergency on US home soil stating something like an internal threat.
Haven't heard about this. There are all sorts of scary rules on the book, mostly due to 911, regarding martial law. That said, i'm not worried about Trump in that regard. Even if true, which i find unlikely, i find Talib talking about Dems planning on how to arrest their opposition far more worrisome, because that would actually require the military to step in to stop her and whoever she is planning with.
 

desertdroog

Member
Aug 12, 2008
2,943
2,167
1,035
Please help me understand the unfounded and misplaced anger at Trump being elected according to the rules of the system. Is there any depth beyond stomping of feet and insisting that it's not fair?

Hillary Clinton tied/won the popular vote against Obama in 2012 and didn't make it then, either.


Thanks Obama. We should investigate him from blocking Her Turn.
Hillary Clinton has a track record of losing. You think she could take a hint.
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
15,194
29,102
1,260
USA
dunpachi.com
Hillary Clinton has a track record of losing. You think she could take a hint.
It's almost as if she has disproportionate clout in a few densely-populated areas but not in the "flyover states".

How is she qualified to be the president of the whole United States again? :pie_thinking:

I mean, if the contention is that Trump "doesn't really represent the American people", in what way does Hillary meet that requirement better than Trump? I've never gotten a straight answer here.

Cool, she has some huge fanclubs in a few regions but she lost in the majority of states, each with their own diverse populations and cultures and needs. It's great that she has overwhelming support in some extremely populated areas, I guess.
 

transformer

Member
Nov 5, 2013
535
194
365
I know a lot of people like Trump because he's not your typical dick-sucking politician, but I'd rather have a level-headed professional in office than a hypocritical narcissist criminal with visions of grandeur, but I guess I'm in the minority on that one here as a lot of you hold up Trump as some kind of perfect Saint and believe him when he says his wisdom is great and unmatched (he speaks at a 4th grade level).
I don't think you understand why so many people support Trump. The people I know who support Trump, support him because he is putting the country and the common citizens first. These same people don't like his political opponents (e.g. Hillary Clinton) because they seem to put themselves, and their acquisition of wealth and power, above the country and common citizens.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DunDunDunpachi

TheContact

Member
Jan 22, 2016
2,389
285
475
I don't think you understand why so many people support Trump. The people I know who support Trump, support him because he is putting the country and the common citizens first. These same people don't like his political opponents (e.g. Hillary Clinton) because they seem to put themselves, and their acquisition of wealth and power, above the country and common citizens.
The majority of Americans do not support Trump. Look up on my previous posts for sources on that. More people prefer impeachment, even greater amount of people disapprove with him as a President. How is Trump putting the Country and Citizens first? His trade war cost more than double that the 2009 auto bailout did. Our deficit has hit over 1 trillion. He has a history of profiting off his Presidency. He kept saying he would Drain the Swamp but he has done the complete opposite. He hires family members for jobs roles they have no business being in. His budget cuts are a slap in the face to our veterans. His tax cuts for the rich did not help you at all unless you're one of the 1%. Don't get me wrong--Fuck Hillary Clinton, but Trump does not give two shits about you. He cares about the perception of himself and that's it. Whether you believe Michael Cohen or not, he claims Trump only ran for President for his brand, not for America.
 

Thaedolus

Member
Jun 9, 2004
8,274
448
1,600
So you start off your justification of rejecting facts and arguing fantasies with petty snark.
What's fantasy? Where am I rejecting facts? Be specific if you're going to call me out on something like that.

If you had never been challenged on it, you would not now try to weasel out of saying it.
People who say things for effect and then squirm when challenged aren't to be taken seriously.
Jesus fucking Christ, do you really think I was asserting the president literally sleeps with an electoral college map under his pillow? Are you retarded or are you actually trying to hang this on me like I goofed?

And it's clear you're rabid and uhinged with your reasoning, reliance on petty snark and employment of fantasy.

Seek professional help.
Yet you don't really point out where. I'm good dude.

Antiquated? It's an important and neccessary measure.
Why? This cuts both ways, people at all levels should have a voice in federal government and, in my mind, those voices/votes should be equal. The Senate already overly accounts for this too.

We are not one giant mass of people. We are 50 United States. 50 states, as in 50, as in, not 1. United.

The electoral college prevents the 2-3 most populated states from running roughshod over the other 47. It's absolutely vital to the health of this Republic.
Yes but this cuts both ways. Why does a state like Wyoming have so much sway in federal politics? Why are there two Dakotas with 4 votes in the Senate? It's all a subjective geographical equation based on...what, exactly? States in the East are tiny, states in the West are huge. I don't think anyone can really argue that the system is set up to protect anyone anymore, it's just the way it is from a time where that was perhaps the goal.

The problem with modern voting isn't the electoral college, it's that most people have so little knowledge of basic civics they arguably shouldn't even be voting. The Electoral College protects our Republic from tyranny of the majority, and gives voice to those who would otherwise be silenced.




it's actually worse than that, though, because not even each large state is actually represented.

The blue counties below represent 50% of US population according to Business Insider:




That's 146 out of 3000 counties.

Now think about a country that let so few areas command a country. Where do power plants end up? Where do rivers get rerouted? Which states get federal funding? Why would any federal politician care about making most states happy?
You're not wrong in that the tyranny of the majority needs to be checked. That's why we have constitutional controls and courts in place. The tyranny of the minority, however, also must be checked. We look at a map like the second one in your post and think oh, look at all of this country that's underrepresented...because it intuitively looks that way. But have you driven across this country? Those grey counties are mostly empty fucking space. I'm not saying the people that live there shouldn't count, but their count should be proportional to their actual numbers. Their rights should be protected from the tyranny of the majority, granted, but if there's government overreach which is unconstitutional, we have a branch of government to work that out too.

I come from one of the blue counties, and I live in a grey county, and I have family from all sides of the political spectrum. It's not lost on me that each one of them should have a voice and nobody's freedoms should be intruded on by people thousands of miles away. But I also don't think that because you're the only person within spitting distance of Bumblefuck Idaho you should have an outsized say in who's in the white house.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Lamel

Thaedolus

Member
Jun 9, 2004
8,274
448
1,600
Isn't that a throwaway statement? You can say the same of any president in our lifetimes if you wanted to.
But it's relatively rare to have a president get elected when losing the popular vote by 2.8 million....I get I'm the anti-Trump guy here, but that's an indisputable fact which should help people understand what 2016 meant. It was no resounding victory, in my mind.
 

NickFire

Member
Mar 12, 2014
5,449
4,333
735
Your complaints are misplaced. It is 100% official. Blame the last republican congress for changing the rules. What’s good enough for them should be good enough for whatever majority party holds the House of Representatives. They get set the rules on how impeachment works. It’s in the first article of the Constitution.
On the issue of possibly removing a duly elected president, you think the country should support a one party mockery of the most serious political process in the entire world because Republicans are bad. That is so messed up it's horrifying to be honest.
 

Joe T.

Member
Oct 3, 2004
2,178
2,245
1,695
Montreal, Quebec
But it's relatively rare to have a president get elected when losing the popular vote by 2.8 million....I get I'm the anti-Trump guy here, but that's an indisputable fact which should help people understand what 2016 meant. It was no resounding victory, in my mind.
It wasn't in my mind either, though I saw no reason for anyone to be upset about the result. They knew how the general election worked before they cast their vote, I hope.
 

TheContact

Member
Jan 22, 2016
2,389
285
475
Isn't that a throwaway statement? You can say the same of any president in our lifetimes if you wanted to.
It definitely fluctuates. Bush had an extremely high approval rating after 9/11, like 80something percent or higher if I remember correctly. After Iraq it went down to like 30? I'll have to look at the stats. Approval rating generally shifts with how well the country is doing at the time. Obama had a shit approval rating during the recession and it rose after the economy started to do better. Then again, Impeachment wasn't looming over Obama either. What it does indicate with his low approval rating is that most Americans aren't happy with the state of America at this moment, and I'm sure the allegations aren't doing him any favors.

It wasn't in my mind either, though I saw no reason for anyone to be upset about the result. They knew how the general election worked before they cast their vote, I hope.
I think even Trump was caught off-guard too

 
Last edited:

danielberg

Neophyte
Jun 20, 2018
2,816
3,424
410
But it's relatively rare to have a president get elected when losing the popular vote by 2.8 million....I get I'm the anti-Trump guy here, but that's an indisputable fact which should help people understand what 2016 meant. It was no resounding victory, in my mind.
Why are you even pretending that you have any clue what 2016 was about? To this day you all think it was illigitimate not because of facts but because of hurt feels.. so any projection ala "well we know why 2016 happened" is a aboslute joke considering the last 3 years and how the democrat voting base, the actual BASE, not leadership but CITIZENS have acted like insane people and supported basically robbing the US president, anyone that works with him and half the country of ANY form of fairness, justice and law in ANY process.
 
Last edited:

Ornlu

Member
Oct 31, 2018
1,076
1,223
420
But it's relatively rare to have a president get elected when losing the popular vote by 2.8 million....I get I'm the anti-Trump guy here, but that's an indisputable fact which should help people understand what 2016 meant. It was no resounding victory, in my mind.
Most presidential elections are not resounding victories, in our system. The exceptions are usually votes against the Party leaving power, rather than sweeping changes in the hearts and minds of the electorate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DunDunDunpachi

Thaedolus

Member
Jun 9, 2004
8,274
448
1,600
It wasn't in my mind either, though I saw no reason for anyone to be upset about the result. They knew how the general election worked before they cast their vote, I hope.
Sure, I think that's fair.

Why are you even pretending that you have any clue what 2016 was about? To this day you all think it was illigitimate not because of facts but because of hurt feels..
Wrong. I haven't questioned that Trump was legitimately elected, given the rules and laws we have.

so any projection ala "well we know why 2016 happened" is a aboslute joke considering the last 3 years and how the democrat voting base, the actual BASE, not leadership but CITIZENS have acted like insane people and supported basically robbing the US president, anyone that works with him and half the country of ANY form of fairness, justice and law in ANY process.
What does this even mean? The midterms showed a distinct backlash.

Most presidential elections are not resounding victories, in our system. The exceptions are usually votes against the Party leaving power, rather than sweeping changes in the hearts and minds of the electorate.
Ok, then why is Trump's victory being touted as some sort of resounding victory? Why the maps of America awash in red? Not only was his victory not resounding, it was a loss in terms of total votes. Why push a visual that's incredibly misleading, given the fact Trump lost the popular vote? Why is it iso important to make it seem like empty counties are represented on a geographical scale that has nothing to do with their population? Isn't it obviously to do with the insecurity of the guy needing this validation?
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
15,194
29,102
1,260
USA
dunpachi.com
Ok, then why is Trump's victory being touted as some sort of resounding victory? Why the maps of America awash in red? Not only was his victory not resounding, it was a loss in terms of total votes. Why push a visual that's incredibly misleading, given the fact Trump lost the popular vote? Why is it iso important to make it seem like empty counties are represented on a geographical scale that has nothing to do with their population? Isn't it obviously to do with the insecurity of the guy needing this validation?
The map is a factual representation of what happened: Trump won in more counties, and in more states, hence he was elected president. Do you dispute any of these claims? We can squabble over what that the data means, but those are the facts.

You seem to interpret that as "unfair" because Hillary gained more votes. That is an important but ultimately irrelevant concern, since Trump is the fourth president to have that happen. Winning an election in this way is not itself a crime, and our country has obviously survived three previous instances without a complete meltdown so there's no reason to believe there needs to be one now. Trump losing the popular vote is factual but ultimately irrelevant. Why it keeps getting brought up? I don't know, because some people felt robbed or that it was cosmically/karmically unfair, or it wasn't God's will. I don't honestly know. I don't have an explanation as to why it keeps getting brought up.

All I know is that it is irrelevant.

You seem to believe that the reason why the map exists ie because of the insecurity of Trump needing validation. How could you possibly know that? This is bizarre mind-reading which I see a lot from people who think they know Trump's true intentions better than he knows himself. To them, Trump is a complete idiot who somehow foils the Democrats at every turn, and he's an evil mastermind who didn't deserve to win the election.

At some point you'll have to get over the bitching and moaning and decide to work with your fellow citizens again. The bitterness needs to end.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Schrödinger's cat

Ornlu

Member
Oct 31, 2018
1,076
1,223
420
Ok, then why is Trump's victory being touted as some sort of resounding victory? Why the maps of America awash in red? Not only was his victory not resounding, it was a loss in terms of total votes. Why push a visual that's incredibly misleading, given the fact Trump lost the popular vote? Why is it iso important to make it seem like empty counties are represented on a geographical scale that has nothing to do with their population? Isn't it obviously to do with the insecurity of the guy needing this validation?
Maybe the fact that he was almost unanimously predicted to lose, and didn't. it was an incredible victory, in that sense. It was also a victory in the sense of effectiveness. The Clinton campaign outspent the Trump campaign 2 to 1.

There's an infinite number of ways to spin things in whatever direction people want to, for whatever their agenda happens to be. I was just commenting on what you had said regarding resounding victories in a US presidential election. They tend to usually be somewhat predictable, with the electorate swaying one way or the other by a couple of %. Usually the incumbent is re-elected, etc. etc.

If you want the country to switch to a popular vote, by all means go ahead and join a political advocacy group and push for it. But as it stands today, electoral votes matter. You must win enough states, and by extension their electoral votes. Running up huge numbers in a state that was going to vote for anybody with a pulse running under the correct Party doesn't help you win a Presidential election. Non-stop campaigning to eke out extra votes in states where you can snatch them from your opponent is what wins. Trump did that in 2016, and completely outworked the Clinton campaign, while being outspent 2 to 1. The win was legitimate, and earned. Political affiliation shouldn't matter to be able to admit that.
 

Thaedolus

Member
Jun 9, 2004
8,274
448
1,600
The map is a factual representation of what happened: Trump won in more counties, and in more states, hence he was elected president. Do you dispute any of these claims? We can squabble over what that the data means, but those are the facts.
No, there's no dispute as far as factual claims are concerned. The point is that context about facts matters and showing a map of counties doesn't address the context. A county's acreage has nothing to do with its relevance in real terms. So the map is ridiculously skewed when it comes to actually representing what happened in the election.

You seem to interpret that as "unfair" because Hillary gained more votes. That is an important but ultimately irrelevant concern, since Trump is the fourth president to have that happen. Winning an election in this way is not itself a crime, and our country has obviously survived three previous instances without a complete meltdown so there's no reason to believe there needs to be one now.
No, it's not unfair, it's the system that was being operated under by both candidates. Sucks for Hillary she didn't recognize how to play the game...she won that popular vote but lost the game. The point here is, most voting Americans were "with her," as much as Trump hates that.

Trump losing the popular vote is factual but ultimately irrelevant. Why it keeps getting brought up? I don't know, because some people felt robbed or that it was cosmically/karmically unfair, or it wasn't God's will. I don't honestly know. I don't have an explanation as to why it keeps getting brought up.
I can only speak for myself, but the point here is that Trump isn't popular or even the preferred choice of Americans. We can debate the merits of the electoral college and everything else ad naseum, but at the end of the day it's pretty clear: only about 1/3rd of Americans are willing to admit they like this piece of shit named Trump.

All I know is that it is irrelevant.

You seem to believe that the reason why the map exists ie because of the insecurity of Trump needing validation. How could you possibly know that? This is bizarre mind-reading which I see a lot from people who think they know Trump's true intentions better than he knows himself. To them, Trump is a complete idiot who somehow foils the Democrats at every turn, and he's an evil mastermind who didn't deserve to win the election.

At some point you'll have to get over the bitching and moaning and decide to work with your fellow citizens again. The bitterness needs to end.
My mindset is this: Trump acts out in ways that betray his insecurities and narcissistic feelings..almost everything he does can be neatly categorized in that bucket. He's a pathological narcissist. That's all you need to know.

I live with family and have coworkers who don't see it my way. Fine. I don't hold that against them, I keep on keepin' on. But Trump is pretty obviously a cunt, IMO.
 
Last edited:
  • LOL
Reactions: DunDunDunpachi