Jump to content

It is a sad day for America


SteelPenn

Recommended Posts

Oh you got me, had a lil rage moment so now I'm as bad as ISIS. I forget how much smarter you euro's are

not as bad. You just have similar mentalities. The only difference is they do it, you just shout loudly then turn the brain on.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

you have to remember that they have been changes since the system was founded, like having a lot less states voting than now, winner takes all systems (which only two states don't have), and the fact early on that there wasn't a election for VP, who ever came in second became VP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trump > Clinton

 

 

Is President Donald J. Trump the savior? No. Is President Donald J.Trump a great candidate? No. Is President Donald J. Trump better than either Clinton? Yes. Is America's and world stability more secure with American President Donald J. Trump than her? Potentially, yes. Not a guarantee, but at least it's a gamble the majority believe is worth taking.

 

 

LMAO, you're joking right? PLEASE tell me that was mostly sarcasm. Have you even seen some of his cabinet appointments?? It's like he thought to himself "ok, who would be the WORST person I could put in charge of this?". Yeah, lets put a climate-change denier in charge of the EPA, even though he's actively in litigation against the EPA (poor guy just wants to pollute more) and is in the pocket of the oil lobby, cuz that's a great idea right? Let's put a crazy dipshit with ZERO relevant experience in charge of HUD, cuz that makes perfect sense, right? And yeah, surely an anti-union CEO of a fast food chain will make decisions to the benefit of the working class, huh? Sure, let's put Vince McMahan's wife in charge of the SBA lol. While we're at it, lets put a billionaire with financial interests in privatizing education, IN CHARGE OF EDUCATION, cuz why the fuck not lol?

 

Also, how did you not just burst out laughing when trying to use the word "stability" to describe anything related Trump? He's like a 5 year old.

  • Upvote 4
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, its a great system. It gives every person in every state a say in who is elected president. Large population states are given more weight, but there is still representation of small population states. The US was never intended to be an immense super state where a popular vote would decide the presidency. It is a coalition of smaller states, its even in the name of the country. The electoral college is an essential check that retains some power in small states in a Republic, it was a great idea when initially installed and remains one to this day.

 

If you want to change it to a popular vote then thats your opinion. But to institute that their would have to be strict voter laws that were actually enforced. Clinton won the popular vote by around 3.5 million (iirc, its irrelevant so i wont bother to look it up) and all that was gained in CA where you dont have to show ID to vote. Voter fraud is rampant there and in quite a few other states. That would all need to be cleaned up.

 

there's essentially zero evidence of any meaningful voter fraud. these claims of "millions" of illegal votes are completely unsubstantiated. imo the MUCH bigger problems are voter suppression and gerrymandering.

  • Upvote 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

there's essentially zero evidence of any meaningful voter fraud. these claims of "millions" of illegal votes are completely unsubstantiated. imo the MUCH bigger problems are voter suppression and gerrymandering.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jan/26/hillary-clinton-received-800000-votes-from-nonciti/

Article projects up to 2.8 million noncitizens voting(not all for Clinton.). That # is based on 20 million illegals which is a low estimate. Also has this fun quote from Obama, where he encourages voter fraud;

 

"President Obama was asked during the campaign last year if illegal immigrants had anything to fear from federal authorities if they voted in the presidential race.

Many of the millennials, Dreamers, undocumented citizens and I call them citizens because they contribute to this country are fearful of voting, he was asked on a Latino YouTube channel. So if I vote, will Immigration know where I live? Will they come for my family and deport us?

Not true, and the reason is, first of all, when you vote, you are a citizen yourself, Mr. Obama said. And there is not a situation where the voting rolls somehow are transferred over and people start investigating, etc. The sanctity of the vote is strictly confidential."

 

More voter fraud;

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/maryland-politics/post/maryland-democrat-quits-congressional-race-amid-vote-fraud-allegations/2012/09/10/d0ff9b1e-fb73-11e1-b2af-1f7d12fe907a_blog.html?utm_term=.98082712e4b7

 

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/bs-md-wendy-rosen-plea-20130308-story.html

 

http://dailycaller.com/2011/07/29/mississippi-naacp-leader-sent-to-prison-for-10-counts-of-voter-fraud/

 

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/miami-dade/article1956542.html

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jan/26/hillary-clinton-received-800000-votes-from-nonciti/

Article projects up to 2.8 million noncitizens voting(not all for Clinton.). That # is based on 20 million illegals which is a low estimate. Also has this fun quote from Obama, where he encourages voter fraud;

 

"President Obama was asked during the campaign last year if illegal immigrants had anything to fear from federal authorities if they voted in the presidential race.

Many of the millennials, Dreamers, undocumented citizens and I call them citizens because they contribute to this country are fearful of voting, he was asked on a Latino YouTube channel. So if I vote, will Immigration know where I live? Will they come for my family and deport us?

Not true, and the reason is, first of all, when you vote, you are a citizen yourself, Mr. Obama said. And there is not a situation where the voting rolls somehow are transferred over and people start investigating, etc. The sanctity of the vote is strictly confidential."

 

More voter fraud;

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/maryland-politics/post/maryland-democrat-quits-congressional-race-amid-vote-fraud-allegations/2012/09/10/d0ff9b1e-fb73-11e1-b2af-1f7d12fe907a_blog.html?utm_term=.98082712e4b7

 

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/bs-md-wendy-rosen-plea-20130308-story.html

 

http://dailycaller.com/2011/07/29/mississippi-naacp-leader-sent-to-prison-for-10-counts-of-voter-fraud/

 

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/miami-dade/article1956542.html

Did you even read the Washington Post article? It projects 800k non citizen votes, while Clinton beat Trump in the popular vote by 2.8 milion. The number you quote does appear later in the article, but it's an absolute guess:

Using other measuring tools, they said, the actual number of noncitizen voters could be as low as 38,000 and as high as 2.8 million

Or what about the republican able to vote in multiple states?

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/01/steve-bannon-is-registered-to-vote-in-two-states.html

 

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did you even read the Washington Post article? It projects 800k non citizen votes, while Clinton beat Trump in the popular vote by 2.8 milion. The number you quote does appear later in the article, but it's an absolute guess:

Or what about the republican able to vote in multiple states?[/size]

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/01/steve-bannon-is-registered-to-vote-in-two-states.html

Of course I read it, and the 2.8 million is clearly in the article as the high end range based on the 2012 census estimate of 21 million voting age illegals. When I wrote "up to 2.8 million" I was noting the high end referenced in the article. If you need my to explain how the study worked, I can do it.

 

I think that high end # is actually pretty low. For one it is based on 2012, before Obama opened up the borders. The illegal immigrant of voting age #s are unarguably much higher then 21 million at this point. Probably closer to 50-60 million. So you could easily double that illegal vote number, although not all went for clinton over trump.

 

In my state, no id is required to vote. The same rules are in place in the few states where Clinton received the majority of her votes. In my brief time in the polling station this election I am sure I witnessed some voter fraud, but it wasnt by illegal immigrants, just local scumbags trying to cheat the system.

 

The article you posted just says he was registered in two states, not that he voted in two separate states. If he voted in two states he should be charged. I honestly dont know if being registered in two states is a crime, i would think it isnt. One of the articles I posted previously was of a women voting in two states who was caught and asked to resign her candidacy. It made no mention if she was actually charged with a crime.

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course I read it, and the 2.8 million is clearly in the article as the high end range based on the 2012 census estimate of 21 million voting age illegals. When I wrote "up to 2.8 million" I was noting the high end referenced in the article. If you need my to explain how the study worked, I can do it.

 

I think that high end # is actually pretty low. For one it is based on 2012, before Obama opened up the borders. The illegal immigrant of voting age #s are unarguably much higher then 21 million at this point. Probably closer to 50-60 million. So you could easily double that illegal vote number, although not all went for clinton over trump.

 

In my state, no id is required to vote. The same rules are in place in the few states where Clinton received the majority of her votes. In my brief time in the polling station this election I am sure I witnessed some voter fraud, but it wasnt by illegal immigrants, just local scumbags trying to cheat the system.

 

The article you posted just says he was registered in two states, not that he voted in two separate states. If he voted in two states he should be charged. I honestly dont know if being registered in two states is a crime, i would think it isnt. One of the articles I posted previously was of a women voting in two states who was caught and asked to resign her candidacy. It made no mention if she was actually charged with a crime.

A range with a margin of error of 2.5 million is ridiculous, and has no meaning to a discussion. The only relevant number in the article is the 800k, still not nearly enough for Trump to have won the popular vote.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A range with a margin of error of 2.5 million is ridiculous, and has no meaning to a discussion. The only relevant number in the article is the 800k, still not nearly enough for Trump to have won the popular vote.

I take this to mean you need me to explain how they got the numbers. This is fairly simple extrapolation of the first survey on yougov. Of those who say they voted in a past election, a percentage said they were non-citizens (illegal voters). That percentage was then used to come up with a larger number of voters who were voting illegally based on 2012 noncitizen population estimates. Note that the # of illegal voters they came up with was based on 2012 census which estimated 21 million illegal aliens of voting age, a number which is comically low. Thats how they came up with 800k(which i readily concede is not proof of voter fraud).

 

My reasonings that the 800k number is very low are as follows:

1. much larger population of illegals, probably 2.5 to 3 times as many (800k x 2.5= 2 million, 800k x3= 2.4 million)

2. even on an anonymous survey, people are still less likely to confess to a crime (illegal voting) so 800k bumps up exponentially there

3. Obama and others outright encouraging illegal voters to vote. This was pretty widespread in this election cycle, so you have to bump up the % again.

4. The states Clinton won the largest margins were no ID states.

 

Now you have to add in the voter fraud from citizens and that number of illegal votes creeps up again. Having states were no ID is necessary to vote is a national embarrassment. As I said before, none of that study is proof of illegals voting. I think you have to be drinking a lot of the koolaid to sit and think that illegals arent voting in pretty large numbers. Because there is no requirement to show an ID in some states and an intense opposition to even using an ID there, I doubt any definitive proof can even be found. The best chance would be a very expensive comparison of vote results from CA, IL, MA, NY and other states were ID's are unnecessary vs the actual registered voters. None of those states would allow that to happen before huge legal battles were to take place, so I doubt we'll ever see it.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So pathetic seeing all the retards rioting and protesting and a lot of them can't even tell you why they are protesting. People still crying about Trump being president is pathetic as well... Give the man a chance and get on with your useless lives.

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

the meaningful numbers are speculation, not solid evidence. i'm not arguing that voter fraud is a total fabrication, i'm mainly saying to the extent it occurs is inconsequential. the effects of voter suppression and gerrymandering on elections are FAR greater than any voter fraud, and without question tip many elections in favor of republicans.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There can be no evidence because the really liberal states allowing votes with no ID. Its easy to deny something that is institutionally encouraged, even if it's a criminal act, if you keep absolutely no evidence and demand no proof of citizenship to vote. It's impossible to grasp the magnitude of vote fraud when the state government in question is also complicit and outright encourages it.

If by "voter suppression " you mean forcing a person to prove they have a legal right to vote, the I'm all for voter suppression. Fuck, we need a lot more of it. I agree that gerrymandering is bullshit. But it goes both ways and can't be accomplis without out the tacit support of the other party.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There can be no evidence because the really liberal states allowing votes with no ID. Its easy to deny something that is institutionally encouraged, even if it's a criminal act, if you keep absolutely no evidence and demand no proof of citizenship to vote. It's impossible to grasp the magnitude of vote fraud when the state government in question is also complicit and outright encourages it.

If by "voter suppression " you mean forcing a person to prove they have a legal right to vote, the I'm all for voter suppression. Fuck, we need a lot more of it. I agree that gerrymandering is bullshit. But it goes both ways and can't be accomplis without out the tacit support of the other party.

 

no, by "voter suppression" i mean things like reducing the number of available voting stations, limiting early voting, shortening voting hours, etc. i support requiring at least some form of photo identification to vote.

 

did you see how long the voting lines were in many democratic-leaning areas? and they do things like having polls only open during regular work hours, and in inconvenient places, where republicans know it will have a greater effect on low income (and democratic-leaning) voters.

 

the voter turnout in this country, comparative to the rest of the world, is a joke, and a large part of that can easily be attributed to voter suppression tactics used (almost exclusively) by the republican party.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nobody, anywhere, ever, has been able to actually prove with actual evidence that in person voter fraud is happening at any significant level. For in-person fraud to even be in any way effective you'd need something systemic, and that would be pretty easily identified long term.

 

Also, unless the state provides a free valid id, I'm not sure how you could argue that it's not a poll tax -- which is prohibited.

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So pathetic seeing all the retards rioting and protesting and a lot of them can't even tell you why they are protesting. People still crying about Trump being president is pathetic as well... Give the man a chance and get on with your useless lives.

HE WILL NOT DIVIDE US!

 

*facepalm*

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.part.lt/img/5484dbf44e6b5735b390605c5cdcb9fe891.jpg

I'd love to hear something said about this by a trump supporter :)

I'm not a trump supporter, just someone who calls bullshit when I see it. That being said, your graph there has no factual basis in reality. It's an argument designed to fool the ignorant. Thanks for posting it.
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here are the facts. The 9/11 hijackers didn't come from Sudan, Somalia, Yemen, Iran etc. It's public knowledge that they came from Saudi Arabia, Egypt etc. The boston martathon bombers, both kyrgizian, not those in the ban. So why ban countries that didn't really pose that big of a threat, but avoid those that bring some business in? Simple, cash.

 

Second fact, Russia is back again at taking war actions in eastern Ukraine because Trump is already bringing down sanctions for Russians. So wait a second, if he really wants that "World peace" and so on, why isn't he doing anything else but create more wars?

 

Third fact, never in history a country has been so happy that a certain individual was elected somewhere so far away. United Kingom don't throw parties, Germany don't throw parties, nobody does, except for Russia, they were soooooo happy for no reason that Trump won. Now when they get those sanctions removed piece by piece we know why.

 

And if you think that he'll make it great for you again well he might for an average bloke, but trust me, you're going down technology wise. Nobody of the big companies will spend big dollars on talent research anymore because it's simply isn't worth spending millions of dollars bringing people in, training them and then finding out that their president deports them. Google is already thinking about moving to Europe, it's just a matter of time before they and the other big IT corporations do.

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here are the facts. The 9/11 hijackers didn't come from Sudan, Somalia, Yemen, Iran etc. It's public knowledge that they came from Saudi Arabia, Egypt etc. The boston martathon bombers, both kyrgizian, not those in the ban. So why ban countries that didn't really pose that big of a threat, but avoid those that bring some business in? Simple, cash.

 

Second fact, Russia is back again at taking war actions in eastern Ukraine because Trump is already bringing down sanctions for Russians. So wait a second, if he really wants that "World peace" and so on, why isn't he doing anything else but create more wars?

 

Third fact, never in history a country has been so happy that a certain individual was elected somewhere so far away. United Kingom don't throw parties, Germany don't throw parties, nobody does, except for Russia, they were soooooo happy for no reason that Trump won. Now when they get those sanctions removed piece by piece we know why.

 

And if you think that he'll make it great for you again well he might for an average bloke, but trust me, you're going down technology wise. Nobody of the big companies will spend big dollars on talent research anymore because it's simply isn't worth spending millions of dollars bringing people in, training them and then finding out that their president deports them. Google is already thinking about moving to Europe, it's just a matter of time before they and the other big IT corporations do.

The countries that received the ban are middle eastern countries that lack a functioning government at this time. (Some of them because Obama has been bombing them for quite some time while the media and progressives pretend he isn't.). That makes vetting immigrants very difficult. Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Egypt, and the uae aren't currently war zones. That makes vetting these immigrants easier. Your graph listing 0 Americans killed by people of the banned countries is as dumb as can be. How anyone could look at that and think it's anything other then garbage is beyond me.

 

I'll combine your second and third points. I think this is the true basis of your problem with trump anyway. Honestly, I don't care what happens in the Ukraine. It's none of my business and if intervening on the ukraines behalf even has a 1% chance of starting a war with Russia, then I'd oppose it 100%. It's about time that the EU and Eastern Europe in particular figure out how to provide their own security and not assume the U.S. is going to protect them anymore. Of course the Russians are happy with trump over Clinton. Clinton would have undoubtedly continued with sending troops to Russia's border like Obama did. It's beyond ridiculous to post large numbers of troops overseas at a huge expense with no benefits to our countries security.

 

Your fourth point is just conjecture and has no basis in reality. Companies go were they can make the most profit and pay the least amount in taxes. The idea that our technological edge is going to slip because of a temporary travel ban is beyond laughable.

 

Trump announcing that he plans to repeal Wall Street regulations is the first really bad decision he has made. Most of the other stuff is incredibly minor.

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trump announcing that he plans to repeal Wall Street regulations is the first really bad decision he has made. Most of the other stuff is incredibly minor.

 

I was surprised by this as well. The other stuff could just be to show that there's a new sheriff in town.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I'll combine your second and third points. I think this is the true basis of your problem with trump anyway. Honestly, I don't care what happens in the Ukraine. It's none of my business and if intervening on the ukraines behalf even has a 1% chance of starting a war with Russia, then I'd oppose it 100%. It's about time that the EU and Eastern Europe in particular figure out how to provide their own security and not assume the U.S. is going to protect them anymore. Of course the Russians are happy with trump over Clinton. Clinton would have undoubtedly continued with sending troops to Russia's border like Obama did. It's beyond ridiculous to post large numbers of troops overseas at a huge expense with no benefits to our countries security.

 

Your fourth point is just conjecture and has no basis in reality. Companies go were they can make the most profit and pay the least amount in taxes. The idea that our technological edge is going to slip because of a temporary travel ban is beyond laughable.

 

Trump announcing that he plans to repeal Wall Street regulations is the first really bad decision he has made. Most of the other stuff is incredibly minor.

So basically your view is fuck everyone as long as I got cash and freedom and I don't give a single fuck about how anyone else lives right? They will never figure out a way, no way a country that big and powerfull which controls gas for the whole eastern europe would listen to somebody like the baltics or ukraine or finland and the rest. That's where you fells come in. Like it or not you're the only ones who got the actual power to do something about it, not just by sending troops and bombing shit. Why do you think Russia stopped attacking Ukraine once you guys put some sanctions on them? Because they work. Ruble went down faster than Ronda did agains Nunes, they just couldn' afford it anymore. I'd honestly love to see you live somewhere near a country like that and say "I honestly don't care if they invade us or not, I just want an orange man to ban muslims and build walls, because as history showed us, the Berlin wall was the greatest thing ever, yes it didn't help them to win the war, but at least it was a beautiful wall."

 

IT companies won't go away just like that, but if you got no new talent coming in how will you improve and expand? You just wont. And the new bans he might put in place could further damage them, what if he decides to deport every Iranian person? You lose not only employees who you spent money training and paying and potentially even losing projects that were in development. Let me be clear, you won't lose technology that's already invented, it will simply prevent improvement. And do you really think Europe would say no to someone like google or apple to come there? They would make the taxes as sweet as they can to bring them over.

 

 

Now it might look like I'm all against Donald, but I'm just against his current methods of fixing stuff. He has a great idea of filtrating immigrants which is good, but banning them is stupid right now. Instead how about all people coming in from there get extra checks while he puts normal border security in place? He needs to think ahead before doing anything quickly in my opinion or else it might backfire badly.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not American, but frankly speaking, i like what i am hearing from Trump. These bans also make plenty of sense. Should he expand the ban to include countries such as Saudi Arabia and other countries mentioned above? I think yes, but he can't do that due to the reliance on these countries + the fact that technically they are your middle east partners.

 

What a lot of people fail to understand is that the world is not a "fair" place. You as a country need to do what is best for your people and sometimes it could mean finding a compromise with certain countries you do not always see eye to eye (that could include Russia, China or whatever). One this is certain though, you do not need more immigrants from places like Iran, Iraq and Lybia, I think that is common sense. I think the USA can survive without the influx of "talented programmers" from those countries, which is about the only excuse i have heard from liberals.

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bans make zero sence at all. Every terrorist in in Europe lately is born or has lived in Europe for a long time. The only thing it will do is drive more people to radical groupes. Up the Visa checks for all you want, even only let in people actually contributing to society, but straight up forbidding an entire group of people isn't going to do any good.

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...