Thugs refuse to accept Election Result

[Doktor Avalanche]

You forgot about Detroit. 

There may be hope for Detroit. Because, well, I believe there is possibly soon an act of redemption coming for Detroit.

 

Except the Lions. They have no redeeming quality.

Edited November 11, 2016 by The King in Yellow

[Big Brother]

Please California, do what your protesters are calling for and secede from the Union. Take New York City, Chicago and New Jersey with you. 

 

[Doktor Avalanche]

-snip-

I was thinking more for economic reasons and some social issues when voting against the Second Amendment, but meh.

Yes, I do agree much of the Bible Belt does suck. However, Wisconsin Beer reigns supreme over West Coast piss water spittle they call Beer.

[Rozalia]

Protests were going to happen either way but calling them thugs over it is a bit childish don't you thinks. Its not anti-democracy as you say because they're not satisfied with the result and thus protest about it. I see the same thing in my city when a not so popular law is passed. Does that make them anti-democratic? No, they're upset and using what little power they have left to express how they feel (right to protest).

 

 

Also can I also say don't lump what a chunk said as to what the whole thinks. And before you say I assume Hilary supporters are saints. No, I never did. No one side is perfect.

 

I have explained it. Only doing what they would be doing if they won so for once they know how it is to be referred to as a thug and worse.

 

You never answered my question......you've responded twice with "They" not "I".  I'm honestly not trying to bait you at all, I just find it interesting as someone who is so blindly on one side of an issue as yourself, will be very direct in their views and opinions about the opposing side, but when asked the same questions with the tables turned, those same people start to wobble and waiver and everything gets deflected/diverted to something else.

 

As to who said what and who lied about what, I could give 2 shits, I was just simply asking you a question which you chose/choosing not to answer.  Me personally, I have no problem with people protesting, as long as it's peaceful and not in my way, like on the roads and what not.  I don't care who it is, people on the losing side of an election, sporting event or those on the winning side of an election or sporting event, or those that think things will change if they destroy enough shit, once it gets to that point, then they are all morons, retards, thugs, whatever term you choose to use and should be dealt with accordingly.

 

I have given you the context and why I have referred to them as thugs on here. You have decided you're going to ignore the context on why I see it fit to lambaste them as such to ask "would you call Trump supporters thugs" trying to catch me out. As I told you, I'm part of a group these people call everything under the sun that who if they took to the streets would be labeled thugs, KKK, Nazis, blah blah blah. 

 

My answer was I would not call either thugs but am here due to the context I have provided. 

 

I'm disgusted with your tone, as usual.  "Grab a woman by her !@#$ and throw her out of the country" because you disagree with her?  Whatever.  Just more shock jock Howard Stern type level commentary from you.

 

Called a joke. You may not like it but "grab 'em by the !@#$" is now a joke, I personally prefer choking myself but that doesn't a President having said it behind it. Also it isn't because I disagree with her where did you get that? She vowed like other celebrities that she'd leave the country if Trump won so she should make good on that.

 

Thugs? Its easy to villainize the opposition rather then put yourself in there shoes and recognize the face in the mirror. You telling me Trump supporters would have gone quietly into the night if he had lost? Pfft. He even admitted that he would question the validity if the elections of he lost. 

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/21/us/politics/campaign-election-trump-clinton.html?_r=0

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-wont-commit-to-accepting-election-results-if-he-loses/2016/10/19/9c9672e6-9609-11e6-bc79-af1cd3d2984b_story.html

 

 

So honestly, who cares? Let the people protest. In 2 weeks it will be old news. Trump won and no one can change that.

 

I explained that, its not villainizing, its mocking.

[Dark Specter]

Pretty funny how people are pissed over this amd going as far as attacking police and destroying property like the inmature children they are. It is also funny how California wants a #Calexit amd become an independent country and Oregon now wants the same thing and call their nation Cascadia or something involving Oregon, Washington and northern California. This seccesion of theirs will never work sense now in some areas the protestors numbers are shrinking, and they will have to wait till 2018 to get the seccesion on a mid term ballot, and if won from there get 38 state legislatures to recognize and approve their seccession along with 2/3 majority from both houses in order to make their seccession from the united states official which will never happen, and by the time 2018 comes this whole thing will have died down and no one will no longer care.

 

I could also be wrong about the 2/3 majority in both houses and getting approval by 38 state legislatures to become an independent state, but its been popping up in a few articles.

Edited November 11, 2016 by Dark Specter

[Lam Songman]

I was thinking more for economic reasons and some social issues when voting against the Second Amendment, but meh.

Yes, I do agree much of the Bible Belt does suck. However, Wisconsin Beer reigns supreme over West Coast piss water spittle they call Beer.

Someones bitter that happy cows come from California eh?   

 

California also has the 6th-7th largest economy in the world.

The prop 63 and other stringent gun laws can and would be repealed if the State seceded (or if Diane Feinstein died of old age first), as it would be cheaper to have a armed militia (modeled after Switzerland) with a small cadre of professional soldiers then establish a huge military apparatus.

 

https://www.thrillist.com/drink/nation/every-state-in-the-usa-ranked-by-its-beer

https://www.thrillist.com/drink/nation/vinepair-s-map-shows-the-state-of-american-craft-brewing-in-2015

 

...We can agree that the Bible Belt sucks but you don't know shit about California brews.  LOL JK

 

 

 I explained that, its not villainizing, its mocking.

 

I think I posted my response before you edited your post clearing the confusion up. Regardless, I'm just playfully mocking y'all back.

Edited November 12, 2016 by Lam Songman

[greatkitteh]

Someones bitter that happy cows come from California eh?

 

California also has the 6th-7th largest economy in the world.

The prop 63 and other stringent gun laws can and would be repealed if the State seceded (or if Diane Feinstein died of old age first), as it would be cheaper to have a armed militia (modeled after Switzerland) with a small cadre of professional soldiers then establish a huge military apparatus.

 

https://www.thrillist.com/drink/nation/every-state-in-the-usa-ranked-by-its-beer

https://www.thrillist.com/drink/nation/vinepair-s-map-shows-the-state-of-american-craft-brewing-in-2015

 

...We can agree that the Bible Belt sucks but you don't know shit about California brews. LOL JK

 

 

 

I think I posted my response before you edited your post clearing the confusion up. Regardless, I'm just playfully mocking y'all back.

When Tiny island Guam manages water better than you do, you won't become that sucessful a nation.

[Big Brother]

I was thinking more for economic reasons and some social issues when voting against the Second Amendment, but meh.

Yes, I do agree much of the Bible Belt does suck. However, Wisconsin Beer reigns supreme over West Coast piss water spittle they call Beer.

 

Hah, I usually drink beer brewed in a neighbouring town, like 15 minutes away from where I live but when I really want to enjoy myself I always get some Newcastle Brown Ale. I think the only American beer I've ever tried was Budweiser which was.. not my favorite.

[Lam Songman]

When Tiny island Guam manages water better than you do, you won't become that sucessful a nation.

 

Cute. The water issue is because of the drought, and is heavily politicized, Guam has a fraction of the population, natural resources, and doesn't a major agricultural industry, or any industries for that matter (besides fishing, tourism and military supporting jobs) that California does. I can name dozens of affluent countries with "water issues" that are are successful nations, so... thank you come again.

[Lam Songman]

Hah, I usually drink beer brewed in a neighbouring town, like 15 minutes away from where I live but when I really want to enjoy myself I always get some Newcastle Brown Ale. I think the only American beer I've ever tried was Budweiser which was.. not my favorite.

Try some Sierra Nevada. It will definitely have the flavor you are seeking. It ain't colored water like Budweiser.

[WISD0MTREE]

https://www.thrillist.com/drink/nation/every-state-in-the-usa-ranked-by-its-beer

Can confirm this is complete BS. NC beer sucks. 

[Doktor Avalanche]

Someones bitter that happy cows come from California eh?   

Grew up and now visit California every couple of years. Wisconsin cheese and milk is superior, hands down.

 

California also has the 6th-7th largest economy in the world.

The prop 63 and other stringent gun laws can and would be repealed if the State seceded (or if Diane Feinstein died of old age first), as it would be cheaper to have a armed militia (modeled after Switzerland) with a small cadre of professional soldiers then establish a huge military apparatus.

Yes, however the debt is also in the top ten worldwide too.

 

https://www.thrillist.com/drink/nation/every-state-in-the-usa-ranked-by-its-beer

https://www.thrillist.com/drink/nation/vinepair-s-map-shows-the-state-of-american-craft-brewing-in-2015

 

...We can agree that the Bible Belt sucks but you don't know shit about California brews.  LOL JK

Two of my best friends in California own their own Brewing company. Even they try to model their brews after Wisconsin recipes due to losing tasters competitions from Wisconsin breweries each year. granted, the beers are good, but Wisconsin Beers are the finest I have had, along with two I have had from Belgium and Germany.

 

I think I posted my response before you edited your post clearing the confusion up. Regardless, I'm just playfully mocking y'all back.

It's all good, Cabrón!

[Lam Songman]

Grew up and now visit California every couple of years. Wisconsin cheese and milk is superior, hands down.

 

Yes, however the debt is also in the top ten worldwide too.

 

Two of my best friends in California own their own Brewing company. Even they try to model their brews after Wisconsin recipes due to losing tasters competitions from Wisconsin breweries each year. granted, the beers are good, but Wisconsin Beers are the finest I have had, along with two I have had from Belgium and Germany.

 

It's all good, Cabrón!

 

LOL though I disagree about the dairy (a clear bias on my part), I will concede the objectively California is #2 to Wisconsin.

 

As to the debt...again that doesnt take away that CA wouldn't and couldn't succeed as an independent nation. Look at the US debt. Not only that but CA is a tax contributor and clearly picks up the slack for alot of states that are reliant on federal funding. We actually receive less in federal funding then we contribute to the nation as a whole. 

 

What brewing company? I might know them (the guys and the brew). If you've done any drinking of our local brews while you lived here you'd know that we not only have the most craft brewers in the nation, but that they rank among the highest. We are only ever beat by Oregon... but you know already know how we rag on there driving so we even out the score   Won't disagree about the german or belgian brews though.

 

If you are out in Cali again give me a chirp, i'd love to introduce you to some local brewskis. Even if I cant convince you (but i'd admit you've have to be hard headed as !@#$ to not be swayed), we'd have a blast sampling the local fares and clanking tankards.

 

no problema vato.

Edited November 13, 2016 by Lam Songman

[Doktor Avalanche]

Brävery Brewing opened up a few year back.

 

Kinetic Brewing Company was started from an old avid roleplayer I used to DM and play old school d6 Star Wars with.

Edited November 14, 2016 by The King in Yellow

[Frank Todd]

Welcome to Modern America I guess?

 

We !@#$ about him winning/ruining shit with his blatant ignorance or whatever then we turn around and literally start ruining shit because we don't like him winning.

 

#Glad_I_ServedForThis

 

lolol

[Charles Bolivar]

You lot call that weak alcoholic liquid you make "beer". Man, they are just giving that label away

[Doktor Avalanche]

 

Anyone remember this being thrown around FB and other forums? Well? Hypocrisy rules the masses.

[Aisha Greyjoy]

There are two main lines of thought I am working with right now..

 

#1.  We have to treat Trump better then Obama was treated by !@#$ Republicans because we're morally superior to them and unlike them, we respect our system of government which requires compromise and working together.

 

#2. We have to fight Trump with everything we have on every single issue because the Republicans have essentially declared war on Democrats and the Constitution.  We can't keep playing nice when dealing with psychotic nutjobs(and by psychotic nutjobs, I don't mean Trump, I mean many Republicans).

 

I'm going with #1 for now.  But I'm really just a few shakes short of going #2.  I guess the protesters are already there.

 

As an individual, what would #2 mean for me?  Sorry dudes, I live in the burbs and have a job.  Not going to any downtown protests, nor do I see the point.  You want to get #2 going?  Become a precinct committeeman.  Run for office.  My district didn't even have a Democrat running for State Representative this time.  Meaningful actions is how you affect change. 

 

Also, buy some guns.  No telling when the psychotic nutjobs will start a civil war, and you don't want to be disarmed when that happens.

[Beatrix]

Protesting election results isn't anti-democratic, it's by definition a democratic right. There's a difference between Trump not accepting the election results, and individuals who protest the results.

 

 

It's also pretty stupid that the popular vote has failed 4 times already in the US. I get the point of the electoral college - but it doesn't really do what it's supposed to do, and most of the reasons for its creation are not needed anymore. It should probably be reformed to keep its good aspects and bad aspects.

[Aisha Greyjoy]

Protesting election results isn't anti-democratic, it's by definition a democratic right. There's a difference between Trump not accepting the election results, and individuals who protest the results.

 

 

It's also pretty stupid that the popular vote has failed 4 times already in the US. I get the point of the electoral college - but it doesn't really do what it's supposed to do, and most of the reasons for its creation are not needed anymore. It should probably be reformed to keep its good aspects and bad aspects.

Actually, the electoral college is there so that "learned individuals" can override the votes of their lessors.

 

From the Federalist Papers

 

 

It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations.

 

It was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder. This evil was not least to be dreaded in the election of a magistrate, who was to have so important an agency in the administration of the government as the President of the United States. But the precautions which have been so happily concerted in the system under consideration, promise an effectual security against this mischief. The choice of SEVERAL, to form an intermediate body of electors, will be much less apt to convulse the community with any extraordinary or violent movements, than the choice of ONE who was himself to be the final object of the public wishes. And as the electors, chosen in each State, are to assemble and vote in the State in which they are chosen, this detached and divided situation will expose them much less to heats and ferments, which might be communicated from them to the people, than if they were all to be convened at one time, in one place...

 

...that the Executive should be independent for his continuance in office on all but the people themselves. He might otherwise be tempted to sacrifice his duty to his complaisance for those whose favor was necessary to the duration of his official consequence. This advantage will also be secured, by making his re-election to depend on a special body of representatives, deputed by the society for the single purpose of making the important choice...

 

..The process of election affords a moral certainty, that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.

 

See, the role of the Electoral College is to prevent someone like Trump from being elected.

[Doktor Avalanche]

Protesting election results isn't anti-democratic, it's by definition a democratic right. There's a difference between Trump not accepting the election results, and individuals who protest the results.

 

 

It's also pretty stupid that the popular vote has failed 4 times already in the US. I get the point of the electoral college - but it doesn't really do what it's supposed to do, and most of the reasons for its creation are not needed anymore. It should probably be reformed to keep its good aspects and bad aspects.

Only when one side wins does this ever get argued by the losing side. Predicted this 24 years ago, that every four years the losing side always screams for the end of the Electoral College. Did you say this 4 years ago when Obama won? The Popular vote amusingly is still being tallied, even now and still will be for probably a couple more weeks.

[Aisha Greyjoy]

As a HRC voter, I support the electoral college.  It goes against my specific policies, in that it is more likely to enable Republicans to win then Democrats, but that is a temporary wind of the season.  Our constitutional framework is a balance of democracy and checks on the power of the people. 

 

I advise everyone who wants it gone to read a few of the federalist papers and then rethink it.

[Beatrix]

Only when one side wins does this ever get argued by the losing side. Predicted this 24 years ago, that every four years the losing side always screams for the end of the Electoral College. Did you say this 4 years ago when Obama won? The Popular vote amusingly is still being tallied, even now and still will be for probably a couple more weeks.

 

The reason it's argued is because it happened twice in the last 16 years. The discrepency between the electoral college and the popular vote is the huge this year - Trump won with over 70 electoral votes. FWIW that's like Alaska, Delaware, District of Columbia*, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, Wyoming, Hawaii, Idaho, Maine**, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Nebraska**, New Mexico, West Virginia, Arkansas, DecreaseIowa, Kansas combined, given or take.

 

Yet, he still lost the by the will of most people. I'm also not sure why Obama mattered because Obama won the popular vote. 

 

 

As a HRC voter, I support the electoral college.  It goes against my specific policies, in that it is more likely to enable Republicans to win then Democrats, but that is a temporary wind of the season.  Our constitutional framework is a balance of democracy and checks on the power of the people. 

 

I advise everyone who wants it gone to read a few of the federalist papers and then rethink it.

 

I would advise you the same. The electoral college is extremely outdated - and it needs a reform. I'm not sure anyone is arguing we should switch to a pure popular vote = winner method, but reforming the electoral college in one way or another. 

Edited November 17, 2016 by Beatrix

[Rozalia]

Actually, the electoral college is there so that "learned individuals" can override the votes of their lessors.

 

From the Federalist Papers

 

 

 

See, the role of the Electoral College is to prevent someone like Trump from being elected.

 

From what I recall its just the Democrat Superdelegates thing, where if say LITERALLY HITLER won the election then the electors can say no and go for someone else. In reality though that ain't happening.

 

The reason it's argued is because it happened twice in the last 16 years. The discrepency between the electoral college and the popular vote is the huge this year - Trump won with over 70 electoral votes. FWIW that's like Alaska, Delaware, District of Columbia*, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, Wyoming, Hawaii, Idaho, Maine**, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Nebraska**, New Mexico, West Virginia, Arkansas, DecreaseIowa, Kansas combined, given or take.

 

Yet, he still lost the by the will of most people. I'm also not sure why Obama mattered because Obama won the popular vote. 

 

 

 

I would advise you the same. The electoral college is extremely outdated - and it needs a reform. I'm not sure anyone is arguing we should switch to a pure popular vote = winner method, but reforming the electoral college in one way or another. 

 

Why didn't Democrats in these last 8 years not work heavily on changing it? I mean they famously even had the Bush-Gore thing as justification and with the narrative of "The Iraq war wouldn't have happened if Bush had lost" I'm sure they could make a strong case. To most people only bothering to make a fuss after losing comes off as sour grapes.

 

California stacks it towards the Democrats end yes which some even believe has allowed illegals (who naturally will vote against Trump) to vote due to getting "accidentally registered". The electoral college gives the smaller states a voice in the choosing of the next President, and if you make it just a popular vote then you give the big (Democratic) states/cities overwhelming power and you may as well get a 1 party state in America unless Trump really works on reversing this "process" as they say that has been going on there.

 

Also from my understanding the whole "all votes should have the same value, it ain't fair" is actually is a misunderstanding of how the election is. You vote to tell your state to support a candidate, not so much directly in a technical sense. 

[Doktor Avalanche]

The reason it's argued is because it happened twice in the last 16 years. The discrepency between the electoral college and the popular vote is the huge this year - Trump won with over 70 electoral votes. FWIW that's like Alaska, Delaware, District of Columbia*, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, Wyoming, Hawaii, Idaho, Maine**, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Nebraska**, New Mexico, West Virginia, Arkansas, DecreaseIowa, Kansas combined, given or take.

 

Yet, he still lost the by the will of most people. I'm also not sure why Obama mattered because Obama won the popular vote. 

 

Taken from Prager U. <==Click link for Video

 

I want to talk you about the Electoral College and why it matters.

 

Alright, I know this doesn't sound the like most sensational topic of the day, but, stay with me because, I promise you, it's one of the most important.

 

To explain why requires a very brief civics review. 

 

The President and Vice President of the United States are not chosen by a nationwide, popular vote of the American people; rather, they are chosen by 538 electors. This process is spelled out in the United States Constitution.

 

Why didn't the Founders just make it easy, and let the Presidential candidate with the most votes claim victory? Why did they create, and why do we continue to need, this Electoral College?

 

The answer is critical to understanding not only the Electoral College, but also America. 

 

The Founders had no intention of creating a pure majority-rule democracy. They knew from careful study of history what most have forgotten today, or never learned: pure democracies do not work. 

 

They implode. 

 

Democracy has been colorfully described as two wolves and a lamb voting on what's for dinner. In a pure democracy, bare majorities can easily tyrannize the rest of a country. The Founders wanted to avoid this at all costs. 

 

This is why we have three branches of government -- Executive, Legislative and Judicial. It's why each state has two Senators no matter what its population, but also different numbers of Representatives based entirely on population. It's why it takes a supermajority in Congress and three-quarters of the states to change the Constitution.

 

And, it's why we have the Electoral College.  

 

Here's how the Electoral College works.

 

The Presidential election happens in two phases. The first phase is purely democratic. We hold 51 popular elections every presidential election year: one in each state and one in D.C. 

 

On Election Day in 2012, you may have thought you were voting for Barack Obama or Mitt Romney, but you were really voting for a slate of presidential electors.  In Rhode Island, for example, if you voted for Barack Obama, you voted for the state's four Democratic electors; if you voted for Mitt Romney you were really voting for the state's four Republican electors.

 

Part Two of the election is held in December. And it is this December election among the states' 538 electors, not the November election, which officially determines the identity of the next President.  At least 270 votes are needed to win.

 

Why is this so important?

 

Because the system encourages coalition-building and national campaigning. In order to win, a candidate must have the support of many different types of voters, from various parts of the country. 

 

Winning only the South or the Midwest is not good enough. You cannot win 270 electoral votes if only one part of the country is supporting you.

 

But if winning were only about getting the most votes, a candidate might concentrate all of his efforts in the biggest cities or the biggest states. Why would that candidate care about what people in West Virginia or Iowa or Montana think?

 

But, you might ask, isn't the election really only about the so-called swing states? 

 

Actually, no. If nothing else, safe and swing states are constantly changing. 

 

California voted safely Republican as recently as 1988. Texas used to vote Democrat. Neither New Hampshire nor Virginia used to be swing states. 

 

Most people think that George W. Bush won the 2000 election because of Florida. Well, sort of. But he really won the election because he managed to flip one state which the Democrats thought was safe: West Virginia. Its 4 electoral votes turned out to be decisive. 

 

No political party can ignore any state for too long without suffering the consequences. Every state, and therefore every voter in every state, is important. 

 

The Electoral College also makes it harder to steal elections. Votes must be stolen in the right state in order to change the outcome of the Electoral College. With so many swing states, this is hard to predict and hard to do. 

 

But without the Electoral College, any vote stolen in any precinct in the country could affect the national outcome -- even if that vote was easily stolen in the bluest California precinct or the reddest Texas one.

 

The Electoral College is an ingenious method of selecting a President for a great, diverse republic such as our own -- it protects against the tyranny of the majority, encourages coalition building and discourages voter fraud. Our Founders were proud of it!  We can be too.

 

I'm Tara Ross for Prager University.

I brought up President Obama simply because no one argues when their chosen candidate wins office, demanding the Popular Vote regardless if it is in their favor. "The system sucks but my guy won, so yeah, whatever."

Edited November 17, 2016 by The King in Yellow