Yeah, and its a toss up what happens first. The wall being completed OR the Jets getting in the Super Bowl.
So a president not actually doing what he said he'd do during the campaign is whitewashing, a term never used before to describe that common act, simply because it's Trump? You have to have the critical thinking ability of a gnat to not be able to identify the bullshit in that post, or simply lack any semblance of emotional stability and are easily manipulated.
That's because Obama truly ran a campaign of fairy tales and people threw out any semblance of critical thinking to believe his nonsense because it made them feel good. If Trump doesn't build a wall (he won't) or ban muslims (he won't) it's not going to be a big deal because nobody rational believed those doable or necessary so much as his willingness to start the discussion about the concerns those "solutions" address in the face of every liberal hysteric calling him racist simply because he is critical of sects of demographics. But if he builds a wall, and instead of Mexico paying for it we all get taxed out the asshole for it, the same way Obama promised an impossible single paying healthcare system where costs and options wouldn't change and you could keep your doctor (which you had to be a moron to believe) and instead we got unconscionable increases in premiums and decrease in services, then people will be justifiably pissed at Trump as well.
oh okay now I feel better. Everything that asshole said to get elected was just that and he wont do anything he said he was going to do. Some people get judged on their campaign promises, others dont
Looking back Trump played the perfect game. He switched to the Republican party at the right time and took advantage of the angry white and uneducated that felt they're a dying breed and wanted their (not actually owned) country back. Aka "make america great again" bullshit. Racist statements and support from racist groups, nonsensical statements,an incoherent plan and a major flip flopper throughout. That is why the majority is shocked he won because no one in their right mind would vote for such a candidate. Its going to be interesting to see who he surrounds himself with. If its the same washington retards then how exactly will things be different. How is that giving his desperate voters want they wanted? Since he knows little it's safe to say he won't be doing much in Washington for awhile. I really can't wait to see who he picks.
Trump would have never beaten Romney, or Mcain or Bush or Obama. He ran at the perfect time where there was a complete absence of viable candidates on either side because both parties were so out of touch with the American people. The Republicans were just a mess and truly thought the neo-evangical platform would actually get neo-evangicals out and would outweigh the neo-liberals. Democrats have been living in a self created bubble where liberals have controlled the widespread media narrative that we are all bombarded with that they lost any concept of contrary ideas, simply because they drowned them out, and thought they truly could run a strictly emotional campaign for a terrible candidate because getting a woman elected would be so awesomely progressive. But Trump, without an evangical message, got those people out to vote. Not only that, but by getting them out they voted Republican across the board. Even Paul Ryan understands that he just did something for the Republican Party no actual Republican had been able to do since 1928. The Republicans will learn their lesson from this and alter their approach going forward and you can hear it in Ryan's awe at the results. The question is will the Democrats learn and alter their neo-liberal approach or do what Republicans have been doing for eight years and double down on that approach that lost them this election?
The guy that comes out on top shining in all this is Bernie Sanders. The Democratic Party machine fixed the primaries against him and before a single ballot was cast all the Super Delegates conveniently had pledged support for Hillary. Then after the DNC emails were leaked they showed that Clinton had pulled in all these favors to make sure everything was stacked her way. What a genius move, Sanders probably would have beaten Trump so enjoy the next 4 years, idiots
No way would America have elected a Socialist POTUS. Waay too soon for that given that America was never really comfortable with a Black POTUS. Maybe 2020 or 2024, but not in 2016.
The moment you misunderstand an argument to the point you completely misinterpret it to the extent you did you lose any credibility in being critical of the argument. It was too complex for you to grasp and you don't understand it, yet it was a pretty simple argument to understand. No amount of deflection changes that.
I like to imagine the Trump vs W debate. Trump: "W, you were such a yuugely awful President. I think, possibly, the worst in all of history. Trust me, I know." W: "We have a saying, in Texas: 'If you are orange........can't be President.'" I have to imagine everything W would say would lodge just perfectly under Trump's skin and he would have lost his damn mind. Nobody running on either ticket this time could have done that. Biden maybe....
In my city they are crying like babies, marching into the highways, putting graffiti on landmarks saying "fuck white people" and "your vote was hate speech". Truly disturbing and offensive. Reagan called our peaceful transfer of power a miracle, and it is. Protesting an election result is about the most un-American thing you could do.
In 8 years you never saw this behavior from the supposed hateful and bigoted right. Makes me wonder who really harbors the hate. Just turn on your TV.
The number of electoral college votes a state gets is dependent on its population, the same way the number of seats a state gets in the House of Representatives. It essentially normalizes the vote to ensure every state gets their proportion of influence in the election, regardless if that state has a high or low turnout on election day. If the electoral college votes weren't fixed, both candidates would spend a lot more time campaigning and pandering to the most densely populated areas, as that is the most efficient way of running up your score. If State X has a 10% lower turnout in a given election, should they get 10% less influence even though their population is relatively unchanged? The popular vote is somewhat meaningless, because as you said, in some states voting is pointless, because they lean so overwhelmingly left or right. Because of that, it's likely many likely voters don't waste the time to cast a vote in that state. If more states were to split their electoral votes the way some do in the primaries, then there may be more incentive for people to turn out to vote.
