Trump MAGAthread II: Donald and Mike go to the White House

[Gauthier]

The PBS News Hour just made a valid point: All those Trump hotels all over the world are going to be terrorist bait. Is he going to spend government resources protecting them?

I'd imagine they'd employ private security.

And to avoid harming precious profits they'll either have skimpy farcical parodies of security or have Donny divert government money into them à la Blackwater.

[Gauthier]

If someone seriously formed a Trumpquisition there would be a frightening lack of shortage on volunteers.

And why would there be? They would help the Good Guys win on all fronts against The Enemy.

The Enemy being whatever or whoever Donny rants about on his latest butthurt Tweet.

[Southerly Gentleman]

And why would there be? They would help the Good Guys win on all fronts against The Enemy.

The Enemy being whatever or whoever Donny rants about on his latest butthurt Tweet.

ROSIE O'DONNELL: PUBLIC ENEMY NUMBER ONE. WANTED DEAD OR ALIVE. REWARD OF 1,000,000 TRUMP SCRIP.

[Thermodolia]

no I think the vote must be next week.

I don't know when jeff sessions got so important that he cant be dissed.

I expected some dead fish flailing from the Democrats against all of his cabinet picks but a kangaroo court where they pull out a senator who had previously praised Sessions to say how ebul he was is ridiculous.

And if they pull this bs for every cabinet pick it will take forever and just hold up anything from actually getting done

How ironic.

[Thermodolia]

oh what a shame it would be if they held up the suckification of the country!

It is indeed a shame if to prevent the will of a democratic election from being enacted.

Oh the irony

[Rio Cana]

Found this article in which it seems they want a 10% tariff on imports but no one in the business community is for it. Politicians believe a comprehensive tax reform would do the same and not cause a trade war with other nations.

Article from fake news CNN - http://edition.cnn.com/2016/12/21/polit ... p-tariffs/

Of course those who got rich from selling our jobs to China do not want it. It might make it harder for them to finish cannibalizing our ecnomy.

So you cannot believe in pure Capitalism since Capitalism involves a company/business being allowed to make a profit any way they can with little to no government intervention. This includes not bailing out any company/business which is in danger of going bankrupt. Supposedly, would not any government intervention be considered socialist. A socialist act in benefit of the citizens.

You said "selling our jobs", would that not put you into the nationalism corner.

Found this short article written in 2007 by a Spanish writer (its translated into english) which you and others here might find informative. The following describes what it is about -

A 2007 essay on nationalism, whose “most progressive” historical variant “in the human sense” stood for the defense of “old customs and traditions, communitarian institutions, egalitarianism [and] the rejection of the industrialization process”, a tendency that is currently “being jettisoned in favor of an extreme economic modernization” in which “local oligarchies that are intimately linked with world finance” dominate ethnic and regional separatist movements and the real historical foundations of “peoples” in the old sense have been suppressed and replaced with fake “nationalist paraphernalia, neo-folklore, flags, anthems … and subsidized culture”.

At one point he wrote the following -

In a manner of speaking, everyone will end up either singing along with the “Macarena” or hating it

Article - http://libcom.org.libcom.org/library/no ... uel-amoros

[Wallenburg]

oh what a shame it would be if they held up the suckification of the country!

It is indeed a shame if to prevent the will of a democratic election from being enacted.

Someone didn't check the popular vote.

[Thermodolia]

It is indeed a shame if to prevent the will of a democratic election from being enacted.

Someone didn't check the popular vote.

Not only that. But it's super ironic because that's what the republicans did to obama.

[Novus America]

Of course those who got rich from selling our jobs to China do not want it. It might make it harder for them to finish cannibalizing our ecnomy.

So you cannot believe in pure Capitalism since Capitalism involves a company/business being allowed to make a profit any way they can with little to no government intervention. This includes not bailing out any company/business which is in danger of going bankrupt. Supposedly, would not any government intervention be considered socialist. A socialist act in benefit of the citizens.

You said "selling our jobs", would that not put you into the nationalism corner.

Found this short article written in 2007 by a Spanish writer (its translated into english) which you and others here might find informative. The following describes what it is about -

A 2007 essay on nationalism, whose “most progressive” historical variant “in the human sense” stood for the defense of “old customs and traditions, communitarian institutions, egalitarianism [and] the rejection of the industrialization process”, a tendency that is currently “being jettisoned in favor of an extreme economic modernization” in which “local oligarchies that are intimately linked with world finance” dominate ethnic and regional separatist movements and the real historical foundations of “peoples” in the old sense have been suppressed and replaced with fake “nationalist paraphernalia, neo-folklore, flags, anthems … and subsidized culture”.

At one point he wrote the following -

In a manner of speaking, everyone will end up either singing along with the “Macarena” or hating it

Article - http://libcom.org.libcom.org/library/no ... iguel-amorós

I am not an anarcho capitalist. Which is the only "pure" capitalism. Otherwise there will always be some government intervention. The government exists to protect the people. If the oligarchs are hurting the people more than helping the government needs to intervene. Capitalism is a tool, a means to an end. Not an end in itself. Here is the problem though.

Many people have become to think of "free" trade in near religious terms. It has become an ideology to blindly follow. Trade exists only as a means to an end as well. Not an end in itself.

And government intervention is necessarily not socialism. Socialism is public ownership. Not just any government intervention. But there will be some level of socialism, publicly owned schools, roads, etc.

Realistically pure capitalism cannot exist. Every "capitalist" country is in fact mixed market. Of course within the mixed market framework there are infinite possible permutations.

[The Rich Port]

Not to mention, the government can act to protect businesses.

[Patridam]

It is indeed a shame if to prevent the will of a democratic election from being enacted.

Someone didn't check the popular vote.

I am getting really sick of that eternally half-a**ed argument.Firstly, the will of the people is also represented by a Republican majority in both houses of congress.

Secondly, the popular vote in the presidential election is a goddamn meaningless statistic, because both candidates campaigned to win the electoral college vote, not the popular vote. If the campaigns had been run for the popular vote, Trump wouldn't have had eleven million rallies in Pennsylvania and would have had some in California.

If y'all Democrats hate the popular vote so much and find it so misrepresentative of the people, why did you try to get it changed when it was helping you? It's just something for you to whine about to help feed your victim complexes and patriarchy/white conspiracy theories.

[Lady Scylla]

The Enemy being whatever or whoever Donny rants about on his latest butthurt Tweet.

ROSIE O'DONNELL: PUBLIC ENEMY NUMBER ONE. WANTED DEAD OR ALIVE. REWARD OF 1,000,000 TRUMP SCRIP.

Public Enemy No. 1 is Trump.

[The Grene Knyght]

Someone didn't check the popular vote.

I am getting really sick of that eternally half-a**ed argument.Firstly, the will of the people is also represented by a Republican majority in both houses of congress.

Secondly, the popular vote in the presidential election is a goddamn meaningless statistic, because both candidates campaigned to win the electoral college vote, not the popular vote. If the campaigns had been run for the popular vote, Trump wouldn't have had eleven million rallies in Pennsylvania and would have had some in California.

If y'all Democrats hate the popular vote so much and find it so misrepresentative of the people, why did you try to get it changed when it was helping you? It's just something for you to whine about to help feed your victim complexes and patriarchy/white conspiracy theories.

Out of curiosity, when did the electoral college vote help the Dems?

[Patridam]

Someone didn't check the popular vote.

Not only that. But it's super ironic because that's what the republicans did to obama.

Have you considered making a post that contains something other than a tu quoque fallacy?

[Jerzylvania]

I am getting really sick of that eternally half-a**ed argument.Firstly, the will of the people is also represented by a Republican majority in both houses of congress.

Secondly, the popular vote in the presidential election is a goddamn meaningless statistic, because both candidates campaigned to win the electoral college vote, not the popular vote. If the campaigns had been run for the popular vote, Trump wouldn't have had eleven million rallies in Pennsylvania and would have had some in California.

If y'all Democrats hate the popular vote so much and find it so misrepresentative of the people, why did you try to get it changed when it was helping you? It's just something for you to whine about to help feed your victim complexes and patriarchy/white conspiracy theories.

Out of curiosity, when did the electoral college vote help the Dems?

Never.

[Lady Scylla]

Not only that. But it's super ironic because that's what the republicans did to obama.

Have you considered making a post that contains something other than a tu quoque fallacy?

Tu quoque is only valid if he was trying to make an argument based off of that as it's own premise. Pointing out hypocrisy by itself is not tu quoque.

[Patridam]

Out of curiosity, when did the electoral college vote help the Dems?

You don't need to look too far, just to the 2012 election. Obama won 51% to 47%, but he won 332 to 206 by the electoral college. Proportionally, that would equate to a 62% to 38% vote for Obama.

For 2016 the same numbers are 46% vs 48% (Trump vs Hillary) popular vote, and 57% vs 43% electoral vote. The difference between the electoral college and the popular vote was the same advantage for both Trump and Obama, at 11%, while the difference disadvantaging Romney was 4 percent more than the one against Hillary, at 9% versus 5%.

The Electoral college helped Trump no more than it helped Obama in 2012.

[The Grene Knyght]

Out of curiosity, when did the electoral college vote help the Dems?

You don't need to look too far, just to the 2012 election. Obama won 51% to 47%, but he won 332 to 206 by the electoral college. Proportionally, that would equate to a 62% to 38% vote for Obama.

For 2016 the same numbers are 46% vs 48% (Trump vs Hillary) popular vote, and 57% vs 43% electoral vote. The difference between the electoral college and the popular vote was the same advantage for both Trump and Obama, at 11%, while the difference disadvantaging Romney was 4 percent more than the one against Hillary, at 9% versus 5%.

The Electoral college helped Trump no more than it helped Obama in 2012.

Except Obama would've won without the electoral college...

[The Holy Empire of the Spaghetti Monster]

Out of curiosity, when did the electoral college vote help the Dems?

You don't need to look too far, just to the 2012 election. Obama won 51% to 47%, but he won 332 to 206 by the electoral college. Proportionally, that would equate to a 62% to 38% vote for Obama.

For 2016 the same numbers are 46% vs 48% (Trump vs Hillary) popular vote, and 57% vs 43% electoral vote. The difference between the electoral college and the popular vote was the same advantage for both Trump and Obama, at 11%, while the difference disadvantaging Romney was 4 percent more than the one against Hillary, at 9% versus 5%.

The Electoral college helped Trump no more than it helped Obama in 2012.

You can debate percentages all you want, but it did help Trump more because, unlike Obama, he would have lost without the electoral college.

[Patridam]

You don't need to look too far, just to the 2012 election. Obama won 51% to 47%, but he won 332 to 206 by the electoral college. Proportionally, that would equate to a 62% to 38% vote for Obama.

For 2016 the same numbers are 46% vs 48% (Trump vs Hillary) popular vote, and 57% vs 43% electoral vote. The difference between the electoral college and the popular vote was the same advantage for both Trump and Obama, at 11%, while the difference disadvantaging Romney was 4 percent more than the one against Hillary, at 9% versus 5%.

The Electoral college helped Trump no more than it helped Obama in 2012.

Except Obama would've won without the electoral college...

You asked when it helped the Dems. It helped Obama as much as it helped Trump. Now, did you have a problem with the electoral college in 2012? Or is it just because it helped the guy you don't like that you now claim it unfair?

[The Holy Empire of the Spaghetti Monster]

Except Obama would've won without the electoral college...

You asked when it helped the Dems. It helped Obama as much as it helped Trump. Now, did you have a problem with the electoral college in 2012? Or is it just because it helped the guy you don't like that you now claim it unfair?

In terms of winning or losing, though, it didn't help him.

[Patridam]

You don't need to look too far, just to the 2012 election. Obama won 51% to 47%, but he won 332 to 206 by the electoral college. Proportionally, that would equate to a 62% to 38% vote for Obama.

For 2016 the same numbers are 46% vs 48% (Trump vs Hillary) popular vote, and 57% vs 43% electoral vote. The difference between the electoral college and the popular vote was the same advantage for both Trump and Obama, at 11%, while the difference disadvantaging Romney was 4 percent more than the one against Hillary, at 9% versus 5%.

The Electoral college helped Trump no more than it helped Obama in 2012.

You can debate percentages all you want, but it did help Trump more because, unlike Obama, he would have lost without the electoral college.

*DECODING* "You can use your fancy facts and figures and logical analysis, but I know in my liberal heart that the electoral college is ebul because it helped Trump who is ebul. I am now going to decry the electoral college even though both candidates acknowledged it and ran their campaigns relying on it, until such a time when it helps a candidate I do like, and then I will deny that I ever had a problem with it."

[The Grene Knyght]

Except Obama would've won without the electoral college...

You asked when it helped the Dems. It helped Obama as much as it helped Trump. Now, did you have a problem with the electoral college in 2012? Or is it just because it helped the guy you don't like that you now claim it unfair?

Well firstly it didn't help Obama as much as it helped trump, because the system doesn't work proportionately to how much they won by.
Secondly, you seem to be implying I like Obama...
I've always had a problem with how needlessly complex the US's presidential elections are in comparison with my own country's, for as long as I've been aware that such a system was in place.

[The East Marches]

You asked when it helped the Dems. It helped Obama as much as it helped Trump. Now, did you have a problem with the electoral college in 2012? Or is it just because it helped the guy you don't like that you now claim it unfair?

Well firstly it didn't help Obama as much as it helped trump, because the system doesn't work proportionately to how much they won by.
Secondly, you seem to be implying I like Obama...
I've always had a problem with how needlessly complex the US's presidential elections are in comparison with my own country's, for as long as I've been aware that such a system was in place.

I was always a fan of the Northern Irish system myself :^)

[Patridam]

You asked when it helped the Dems. It helped Obama as much as it helped Trump. Now, did you have a problem with the electoral college in 2012? Or is it just because it helped the guy you don't like that you now claim it unfair?

In terms of winning or losing, though, it didn't help him.

Okay, so you're moving your goalposts to the other side of the field I see.

EDIT: By your definition it hasn't helped them, unless you want to consider the absurdly messy 1824 election with its 4 Democrat-Republican candidates. Thanks to Farnhamia for pointing my error out.