Trump MAGAThread III: Steak, Vodka, Casinos, and America

[Galloism]

I would laugh so hard to be honest because it'd just be such a counter thing to any reason why people probably voted for him (to an extent).

Edit: I told you he would likely find some way to disappoint you as well. He'd find a way to disappoint everyone that supported him.

I didn't support him until after he was elected and started appointing people.

Your turn will come.

[Arlenton]

I didn't support him until after he was elected and started appointing people.

And you support him now and he'll still find some way to disappoint you.

Not doubting it.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

From NBC's article:

"He warned Republicans that if the party drags its feet, he will use the power of the presidency — along with Twitter, his preferred channel to the American people."

If this happened then Jesus, the guy gives no shits, does he?

[Corrian]

From NBC's article:

"He warned Republicans that if the party drags its feet, he will use the power of the presidency — along with Twitter, his preferred channel to the American people."

If this happened then Jesus, the guy gives no shits, does he?

Republicans must be facepalming right now.

[Maineiacs]

From NBC's article:

"He warned Republicans that if the party drags its feet, he will use the power of the presidency — along with Twitter, his preferred channel to the American people."

If this happened then Jesus, the guy gives no shits, does he?

When has he ever?

[Corrian]

I just thought of something.

What if he goes full Bernie Sanders (doubtful), and Bernie Sanders runs in 4 years again, and Republicans are upset because Trump went full liberal after they bashed liberals this whole time? Who do they choose?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I just thought of something.

What if he goes full Bernie Sanders (doubtful), and Bernie Sanders runs in 4 years again, and Republicans are upset because Trump went full liberal after they bashed liberals this whole time? Who do they choose?

They'll cut off Trump at the primaries, probably.

You can still challenge incumbent presidents. However, a popular incumbent president may end up unopposed on their party or with token opposition.

The last serious in-party contender was Pat Buchanan in the 1992 primaries, which H.W. won but lost reelection against Bill Clinton.

[Galloism]

I just thought of something.

What if he goes full Bernie Sanders (doubtful), and Bernie Sanders runs in 4 years again, and Republicans are upset because Trump went full liberal after they bashed liberals this whole time? Who do they choose?

They'll cut off Trump at the primaries, probably.

You can still challenge incumbent presidents. However, a popular incumbent president may end up unopposed on their party or with token opposition.

The last serious in-party contender was Pat Buchanan in 1992, which H.W. won but lost reelection against Bill Clinton.

Trump's the type though that, even if he lost his party's primary, he'd run again as an independent out of spite.

[Thermodolia]

They'll cut off Trump at the primaries, probably.

You can still challenge incumbent presidents. However, a popular incumbent president may end up unopposed on their party or with token opposition.

The last serious in-party contender was Pat Buchanan in 1992, which H.W. won but lost reelection against Bill Clinton.

Trump's the type though that, even if he lost his party's primary, he'd run again as an independent out of spite.

Which would seriously fuck up the republicans chances

[Galloism]

Trump's the type though that, even if he lost his party's primary, he'd run again as an independent out of spite.

Which would seriously fuck up the republicans chances

More to the point, they know this - in advance.

Which means I don't think we can expect the party leaders to grow a spine between now and 2020.

[Corrian]

Which would seriously fuck up the republicans chances

More to the point, they know this - in advance.

Which means I don't think we can expect the party leaders to grow a spine between now and 2020.

Still doesn't seem to stop them from pissing off their own voters with these healthcare repeals.

[Svebia]

For the left who like to pray to the bait
I am sharing this with as many of you “Clinton won the majority” whiners as I can. Our Founders in their infinite wisdom created the Electoral College to ensure each STATE was fairly represented and they accounted for population with the formula for the number of Electoral votes per state. They believed that one or two densely populated areas should not speak for the whole of the nation. This should finally put an end to the argument as to why the Electoral College makes sense over the majority ( it won't however Because liberals are insane):

- There are 3,141 counties in the United States.

- Trump won 3,084 of them. Clinton won 57.

- There are 62 counties in New York State. Trump won 46 of them. Clinton won 16.

- Clinton won the popular vote by approx. 2.5 million votes. In the 5 counties that encompass NYC, (Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan,
Richmond & Queens) Clinton received well over 2 million more votes than Trump. (Clinton only won 4 of these counties; Trump won Richmond). Therefore these 5 counties alone, more than accounted for Clinton winning the popular vote of the entire country.

- These 5 counties comprise 319 square miles. The United States is comprised of 3,797,000 square miles. When you have a country that encompasses almost 4 million square miles of
territory, it would be ludicrous to even suggest that the vote of those who inhabit a mere 319 square miles should dictate the outcome of a national election. Large, densely populated Democrat cities (NYC, Chicago, LA, etc) don’t and shouldn’t
speak for the rest of our country.

- Finally, Donald Trump campaigned as if to win 50 individual state elections as per the Constitution. He did it. So you want to say he doesn’t have a mandate from the States?

Meanwhile Clinton and her cronies continue to cry about Putin. Wah, wah, wah!!

Sorry. Not tired of winning yet!

[Galloism]

For the left who like to pray to the bait
I am sharing this with as many of you “Clinton won the majority” whiners as I can. Our Founders in their infinite wisdom created the Electoral College to ensure each STATE was fairly represented and they accounted for population with the formula for the number of Electoral votes per state. They believed that one or two densely populated areas should not speak for the whole of the nation. This should finally put an end to the argument as to why the Electoral College makes sense over the majority ( it won't however Because liberals are insane):

- There are 3,141 counties in the United States.

- Trump won 3,084 of them. Clinton won 57.

- There are 62 counties in New York State. Trump won 46 of them. Clinton won 16.

- Clinton won the popular vote by approx. 2.5 million votes. In the 5 counties that encompass NYC, (Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan,
Richmond & Queens) Clinton received well over 2 million more votes than Trump. (Clinton only won 4 of these counties; Trump won Richmond). Therefore these 5 counties alone, more than accounted for Clinton winning the popular vote of the entire country.

- These 5 counties comprise 319 square miles. The United States is comprised of 3,797,000 square miles. When you have a country that encompasses almost 4 million square miles of
territory, it would be ludicrous to even suggest that the vote of those who inhabit a mere 319 square miles should dictate the outcome of a national election. Large, densely populated Democrat cities (NYC, Chicago, LA, etc) don’t and shouldn’t
speak for the rest of our country.

- Finally, Donald Trump campaigned as if to win 50 individual state elections as per the Constitution. He did it. So you want to say he doesn’t have a mandate from the States?

Meanwhile Clinton and her cronies continue to cry about Putin. Wah, wah, wah!!

Sorry. Not tired of winning yet!

"Trump can win lots of sparsely populated land! He's just terrible with people! Suck it liberals!"

[Svebia]

For the left who like to pray to the bait
I am sharing this with as many of you “Clinton won the majority” whiners as I can. Our Founders in their infinite wisdom created the Electoral College to ensure each STATE was fairly represented and they accounted for population with the formula for the number of Electoral votes per state. They believed that one or two densely populated areas should not speak for the whole of the nation. This should finally put an end to the argument as to why the Electoral College makes sense over the majority ( it won't however Because liberals are insane):

- There are 3,141 counties in the United States.

- Trump won 3,084 of them. Clinton won 57.

- There are 62 counties in New York State. Trump won 46 of them. Clinton won 16.

- Clinton won the popular vote by approx. 2.5 million votes. In the 5 counties that encompass NYC, (Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan,
Richmond & Queens) Clinton received well over 2 million more votes than Trump. (Clinton only won 4 of these counties; Trump won Richmond). Therefore these 5 counties alone, more than accounted for Clinton winning the popular vote of the entire country.

- These 5 counties comprise 319 square miles. The United States is comprised of 3,797,000 square miles. When you have a country that encompasses almost 4 million square miles of
territory, it would be ludicrous to even suggest that the vote of those who inhabit a mere 319 square miles should dictate the outcome of a national election. Large, densely populated Democrat cities (NYC, Chicago, LA, etc) don’t and shouldn’t
speak for the rest of our country.

- Finally, Donald Trump campaigned as if to win 50 individual state elections as per the Constitution. He did it. So you want to say he doesn’t have a mandate from the States?

Meanwhile Clinton and her cronies continue to cry about Putin. Wah, wah, wah!!

Sorry. Not tired of winning yet!

"Trump can win lots of sparsely populated land! He's just terrible with people! Suck it liberals!"

And this is why the Electoral College exists.
Literally because of this.

[Maineiacs]

"Trump can win lots of sparsely populated land! He's just terrible with people! Suck it liberals!"

And this is why the Electoral College exists.
Literally because of this.

They believed empty land should speak for the people?

[Svebia]

And this is why the Electoral College exists.
Literally because of this.

They believed empty land should speak for the people?

No. Equal representation so that giant fucking cities don't choose the president.
Read what I posted and you'd know what I mean.

[Galloism]

"Trump can win lots of sparsely populated land! He's just terrible with people! Suck it liberals!"

And this is why the Electoral College exists.
Literally because of this.

The electoral college exists because it was thought each state would put up their own candidate, and the electoral college would wheel and deal, trade political favors, and choose one candidate out of the 13 (or so) candidates that showed up with delegates.

It never worked as designed.

[Collatis]

-snip-

Land doesn't vote. People vote. There's nothing whatsoever about the county or state that a voter lives that should make their vote inherently more or less valuable than another.

[Svebia]

And this is why the Electoral College exists.
Literally because of this.

The electoral college exists because it was thought each state would put up their own candidate, and the electoral college would wheel and deal, trade political favors, and choose one candidate out of the 13 (or so) candidates that showed up with delegates.

It never worked as designed.

And yet 200 years later, it's worked fine. It only doesn't work when your candidate loses.

Trump won 3,084 counties

Hillary won 57 counties

Gee, I wonder who should be president...

[Galloism]

The electoral college exists because it was thought each state would put up their own candidate, and the electoral college would wheel and deal, trade political favors, and choose one candidate out of the 13 (or so) candidates that showed up with delegates.

It never worked as designed.

And yet 200 years later, it's worked fine. It only doesn't work when your candidate loses.

Trump won 3,084 counties

Hillary won 57 counties

Gee, I wonder who should be president...

Ideally, whoever won the most votes.

That didn't happen this time. However, you'll find quite literally years of complaints on this forum for abolition of the electoral college from long before trump ever ran for president. Your calls of hypocrisy are hollow.

[Mer Salcia]

Buckle up folks, it's going to be an apocalyptic Presidency - literally, as Joe Biden would say.

[Svebia]

Ideally, whoever won the most votes.

That didn't happen this time. However, you'll find quite literally years of complaints on this forum for abolition of the electoral college from long before trump ever ran for president. Your calls of hypocrisy are hollow.

I find it quite hilarious that only Democrats and leftists want to abolish the Electoral College. The electoral college exists to protect the voice of people who live in small states against the tyranny of the majority. America without the electoral college would be a one-party state, where 15% of the population is utterly ignored, and that's a hell of a lot more than 3 million ignored votes. This is the best system possible for us, period.

Seems kinda funny that no matter what, leftists talk about personal freedoms but always end up making a one party state.

Mm, 4 more days. I, as well as Trump, are counting them down.

[Galloism]

Buckle up folks, it's going to be an apocalyptic Presidency - literally, as Joe Biden would say.

Oh let's not go crazy. Trump is an idiot and shouldn't be allowed to run a bagel shop much less a country, but the system is robust. We will survive.

Hurt, frustrated, sure. But we'll survive.

[Galloism]

Ideally, whoever won the most votes.

That didn't happen this time. However, you'll find quite literally years of complaints on this forum for abolition of the electoral college from long before trump ever ran for president. Your calls of hypocrisy are hollow.

I find it quite hilarious that only Democrats and leftists want to abolish the Electoral College. The electoral college exists to protect the voice of people who live in small states against the tyranny of the majority. America without the electoral college would be a one-party state, where 15% of the population is utterly ignored, and that's a hell of a lot more than 3 million ignored votes. This is the best system possible for us, period.

Seems kinda funny that no matter what, leftists talk about personal freedoms but always end up making a one party state.

Mm, 4 more days. I, as well as Trump, are counting them down.

Funny stuff - support for abolishing the electoral college has been, for years, bipartisan. Both republicans and democrats supported abolishing it.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/198917/ameri ... arply.aspx

There was a sudden about face this year from republicans for, oh, let's say "unknown reasons". A sudden hypocritical turn, it seems.

[Svebia]

Funny stuff - support for abolishing the electoral college has been, for years, bipartisan. Both republicans and democrats supported abolishing it.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/198917/ameri ... arply.aspx

There was a sudden about face this year from republicans for, oh, let's say "unknown reasons". A sudden hypocritical turn, it seems.

Hypocrisy and it's variants is your variant word, isn't it?

Of-fucking-course it rose. Left support for it dwindled sharply because you lost! Underestimate my white vote.

And we all know the major support base for its repeal is Democrat.