Boy I hope so.DaddyCoolVipper wrote:
I imagine the electoral college is probably gonna be looked at after Trump, at least.
Boy I hope so.DaddyCoolVipper wrote:
I imagine the electoral college is probably gonna be looked at after Trump, at least.
It's especially infuriating when you look at all the major Supreme Court cases about gerrymandering or redistricting -- nearly all of the parties doing the redistricting are Republican.DaddyCoolVipper wrote:
I imagine the electoral college is probably gonna be looked at after Trump, at least. I was looking into gerrymandering and it's pretty infuriating how much of the electoral process has been messed up from such a simple concept.Brian OA wrote:
Agreed. Honestly, I'm kind of bothered there hasn't been a bigger buzz about reforming the electoral process.
Yes there isB1rd wrote:
but there is nothing wrong with the central idea behind the electoral college
well if the party doing it routinely accuses the other of rigging elections, then yeahBrian OA wrote:
Does it matter who's doing the gerrymandering
I agree that the idea behind the electoral college is fine, honestly, it's just been turned into something grossly non-representative of America.B1rd wrote:
There is definitely flaws in the US election system, but there is nothing wrong with the central idea behind the electoral college. It's not fair that California and New York dominate the elections. Voter fraud is also something that needs to be looked into.
Seems convenient that you decide to sit out when I present evidence that the Democratic party aren't the saints you make them out to be.Raspberriel wrote:
okay, gonna sit this one out
I've already had this debate here
I mean I don't really know jack shit about this so I'm just assuming everyone does it when they get the chance, and even then, my issue would be that this is a thing you can do at all, regardless of political affiliation.Raspberriel wrote:
well if the party doing it routinely accuses the other of rigging elections, then yeahBrian OA wrote:
Does it matter who's doing the gerrymandering
No, we had this debate before. And at that same debate, I said I didn't worship the Democrats as infallible, so nice try.B1rd wrote:
I've heard that the "if 3 million illegals voted" claim has some substance. Don't just write something off without evidence.
And really, it's not the Republican's fault that one or two extra steps required to vote disproportionately affects the Democrat's voter base. I hear that rain disproportionately affects minorities' chances of voting as well. I don't think that the Republicans wouldn't use dirty tricks to get more votes, but I don't think that the Democrats wouldn't try and get illegals and dead people to vote for them either. Preventing manipulation and vote tampering is quite an important thing. I hope that electronic voting machines will stop being used.Seems convenient that you decide to sit out when I present evidence that the Democratic party aren't the saints you make them out to be.Raspberriel wrote:
okay, gonna sit this one out
I've already had this debate here
Massively misrepresenting my argument. I'm completely fine with proper voter ID laws. The ones they tried to push disproportionately *targeted*, not affected, black voters (and minorities in general I assume). It got shot down in a federal court for racial discrimination. They essentially wanted to make it illegal to use the kinds of IDs that black people generally use, while doing nothing about the IDs that white people use.B1rd wrote:
And really, it's not the Republican's fault that one or two extra steps required to vote disproportionately affects the Democrat's voter base. I hear that rain disproportionately affects minorities' chances of voting as well. I don't think that the Republicans wouldn't use dirty tricks to get more votes, but I don't think that the Democrats wouldn't try and get illegals and dead people to vote for them either. Preventing manipulation and vote tampering is quite an important thing. I hope that electronic voting machines will stop being used.
1 for horsesKisses wrote:
@Mahogany
At what age did you first jack off to a picture of a pony?
thisZain Sugieres wrote:
Friendly reminder there are only 2 genders
2 Years ago I think was the first time so I'd have been 16, but it only really became a regular thing in the past 12 months.Kisses wrote:
@Mahogany
At what age did you first jack off to a picture of a pony?
Says the person who's decided to permanently sit out from conversing with me when I present my evidence why he's always wrong.B1rd wrote:
Seems convenient that you decide to sit out when I present evidence that the Democratic party aren't the saints you make them out to be.
friendly reminder that you don't have to identify your gender in a binary mannerZain Sugieres wrote:
Friendly reminder there are only 2 genders
We aren't amoebas, we don't fucking commit binary fission.Mahogany wrote:
friendly reminder that you don't have to identify your gender in a binary manner
Biologically you're a dude, but you might not feel 100% a dude and want to identify in a nonbinary manner. And that's totally cool.Erlkonig wrote:
I checked I had a swinging dong down there which makes it kinda hard to identify myself a woman or agender or a fox.
thats fucking gayKisses wrote:
I just want to know whether someone has a penis or not
That's up to that specific personBrian OA wrote:
But who is to say what makes one a dude or not, or even what 100% dude/dudette entails?
Yeah last time you didn't check you got pretty butthurt lolKisses wrote:
I just want to know whether someone has a penis or not
Pedophiles need mental help.Blitzfrog wrote:
If you accept gays, you should accept pedophiles too. Just a heads up, they deserve freedom too.
Blitzfrog wrote:
If you accept gays, you should accept pedophiles too. Just a heads up, they deserve freedom too.
lol wrote:
fuck off blitzfrog
He's trying to say that everyone needs mental helpHika wrote:
what kinda logic ^
You got me broFoxtrot wrote:
Blitz you should probably work on your bait game if you want the same amount of attention as before
[youtube]JUST the video ID here (the characters that come after ?v=)[/youtube]
Raspberriel wrote:
Because people seem to have trouble lately with YouTube embedding:[youtube]JUST the video ID here (the characters that come after ?v=)[/youtube]
If the right has no empathy, then why do we donate so much more to charity than left-wingers? And here you're saying 'I WANT TO DENY TRUMP SUPPORTERS ANY HAPPINESS POSSIBLE'. So no, don't tell me that the left has more empathy or compassion. When you complain and attack Trump supporters like you're doing, you can't simply attack them for posting memes in twitter and acting smug. Because if anything, liberals have been acting way worse. Even if they have been acting bad, if you respond in kind it makes you just as bad as them.Raspberriel wrote:
Re: B1rd asking why I have a burning disdain for DJT supporters -- just saw these two tweets that express my general sentiments about them:
"DT supporters are not going to come around. What they love about him is their own character flaw: never admitting you made a mistake."
"A lot of us are spending way too much time trying to appeal to the empathy of people who do not value empathy. We gotta back up on that."
Let's just disregard social issues, all the "PC police" talk, etc. for the time being, because if I didn't, this post would be five times as long. They don't care that he just reauthorized the building of the Dakota Access Pipeline, built by a company whose previous pipelines were responsible for 69 spills in the past 2 years, or that legislation preventing coal companies to dump their waste into rivers was just blocked. All because Trump, McConnell, etc. and a good portion of their voting base have some fetish for keeping coal mining relevant in a world where literally every other developed country is moving to other forms of generating energy. They don't care that they're destroying their own country's environment because "MUH FOSSIL FUEL JOBS." Hell, they probably don't know this even happened because the only news sources they listen to didn't report on it. Why? It all goes back to the first tweet I mentioned.
I don't see the first tweet as true for all Trump supporters, though. The supporters complaining about his repeal of the ACA (not just the people who thought Obamacare and the ACA were separate things), the few protests to Trump's travel ban that cropped up in red states, etc. show that not all of his supporters worship him like a messiah like I see everywhere on social media. But the ones that do, the ones that always rub it in your goddamn face on Twitter, Reddit, YouTube, and presumably Facebook too, and can never formulate an argument beyond "LOLOLOL WE WON, LIBERALS BTFO" are the ones that piss me off to no end. (P.S. When I said yesterday, in my blind haste, that I "don't wanna see any Trump supporters happy ever again," those people are who I was talking about.)
B1rd wrote:
I didn't see the left protesting Obama's dropping of 10,000 bombs in the middle east. Let's see, Obama kills thousands of innocent civilians including women and children? Silence.
The US government right now isn't exactly trustworthy.B1rd wrote:
What myth am I perpetuating? I am citing sources provided directly by the government.
Obama may have done bad shit, but he did it as necessary and properly, while still remaining a competent president.B1rd wrote:
But I still get the feeling from liberals that Obama is "can do no wrong" type of guy, when with Trump, any flaw, existent or not, is blown out of proportion 10-fold.
If America wants to protect themselves from terror attacks, they should start deporting nationalist extremists. But no, instead they ban citizens from 7 innocent countries.B1rd wrote:
why is it unreasonable for Americans to want to protect themselves from that?
You mean Trump has made Trump be Hitler in reality.B1rd wrote:
I get the feeling that liberal have already made Trump to be Hitler in their mind
Again?B1rd wrote:
I think that Trump can make America great again
If donny boy keeps going the way he is, there's going to be a revolution. People will not stand for his shit.B1rd wrote:
the way things are going he's only going to make half of America great.
Oh, but didn't you hear? Trump can cite himself.Brian OA wrote:
These discussions could stand to use more citations, at the very least.
Doesn't mean you ought to start doing that, though. It would make things unnecessarily difficult for everyone if you ended up developing an ego as large as the same people you're criticizing along with all the shortcomings that entails.Mahogany wrote:
Oh, but didn't you hear? Trump can cite himself.Brian OA wrote:
These discussions could stand to use more citations, at the very least.
Some other tidbits:B1rd wrote:
I'll admit that I haven't looked into protests of the war. But I still get the feeling from liberals that Obama is "can do no wrong" type of guy, when with Trump, any flaw, existent or not, is blown out of proportion 10-fold. Look at all the horrific terror attacking in Europe that have stemmed directly from the lack of immigration control[1][2][3][4], why is it unreasonable for Americans to want to protect themselves from that? Rather, it is completely reasonable to block immigration from countries in which America is basically at war with[5], and this power has been invoked many times in the past, 19 times by Obama himself[6]. The problem is, I get the feeling that liberal have already made Trump to be Hitler in their mind, and refused any possibility except to resist him in any way possible. It really is petty and immature and behaviour, and nothing good will come of it. The only thing that will happen is that Trump and the right will dig their heels in response, and things will escalate from there. I think that Trump can make America great again, but the way things are going he's only going to make half of America great.
In relation to the average circumference of the thoraxes of your local cricket population. I don't know, but I'm pretty sure the price of meat are definite in their values. For example, I got some pork roasts today for $7 AUD/kg [SOURCE]Brian OA wrote:
not a clue
even then, in relation and terms of what, exactly?
Was also referring to him, but I figured hed get the messageMahogany wrote:
I was more referring to b1rd's lack of citation but sure
The word itself is not offensive, but directing it to someone is offensiveDaddyCoolVipper wrote:
This is the level you're putting yourself on if you consider the word "Nigger" to be hilarious
I just can't stop looking at your country flagBrian OA wrote:
The userbase is young, I suppose
my niggaWavePoint wrote:
The word itself is not offensive, but directing it to someone is offensiveDaddyCoolVipper wrote:
This is the level you're putting yourself on if you consider the word "Nigger" to be hilarious
It's a thingBlitzfrog wrote:
I just can't stop looking at your country flagBrian OA wrote:
The userbase is young, I suppose
that is also a thing, yesRaspberriel wrote:
setting the bar for humor that low is definitely an offense to everyone's tastesDaddyCoolVipper wrote:
I didn't say anything about it being offensive, it's just really shit "comedy"
Which Japanese/Korean girl now? 🤔Kisses wrote:
I'm in love!
if you still have legs im afraid its bad news for youRaspberriel wrote:
who's the lucky girlKisses wrote:
I'm in love!
lollol wrote:
if you still have legs im afraid its bad news for you
Who is this cute little lesbian and how tight is her pussy?Kisses wrote:
I'm in love!
Make sure it's not Tornado again!Kisses wrote:
I'm in love!