It’s Election Time

Hillary lost because she's Hillary, Bernie probably would've beaten Trump easily, but he fucked it when he bent the knee to her.

Are you trolling?

Everyone knows they did everything within their powers to rig things in her favour instead of just accepting Bernie as the party candidate. Then, once she was actually the party candidate, they spent the entire campaign catering only to college educated people in big cities and minority groups instead of spreading out her focus and hitting places like the rust belt even before the primaries. They fucked up, they were given advice on which method of campaigning would have given her the best chances at winning, and they ignored it all for their own self righteous endeavors.

It's a campaign. The goal is to gather as much interest as you can. The DNC fucked themselves in every way they could and were somehow surprised when their bullshit failed to pull in the hype they were anticipating.


Do you bother doing any actual research outside of watching entertainers on Youtube talk about their opinions on a political event?


Also Fuck, just scratch out my whole last post because there is no giving Trump a chance. He basically just said Pence is running the show and he's just going to sit back and basically say "yeah sure" or "nah" to anything he proposes. Tfw Trump was a Republican anti establishment plant to get Pence into power

"Entertainers on Youtube" did a miles better job than any of your "news" networks did.

Of the big obviously biased networks? Absolutely. There's local networks that are far less biased as well as several smaller unbiased sources online to look at, but you'll want every view you can get regardless to understand the full picture. With the Youtubers, they only provide their view with a polarized view, and there's only so much you can pull from it as a result. Entertaining? Absolutely. Totally reliable for all the info you get? Not at all.

Also upon rereading that what I said came off really harsh which wasn't my intent so sorry abt that

Anyway you can drop the Hitler comparison thing regardless, I would have regurgitated the same thing regardless of who won. It's not like anyone would have actually stepped in and done anything until it was too late anyways, since they let Hitler get to the point he did to begin with. It's just One Of Those Things that I don't see a problem with since you could compare pretty much anyone who amasses a loud following like that to Hitler.

I think there’s an exception to Godwin’s Law when discussing politicians who are acting like fascists.

I don't think so, and I do think the comparison is a big overreaction.

A comparison isn't an overreaction. It's a conclusion based on an observation. Immediately imprisoning or trying someone because of similarities would be an overreaction.

He has a book, and that proves what, exactly?

What I meant is it's a far-fetched comparison.

I can jive with that

He has a book from a well-known political leader who stood on populist platform of xenophobia, which his own platform bears a striking resemblance to.

You do realize that Bussiness Insider is far from a reputable source, right?

Besides, a rumor about Trump owning a book pales in comparison to Hillary Clinton's horrific crimes revealed by WikiLeaks.

Havoc said:The electoral college was set up because the founders of the United States did not want a direct democracy and for good reason. At the time, the U.S. was mostly farmland. The founders believed that such conditions output people that were not nearly educated enough to make the best and most informed decision for the good of the country. Essentially, it prevented mob rule. These people lived in the enlightenment and had the benefit of hindsight. They most likely looked at states like the Romans who held elections and had a system based on direct democracy. It was these exact conditions which led to military dictators being elected simply because the common (and might I add idiotic) man found them (the dictators) to be a strong, charismatic men, that made promises to restore glory or maintain greatness in the realm. So, the founders realized the best way to prevent this was to have a body of educated men to decide the president of the United States of America. The electoral college was not built with equality in mind, nor a political party system (yet it had to be adapted for one, which is why it is so fucked up in my opinion).

In terms of representation in the legislative branch: that was handled by creating two bodies, the house of representatives, which gave states representatives proportional to their population, and the senate; the senate assigns representatives equally, giving each state 2 regardless of its population. I think you are confusing them with electoral college.



All the Trump 'haters' forget that the house of representatives has the ability to impeach the president. Yes, no one has ever done it before, however, most of the people who have been impeached resigned before it happened, or were impeached but then acquitted. Here are the grounds for impeachment: "The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." This is in the constitution, however, it's really vague allowing for multiple interpretations (and probably lots of wiggle room), too many for this post.

And yes, the Republicans do control the house and the senate, however, you must remember that some disagree with Trump:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYRRr73Rt5U

Continuing, I don't think calling Trump a fascist is a fair thing to say, he's similar in a way however, it's because his ideology is on the same side of the political spectrum. The ideology [Fascim] calls for a heavy restrictions and rules placed on economic policy, such as trade being heavily managed by the government, it does not sound like Trump wants that. However, his promise to raise the GDP of America and bring production of goods back to America is eerily similar to the idea of autarky (self sufficiency) proposed by both Mussolini and his German counterpart, Hitler. But we all know if America did that, it would be suicide and hopefully the Republican party would not consider such a thing. Yes, I know Trump wants to 'rebuild' the military, but that does not mean anything, the United States' military is already the most advanced and largest in the world; Trump promises that this will keep our country and others safe, to crush any possible enemies. He just wants security and stability. I do not however see how his policies are nationalistic and xenophobic to foreigners. To me it sounds like he just wants to have stability. If we compare him to agreed fascists he doesn't sound very similar.

The Hitler built an army for the sole purpose of retaking land that he felt was unfairly taken away from their nation by the Treaty of Versailles (eventually it led to a policy of expansion everywhere but that's a discussion for another day). The Germans had pure disdain for the international agreements which attempted to maintain collective security unlike Trump. The economic autarky was a thing he wanted. He also believed in social darwinism, something Trump does not. In addition he [Hitler] and others felt threatened by the Soviet Union's presence and wanted to keep those damn commies out!

Similarly, Mussolini felt the gains of the Treaty of Versailles were not great as Italy had been promised by the allied powers and wished to expand and gain power. He also had the policy of autarky. In addition he and others felt threatened by the Soviet Union's presence and wanted to keep those damn commies out!

Part of the reason the fascist ideology developed was because of a disdain for communism and fear that it would 'poison' countries.

Once again, Trump != fascist.

My conclusion: Trump is not guilty of being a fascist.


Regardless, Trump is an idiot

There's plenty of criminal activity on both sides. How bad they are depends on your own set of morals, but Trump is a proven con man who has admitted to breaking several contracts with employees of his and has at least at one point in his career dealt with the mob, which means he may very well have blood on his hands in more than a few ways.

After Clinton's email scandal was revealed to have nothing extraordinary you wouldn't find in any damn politician or leader's correspondence with others, a Trump email scandal came to light everyone totally looked over.

As far as I'm aware, despite how "horrific" some of the shit that came out of WikiLeaks was, it was business as usual for a government built for capitalism and war. I'm sure if what was revealed there bothered you so much you'd have a hernia if you got to read everything every administration had to write about regarding any tense situation that's occurred over the last century. God forbid we get to see every little thing that happened during Bush Jr's time. Nothing Clinton's done she can be tried for and lose unless the system rigs itself against her.

Man everything regarding our system would be all fine and dandy if they actually bothered teaching us how the system works at a young age. Literally only had one Gov class that spent more time talking about how great our presidents were than actually explaining how our gov worked at the ass end of school when loads of people had already either dropped out or stopped paying attention and couldn't wait to leave school. I'm kind of surprised at the wave of people going on about how unfair our election system is and how WE GOTTA go to direct democracy.

Like yeah sure, let the city dwellers tell the country folk how they need to live their lives and how they don't understand city dweller plights because they're just ignorant savages that deserve to die in desolate towns built around manufacturing and mining. Ghost towns galore!

Hopefully Trump and Pence actually live true to that whole focus on infrastructure bullshit and start making rural areas more accessible despite the fact Trump also wants to privatize roads. At least once that shit's all done and out of the way it can be an issue the next few administrations deal with the tolling bullshit.



Also I'm pretty sure Trump supports a direct democracy. The fool.

I didn't know this book is only being sold to fascists.

Also, a far-fetched comparison is still far-fetched.

[QUOTE]Man everything regarding our system would be all fine and dandy if they actually bothered teaching us how the system works at a young age. Literally only had one Gov class that spent more time talking about how great our presidents were than actually explaining how our gov worked at the ass end of school when loads of people had already either dropped out or stopped paying attention and couldn't wait to leave school. I'm kind of surprised at the wave of people going on about how unfair our election system is and how WE GOTTA go to direct democracy.[/QUOTE]

I mean, it's not like the whole system is rigged to keep you politically unconscious or anything. :P

Also, I think direct democracy absolutely is the best system, or even better, local councils with enormously devolved power.

Yeah, I know it is, but whoever made that decision was a fool because it leads to the exact problems they were likely trying to avoid. I mean, assuming they did it with the best intentions in mind and not because they knew this shit would happen so they did it on purpose. They were a fool too, probably.

Corruption becomes prevalent the second the scales are tipped. If we didn't have all or nothing states and each individual electoral vote counted, things would be a little more fair. If people actually understood how the government worked on a base level, all of our checks and balances would work as intended. The party system we have is just the icing on the "fuck you" cake.

And, while a direct democracy is good in theory, it would lead to absolute rule by major, densely populated cities that are completely detached from rural America, which is the vast majority of the country even if the population is much less dense and far spread. Pretty much that mob rule thing Vexen mentioned.

Everyone deserves a fair chance and a voice whether you find them agreeable or not and I found with rural voters the biggest thing they need and want are jobs, and when they constantly get overlooked in favour of already prospering cities and left to die with not a whole lot of options it kind of sucks a lot.

Fun fact, political parties are a monkey wrench to the "checks and balances" system. The writers of the Unites States Constitution wanted to set things up in a way that meant the three branches of government would compete with one another. Therefore, George Washington viewed the emergence of political parties (a loyalty outside of official government) as dangerous.

So now we have a republican president (Donald Trump), a majority republican congress, and, probably, a republican supreme justice down the line. Interestingly (good or bad is another story), it's not so one-sided, since many of these republicans are part of the establishment Donald Trump has become a powerful (and, to them, terrifying) enemy of.

The issue I see is that many of the Republicans around Trump are more conservative and bigoted than Trump himself, and so have potential to cause more damage. I’ve seen suggestions that some would prefer to see Trump impeached and Mike Pence take his place as a more traditional conservative, which is deeply disturbing.


I can’t reply to your whole post, so I’ll focus on the point in bold: fascism does not necessarily call for restricted economic policy – it is a very broad political ideology and it has many different definitions and variations. The only commonly-agreed definition is that it is political ideology that appeals to the far right, nationalism, and a rejection of liberalism. So to that end, I think calling Trump a fascist is a fair statement.


Keeping it by his bed is a step up from just owning it, but I suppose it’s more convenient to focus on that than the other comparison I made: Trump stood on a populist xenophobic platform, positioning himself as anti-establishment and stirring up hatred of minorities and the establishment.

To clarify, I don’t compare Trump to Hitler in the sense that he is identical to Hitler as we know him, a mass-murdering dictator who sparked a world war – I’m specifically drawing parallels between Trump’s rise to power and Hitler’s rise to power. Their campaigns and strategies are very similar to one another. I am not the only one to make this comparison.


Direct democracy is a good system but has its limitations when you apply it to large-scale systems. It also introduces potential problems with tyranny of the majority, and expert opinion potentially being ignored by an uninformed majority.

I think an ideal democracy needs to devolve as much power to the lowest level possible, but with additional bodies in play to ensure balance. Direct democracy at a citizen level, overseen by empowered local government elected through proportional representation, with national government enshrining constitution, rights and federal law, with a federal body and a proportional body.

Proportional representation in governments is surprisingly uncommon, considering that it solves many of the issues of the two-party system: it ensures everyone gets a representation and gives more power to smaller parties and minority groups, while ensuring political parties must work together to achieve common goals and normalizing coalition instead of single-party government.

I don’t know that a directly elected head of state is even necessary if you have adequate democracy throughout the rest of the political system; which is not to say that an unelected head of state is good either.

You actually believe the racism allegations?

Trump's platform was far from racist. He made promises to poor, inner-city African Americans and Hispanics even as the Democratic Party continued to treat them like pieces of meat, exploiting them for votes every four years while doing nothing to help them. Trump obtained more African American and Hispanic support than Romney or McCain did in the past, while he lost some ground among whites to Hillary.

Contrast this with Hillary offering nothing to minorities, other than say she's not as dangerous as "racist" Trump. Not to mention her having Jay-Z and Beyoncé perform to promote her at a rally in Florida; the concert had incredibly profane and stereotypical content that was meant to pander to African American voters (perhaps she's the racist one here?). Consider that with the fact that she promptly lost Florida on election night.

Trump's argument to African-Americans was basically: "You're black, your lives are already soooo shit because your black, you should vote for me because you have nothing to lose." Not racist at all.

If you can't see that Trump built his campaign on--not even hidden--but latent racism, you're part of the problem.

Trump's argument was that he would impose a 35% tax on the auto-industry, alongside other methods, to restore industry that inner-city minorities depended on (before outsourcing led to them having nothing at all, causing homelessness, crime, and poverty). Yes, he was talking DIRECTLY to minorities, and, had he not inspired them with hope like this, he would surely lose in swing states.

All Hillary did for minorities was "warn" them that Trump was "worse" than her. In leaked emails, she calls African Americans "votes." That's how little she thinks of them.

I think you're being wilfully naive, and picking one small point to gloss over the countless instances of racism and sexism he instigated with his vile rhetoric.

I don't actually remember any videos of him being racist. Could you post some that are evidently racist?

Same with sexist. I'm actually curious.

I'm just as curious as you are.

Stop with this. If you want to get someone on your side, you don't point an accusatory finger at them and call them the problem. That's how things got to where they are today. That's how you lose support. That's how people start viewing the movements you follow as violent exclusive cults. No one likes being accused of wrong doing if they don't understand why something they said or did could be construed as wrong.

It'd be like if someone walked up to you, you said you believed women deserved equal rights, and they squinted and said "People like you are why my father killed himself". You'd scoff and feel personally attacked, wouldn't you? It's not an effective method of dealing with a problem.




As far as Trump's racism and sexism and xenophobia goes, Trump's made it clear throughout his entire career that he holds women and men to different standards. I can get articles if you guys need them, but it takes a quick search to find most of the instances, or just read his commentary about The Apprentice.

Trump's shown an obvious prejudice when actually confronted with Mexican Americans, and has frequently criticized other Americans for their associations with Mexican Americans (see: the whole jab at Jeb Bush and the whole bullshit surrounding Jorge Ramos).

And the xenophobia is something you guys shouldn't even need proof of at this point. He's a total nationalist, and nationalism was his campaigns biggest focus. Pull out of other countries, harsher regulations on immigration, deportation of non americans. During his campaign he had no problem sitting there shit talking other nations. I'm still bewildered at how much he insulted our allies, whether his insults were founded or not. You guys thought Hillary pushing Russia's buttons were bad? Did you even see some of the shit Trump had to say about other nations?

Being a nationalist doesn't automatically = being xenophobic, but Trump's expressed some pretty ripe opinions of immigration throughout his campaign, whether he truly feels that way or not. Since Islam is not a race, but a religion, you can slot every ill thing he's had to say about Islam into xenophobia since he clearly has some Big Issues with muslims in America, not to mention taking in muslim refugees. And remember, it doesn't matter what your opinion is on the religion or religion as a whole, America gives everyone the constitutional right to freedom of speech and freedom of religion, so deporting, imprisoning, or denying entry based on religious belief is unconstitutional and denies people a promised right.


Personally I don't believe Trump to be racist. I believe he is sexist, but only so much as "wow this guys a massive fuckin douche" rather than "uh oh ladies, better start fearing for your rights". Xenophobia shouldn't be difficult to believe but given this is a guy that does in fact give immigrants jobs (even if he treats them like shit every step of the way and only hired them because it's cheaper labor) and has an immigrant wife, who the fuck knows.


Now, all the people he's pulled into his administration on the other hand.............................................................................................

Trump’s anti-immigration platform is based on racism. He blames all of the country’s problems on people from other countries, especially Mexicans: “they’re bringing drugs, they’re bringing crime, they’re rapists”. Immigrants are often singled out for blame when it comes to crime, despite the lack of evidence supporting those claims.


I mean, it was one of the biggest stories of the election: “grab ‘em by the pussy”. And here’s an article documenting many of the other derogatory comments he has made about women.


I think you’re wrong: above and beyond his strong anti-immigrant stance, Trump has a poor track record with racism in his business dealings, most prominently allegations that he refused to rent property to black people in the past. He is very definitely racist.

I think you’re also too quick to separate Trump himself from the Republicans he’s stood with during this election – you can very much judge a person by the company they keep, and sharing his election platform with deeply prejudiced people speaks volumes about Trump’s character.

Oh yeah, I forgot about the black people rent thing for some reason. That was decades ago, though, and I'm not willing to rule out the possibility his stances have changed even a little.

Also, Trump isn't a politician so all I saw the entire election was a businessman looking to make even more money than he already has using any means necessary. So despite what he says and who he surrounds himself with, in reality he straight up doesn't give a shit who or what anyone is as long as they can make him a larger profit.

Trump himself already said basically everyone except him were going to be running things once he's sworn into office on national TV. He's just playing the typical CEO role and waiting for everyone to tell him what to do and then deciding whether or not it's something he wants to do. We don't have a 'president Trump', our president is going to be Pence and a room of people who by all accounts hate one another, one of which wants to censor free speech on college campuses across the nation.

Man I can't wait for the next recession, the privatization of everything, the fall of mom and pop businesses nation wide, and the continued escalation of violence among citizens and the police

[QUOTE]Stop with this. If you want to get someone on your side, you don't point an accusatory finger at them and call them the problem. That's how things got to where they are today.[/QUOTE]

Ahhh don't point fingers are the people are encouraging and supporting racism don't upset them aaaaaah.

No. We got to where we are because people are sick of neoliberal bull shit and apparently enough of the population was willing to overlook the fact that Trump is a fascist racist for a bit of change.

I totally get that people want change, the election was a lose lose, but if you support a racist and give them a platform with your support...I'm kinda gonna call you what you are.

You know damn fucking well that wasn't what I was saying. There's this wonderful thing called 'ignorance' that happens when people either aren't educated on a matter, are educated with false information, OR had piss poor experiences relating to the matter that gives them the hostile views they developed.

And guess what? If you want people educated on why things they say or do might be construed as one thing or the other, instead of fucking attacking them and probably scaring them away from your cause, take the time to tell them what's up without demeaning them or treating them like shit. Do you know how fucking many people I've encountered that knocked their shit right the fuck off just because I treated them with respect while I chatted with them? The amount of people that, just by saying "Hey, that's not a very fair thing to say" have reflected on what they said and actually started looking into shit before they just start spouting off things that could be construed as bigoted? Sometimes, even if someone doesn't show you the compassion you're expecting, giving it in return is enough to get someone to reconsider their position.

ALSO guess how many people don't actually realize Trump isn't looking out for them because they hyper focused on one good thing he regurgitated over and over? Life long family friends had voted, a hardcore radfem I've known since I was a toddler, a lesbian thai and black couple (one of which is my god mother), many of my aunts trans friends, many of my first gen mexican friends, all voted for Trump because they saw some of the shit he was proposing, or recognized his name, or heard a promise from another friend of theirs that supported Trump because they honestly believed he had their best interests in mind.

If you dare fucking sit there and say they're all racist or sexist or xenophobic because they were misinformed you're out of your god damn mind

And if you seriously think anyone would be willing to drop their current life style or set of beliefs for someone who walked in and went straight to attacking them as "the problem" for not knowing any better you need to sit the fuck back and look at the big picture