Election

[Legion]

We'll Trump won, now it's time to wait and see what will happen and if we made a good decision. I'm relieved that Hillary didn't win but I'm anxious about what Trump will do, time will tell.

Here's a good video of Stephen Colbert, it's pretty funny but he makes some good points about Americas need to unite and stop being divided.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9m2valF3s84

Lets try and have a nice civil discussion.

Here's another vid I found, it' pretty funny.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hVnnT9Q_1TE

[JaegerCoyote]

Well, time to be Americans again and come together after this circus of a election.

[yoyo8346]

From a Canadian perspective, it's a sad day. Most Canadians are worried about the future of U.S.-Canada relations and trade. I, like a lot of my countrymen, are shocked by the true colours of our neighbours and the policies they value most. I personally was shocked that most Americans were willing to vote for someone who says climate change is a hoax perpetrated by the Chinese, and will reverse all progress made regarding CC.

Just as a side note, the Canadian immigration webpage went down early this morning due to a spike in traffic from American IPs :p

[A. P. Hill]

We are RED across the board! Kept the House AND the Senate!

[Legion]

Well, time to be Americans again and come together after this circus of a election.

Agreed, this is really what we need.


From a Canadian perspective, it's a sad day. Most Canadians are worried about the future of U.S.-Canada relations and trade. I, like a lot of my countrymen, are shocked by the true colours of our neighbours and the policies they value most. I personally was shocked that most Americans were willing to vote for someone who says climate change is a hoax perpetrated by the Chinese, and will reverse all progress made regarding CC.

Just as a side note, the Canadian immigration webpage went down early this morning due to a spike in traffic from American IPs :p

We don't know how Trump will do as president and I don't think we should judge him before he even gets a chance to try.

I had to laugh at your last comment, everyone on youtube seems to be moving to Canada lol.

[Bravescot]

Just as a side note, the Canadian immigration webpage went down early this morning due to a spike in traffic from American IPs :p

Apparently you guys actually took it down to avoid the increase in traffic which, if true, is even funnier than the American crashing it because even Canada is like "Bro even we don't want to deal with this"

[yoyo8346]

Apparently you guys actually took it down to avoid the increase in traffic which, if true, is even funnier than the American crashing it because even Canada is like "Bro even we don't want to deal with this"

Hah, I didn't hear about that.

[Bravescot]

Hah, I didn't hear about that.

It's only speculation but I'm just saying if it is true
http://67.media.tumblr.com/a9c41269f2299d92f6f840f71e6bf23f/tumblr_nbsvysgA0m1rlo1q2o1_1280.jpg

[Wildcat]

Politics? Civil Discussion? Election? This won't do! Inb4 5 pages of argument!

Personally I won't be surprised if Canadians start building a wall soon.

[A. P. Hill]

Colbert is dumber than a box of rocks, he's also a waste of oxygen.

[Legion]

Colbert is dumber than a box of rocks, he's also a waste of oxygen.

He's a comedian what do you expect. He is right about America needing to unite and stop being divided. America is divided that's just a fact, it may not be as bad as the media lets on but we are divided all the same.
The main thing that we need in this country is unity, could you imagine what we could do if we were all united instead of arguing with each other.

[VOLCUSGAMING]

Imo Trump is bad but could be worse... .....But

I personally was shocked that most Americans were willing to vote for someone who says climate change is a hoax perpetrated by the Chinese, and will reverse all progress made regarding CC.
for me this shows that he is terrible...

[thomas aagaard]

Well, had this been 1860 California should be declearing their sescesion by early december and the rest of the westcoast should be following by january...

[Legion]

Well, had this been 1860 California should be declearing their sescesion by early december and the rest of the westcoast should be following by january...

I wouldn't mind that too much, the west coast is a beautiful place but I'm not a fan of a most of their views.:p

[A. P. Hill]

He's a comedian what do you expect. ...

Actually, he's not even that.
He's a product of the progressive dumbing down of the American people. Where people fail to use their God given intelligence to find anything better.

Sorry, you are in error with the above quote.

[Legion]

Actually, he's not even that.
He's a product of the progressive dumbing down of the American people. Where people fail to use their God given intelligence to find anything better.

Sorry, you are in error with the above quote.

We are each entitled to our own opinion my friend, I find him funny and very rarely, if ever, do I take him seriously.
I don't have to agree with his views in order to like him.

[yoyo8346]

The main thing that we need in this country is unity, could you imagine what we could do if we were all united instead of arguing with each other.

Disagreement and argument is a healthy function of democracy. It's what makes humans challenge each other and come up with better solutions. It is dangerous when all branches of the U.S. government are controlled by one party (presidency, both elements of congress, and soon to be the supreme court are all controlled by the republicans). I would make the same argument if democrats controlled everything.

It is easy to call for unity and tell everyone to get along when your candidate/party wins, Legion. Would you be saying the same thing if Clinton won? :P Something tells me you would say "to hell with unity" and wouldn't want to get along with a liberal government.

[Legion]

Disagreement and argument is a healthy function of democracy. It's what makes humans challenge each other and come up with better solutions. It is dangerous when all branches of the U.S. government are controlled by one party (presidency, both elements of congress, and soon to be the supreme court are all controlled by the republicans). I would make the same argument if democrats controlled everything.

It is easy to call for unity and tell everyone to get along when your candidate/party wins, Legion. Would you be saying the same thing if Clinton won? :P Something tells me you would say "to hell with unity" and wouldn't want to get along with a liberal government.

I'm not a republican and I hate the two party system. I'm not saying we can't have disagreements and discussions, I'm saying we should stop hating each other just because we are a different race or because of our political views or religion.
We need to join together as Americans and work out our problems and disagreements instead of blaming it on the other side and never getting anything done.

I don't want any one party to control everything, I want the two party system to be done away with altogether.

I'd be upset if Clinton won but I'd get over it and accept the fact that that's what the country wanted.

In all honesty I didn't want Trump to win, I wanted a third party candidate to win. I wanted someone like Castle or some other third party member to be elected.

I want the US to return to isolationism.

[yoyo8346]

I'm not a republican and I hate the two party system. I'm not saying we can't have disagreements and discussions, I'm saying we should stop hating each other just because we are a different race or because of our political views or religion.
We need to join together as Americans and work out our problems and disagreements instead of blaming it on the other side and never getting anything done.

I don't want any one party to control everything, I want the two party system to be done away with altogether.

I'd be upset if Clinton won but I'd get over it and accept the fact that that's what the country wanted.

Fair enough. I didn't realize that you meant racism and prejudice, etc.

[Arkansan]

When people get their news from sources like Colbert :D

Trump is bathing in the tears of the liberals that actually bought the skewed polls and general BS the main stream puppet media put out. This was a LANDSLIDE. Many of the states they said Hillary would have actually flipped by a good margin. Michigan hadn't voted for a republican president since the 80's. Hell even Minnesota almost flipped!

Funny that these millennials and hollywood puppets say they want to go to Canada. Whats wrong with Mexico?? LMAO
To them I say, See YA!

[Bravescot]

want to go to Canada

I say they should go to Finland if they really want to get out of the way. It's piratically Europe's Canada only with more alcohol and a few more guns (Cos you know, Russia)

[Arkansan]

I say they should go to Finland is they really want to get out of the way. It's piratically Europe's Canada only with more alcohol and a few more guns (Cos you know, Russia)

Liberals don't like guns, they are scary. Not to mention they're in an emotional state right now. You are free to have them if you like!

[Bravescot]

Liberals don't like guns, they are scary. Not to mention they're in an emotional state right now. You are free to have them if you like!

Ah, good point...the guns. Ummmm.....maybe we should dump them in Sweden and Norway then?

[Gamble]

At least there are no mexicans in china.

[Legion]

At least there are no mexicans in china.

What does this have to do with anything? Don't post nonsense.

[Bravescot]

What does this have to do with anything? Don't post nonsense.

It's because those are the two places Trump keeps going on about xD. So he's saying that if there were Mexicans in China Trump would be having a field day. At least I think he's saying that.

[Legion]

It's because those are the two places Trump keeps going on about xD. So he's saying that if there were Mexicans in China Trump would be having a field day. At least I think he's saying that.

I see lol.

[Legion]

I have to ask, why are comments being deleted from this thread? If the comment is harmless then why delete it?

[Bravescot]

I have to ask, why are comments being deleted from this thread? If the comment is harmless then why delete it?

Ummm....I got ride of one so far that was attempting to derail the topic but that's it. Not sure what else is gone

[Legion]

Ummm....I got ride of one so far that was attempting to derail the topic but that's it. Not sure what else is gone

I notice that one of mine is gone and it looks like one of yours(may have been someone elses) is gone or edited.

[Bravescot]

I notice that one of mine is gone and it looks like one of yours(may have been someone elses) is gone or edited.

Oh, how odd. I only got rid of one who was trying to get the mod bashing train going on yet another thread. Anyway we're going a little off topic.

I have a question for you guys: What do you think Trump will do in his first 100 days of his swearing in?

[Legion]

Oh, how odd. I only got rid of one who was trying to get the mod bashing train going on yet another thread. Anyway we're going a little off topic.

I have a question for you guys: What do you think Trump will do in his first 100 days of his swearing in?

No idea, I'm just waiting to see what happens. Seems to me that he's gonna focus alot on our relations with Russia, Russia already congratulated him on the results.

Our relationship with Russia is my guess, along with going after Hillary.

[Arkansan]

Oh, how odd. I only got rid of one who was trying to get the mod bashing train going on yet another thread. Anyway we're going a little off topic.

I have a question for you guys: What do you think Trump will do in his first 100 days of his swearing in?
Censorship at its best..

Trump has already given his first 100 days speech. It was one of his best in my opinion. I'm sure you can find it easily on youtube.

[Kyle422]

Censorship at its best..

Arkansan, you are already on thin ice, keep it up and you will see where it gets you. We do not bash mods on this forum you should know that. We don't need your snarky comments adding to the issue.

[Legion]

Censorship at its best..

Trump has already given his first 100 days speech. It was one of his best in my opinion. I'm sure you can find it easily on youtube.

I understand your aggravation but lets not get this thread closed down as well.

Back on topic, here's Trumps speech.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9zDPdwKL-7A

[yoyo8346]

along with going after Hillary.

Although he did threaten to attempt to jail her, I feel like that was more of an empty threat (and an appalling one) that was just meant to appeal to his supporters. I don't think he could care less about Hillary at this point, since she is no longer a threat to him. But then again, it's Trump and no one knows what he'll do.

[Arkansan]

Arkansan, you are already on thin ice, keep it up and you will see where it gets you. We do not bash mods on this forum you should know that. We don't need your snarky comments adding to the issue.

Are you threatening to censor me, or are you just goading me? I call it like I see it, simple as that. I do not 'bash'. I speak out against wrongdoings. My last thread regarding political correctness was closed for what reason? It was open less than a DAY.

Now continuing with this topic.
Here is an interesting video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odB1wWPqSlE) that might have helped sway the black vote.

[Arkansan]

Although he did threaten to attempt to jail her, I feel like that was more of an empty threat (and an appalling one) that was just meant to appeal to his supporters. I don't think he could care less about Hillary at this point, since she is no longer a threat to him. But then again, it's Trump and no one knows what he'll do.

I, for one, hope she goes to prison. Her failure to respond to multiple request for help on the anniversary of 9/11 led to the torture and murders of our men in Libya. Not to mention the cover up with bleach bit and hammers of her emails on her private server after receiving a subpoena from congress.

[yoyo8346]

Here is an interesting video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odB1wWPqSlE) that might have helped sway the black vote.

Actually the black vote was not really swayed. It was his worst performing race

https://i.gyazo.com/fc596e76421b1658cdd1c9b3ddd01cdf.png

[Arkansan]

Actually the black vote was not really swayed. It was his worst performing race

https://i.gyazo.com/fc596e76421b1658cdd1c9b3ddd01cdf.png

It was expected to be his worst. I'm not sure where you got this poll, but it doesn't show the country as a whole. In fact it only shows 24k people.

[A. P. Hill]

Rumors I heard was that about 2 months ago, the Clintons have purchased a multi million dollar mansion in a middle eastern country that doesn't permit extradition to the USA.

I guess that in their 20 plus years of political corruption, they've learned the value of planning ahead.

[Arkansan]

Here is a recent article (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/11/09/predictions-blacks-women-and-millennials-would-not-vote-trump-proved-largely-untrue/93535292/) about the black vote.

[A. P. Hill]

Actually the black vote was not really swayed. It was his worst performing race

https://i.gyazo.com/fc596e76421b1658cdd1c9b3ddd01cdf.png

I'd be careful of the crap you can drag up from the Internet in the next several months.
Having watched his running from day one, he has always had mixed cultural rallies.

[yoyo8346]

it doesn't show the country as a whole. In fact it only shows 24k people.

Well of course. It's an exit poll. They couldn't have been waiting outside every polling station in the country, making recordings for how ever many million people voted.

edit: the poll was from CNN, which is a credible source.

[Legion]

Rumors I heard was that about 2 months ago, the Clintons have purchased a multi million dollar mansion in a middle eastern country that doesn't permit extradition to the USA.

I guess that in their 20 plus years of political corruption, they've learned the value of planning ahead.

My step-dad and uncle were talking about this last night, I wonder if it's true. I also heard Obama did something similar. Who knows if any of it is true.

[Arkansan]

My step-dad and uncle were talking about this last night, I wonder if it's true. I also heard Obama did something similar. Who knows if any of it is true.

Obama is extremely worried about his 'legacy'. I bet he hangs around.

[A. P. Hill]

Given the numbers of butt hurt snowflake celebrities mouthing off about leaving the country dependant on election results I have no doubt that it is solid information. Especially in light of some of Trump's debate comments about what would happen in his first 100 days.

[Reimer]

So 2016 is the year the "CALL OPPONENTS RACIST" button finally broke after so many years of dedicated hammering.

[FrancisM]

The political culture of the United States with its two-party system is never going to change unless you change the electoral system, because single-member constituencies elected with the First Past The Post system forces the esthablishment of two parties. Not too mention the Electoral College which also uses First Past The Post. There is absolutely no logic in it other then keeping the two main parties in power. That's why the electoral system isn't going to change anytime soon (and certainly not by Republicans) because they stand to lose from it. It's much easier to just repeat how amazing the American democracy is endlessly and talk about how you will represent the people versus the elite while you only came to power being part of that elite.

What's with all the 'lel libtards'-hate? I'm a liberal, because I believe that personal freedom and rights take precedence over all else. I though you Americans liked freedom and your political rights? Or do you just like freedom for you and your ideological peers?

As for the election: Well, that's the end of the Trans-atlantic alliance. Ukraine and the Baltic states will be the first to be thrown under the bus. Thanks guys.

[Bravescot]

http://66.media.tumblr.com/2ec561587dd771179bd04031a1232415/tumblr_ndes3ex7qc1txhseao1_500.png

[FrancisM]

You cannot have democracy without political parties. Stupid founding fathers thinking people will just give up potential power and political achievements out of the kindness of their hearts.

[TrustyJam]

I too am a liberal (at least in regards to the American understanding of it) and would have wished another outcome of the election but the democracy has spoken - the election is over and done with. Now comes the time for action, no more talk about promises/visions. I have faith that the population of the USA or any other free and democratic country will judge the actions of its elected leaders fairly and vote accordingly in the next election. :)

- Trusty

[thomas aagaard]

A election system with proportional representation where the loosers votes are not wasted... and a multiparty system would have been a better solution.

It would also not be as divisive as the current system.


Is it democratic when the majority of the voters voted democratic just like in 2000? But the republican candidate still won?

The idiocy of the current system proved yet again.

[Legion]

What's with all the 'lel libtards'-hate? I'm a liberal, because I believe that personal freedom and rights take precedence over all else. I though you Americans liked freedom and your political rights? Or do you just like freedom for you and your ideological peers?

As for the election: Well, that's the end of the Trans-atlantic alliance. Ukraine and the Baltic states will be the first to be thrown under the bus. Thanks guys.

Liberal doesn't mean the same thing as libertarian in the USA. What you described is libertarian imo. I consider myself a libertarian but I do not consider myself a liberal.

[FrancisM]

While I agree with most if not all of the Libertarian platform with regards to social-culture aspects, I vehemently disagree with their economical platform. I'm a member of the Green Party in my country, though more out of principle then out of political activity. I will probably vote Green at our next national election.

Left-wing liberals and right-wing liberals (which includes libertarian, who form the extreme right of this group) disagree on the economic platform and the role of the state. They agree on social-cultural matters. Which is why, for example, the Republican claim of believing in 'freedom' is a sham. They're anti-freedom, if anything. They're conservative christian-democrats who wish to dictate how others should life their life based on how they life their own. Liberalism is about giving people the freedom to make their own choices, within the limits of (public) safety and health.

[Legion]

Liberalism is about giving people the freedom to make their own choices, within the limits of (public) safety and health.

I disagree on this, freedom shouldn't be sacrificed for safety.

[TrustyJam]

I disagree on this, freedom shouldn't be sacrificed for safety.

Safety is freedom. :)

- Trusty

[Legion]

Safety is freedom. :)

- Trusty

No it's not, not imo.

[FrancisM]

Of course it should. Why do you think we set speedlimits, or alcohol minimum age, or driver licences, or ban drugs that are scientifically proven to cause serious harm to its user? These are all infractions on our freedom, and they're with good reason.

I'm happy to hear you are so dedicated to personal freedom though. Surely you also support same-sex marriage, the legalization of weed, euthanasia and abortion?

[TrustyJam]

No it's not, not imo.


Yes it is. Not having to worry about not being able to pay if you get sick, for education, etc, etc, etc gives a nice peace of mind and thus also more freedom.

- Trusty

[Legion]

Yes it is. Not having to worry about not being able to pay if you get sick, for education, etc, etc, etc gives a nice peace of mind and thus also more freedom.

- Trusty

Those things don't really limit your freedom in any way imo. I was thinking more in terms of constitutional rights, I don't agree with limiting ,my constitutional rights in any way just so people feel safe.

I'm also not speaking of moral issues, doing drugs etc are things you should do.

[FrancisM]

I'd argue that's positive liberty, rather then restrictions upon ones negative liberty.

So your entire believe in 'freedom' is based on the ownership of guns? Where do you stand on the above mentioned subjects of same-sex marriage, the legalization of weed, euthanasia and abortion?

[yoyo8346]

Of course it should. Why do you think we set speedlimits, or alcohol minimum age, or driver licences, or ban drugs that are scientifically proven to cause serious harm to its user?

Don't forget every law ever :P

[Legion]

I'd argue that's positive liberty, rather then restrictions upon ones negative liberty.

So your entire believe in 'freedom' is based on the ownership of guns? Where do you stand on the above mentioned subjects of same-sex marriage, the legalization of weed, euthanasia and abortion?

I'm a Christian so I believe same-sex marriage is a sin, weed is wrong, euthanasia isn't wrong as long as it's only animals, and abortion is murder.

Abortion I have a real big problem with because you are killing a child and aren't giving it a chance at life.

My idea of freedom is if it's not immoral and doesn't hurt anyone else, than I should be able to do it.

[FrancisM]

Which makes you anti-freedom in the most extreme sense. Of course, you're entiteled to these opinions, and completely by right to exercise them in your own life, but by dictating these believes upon others by forbidding them to do these things, you are actively restricting the freedom of others. And to the highest degree, I'd argue.

Not sure why weed is wrong on religious grounds, though.

[Legion]

Which makes you anti-freedom in the most extreme sense. Of course, you're entiteled to these opinions, but by dictating these believes upon others by forbidding them to do these things, you are actively restricting the freedom of others.

Not sure why weed is wrong on religious grounds, though.

It's not anti-freedom imo, you can never stop anyone from doing any of these these even if you outlaw it. People will always have the freedom to do whatever they want, but they will have to face the consequences of their actions, in this life or the next.

[Dingle]

I'm a Christian so I believe same-sex marriage is a sin, weed is wrong, euthanasia isn't wrong as long as it's only animals, and abortion is murder.

Abortion I have a real big problem with because you are killing a child and aren't giving it a chance at life.

My idea of freedom is if it's not immoral and doesn't hurt anyone else, than I should be able to do it.

"if it's not immoral" except that your definition of morality is based on a 2,000 year old book

[FrancisM]

So you support allowing gay marriage, euthanasia, the use of weed and abortion, so that everybody may decide on their own how to live their lives? If not, then you are simply against freedom.

[TrustyJam]

There are different views and interpretations of anything, of freedom as well I suppose. Let's try and keep the discussion open-minded gents. :)

- Trusty

[Legion]

"if it's not immoral" except that your definition of morality is based on a 2,000 year old book

It's much older than 2000ys. Morality isn't something we change, it's constant and can't be changed. You could always go against it but you can't change it.
murder, etc. will always be immoral no matter what you think.

[TrustyJam]

It's much older than 2000ys. Morality isn't something we change, it's constant and can't be changed. You could always go against it but you can't change it.
murder, etc. will always be immoral no matter what you think.

Indeed, no need to be religous in order to be moral.

- Trusty

[Legion]

So you support allowing gay marriage, euthanasia, the use of weed and abortion, so that everybody may decide on their own how to live their lives? If not, then you are simply against freedom.

I don't support it in any way, but I can't stop someone from doing any of these things. I don't support murder either but that doesn't mean people don't have the freedom to do it.

[FrancisM]

It's much older than 2000ys. Morality isn't something we change, it's constant and can't be changed. You could always go against it but you can't change it.
murder, etc. will always be immoral no matter what you think.

Complete and utter bullshit. Morals constantly change, they never stand still. The morals of yesterday were different from today.

You are avoiding my question. Do you support allowing gay marriage and the legalization of weed, euthanasia and abortion? I'm talking legalized freedom here - a freedom protected by law.

[Dingle]

It's not anti-freedom imo, you can never stop anyone from doing any of these these even if you outlaw it. People will always have the freedom to do whatever they want, but they will have to face the consequences of their actions, in this life or the next.

But you can stop them. Marriage is an institution that's controlled by the state and brings about various tax benefits; of course you can stop people from getting married. And besides, people can be placed in jail for doing any of those things (if they get caught). So yes, people can do them, but not without the risk of ending up behind bars. That's inhibiting the freedom of others, and this is the great hypocrisy of that ideology.

[TrustyJam]

I don't support it in any way, but I can't stop someone from doing any of these things. I don't support murder either but that doesn't mean people don't have the freedom to do it.


Then what is this discussion even about? If the arguement is, that you can't stop anyone from doing it - why discuss freedom at all?

- Trusty

[Dingle]

Then what is this discussion even about? If the arguement is, that you can't stop anyone from doing it - why discuss freedom at all?

- Trusty
Exactly. This discussion is meaningless without the assumption that the government has some power to control people.

[Legion]

Then what is this discussion even about? If the arguement is, that you can't stop anyone from doing it - why discuss freedom at all?

- Trusty

I'm not sure, I was just answering his question. I do take back what I said earlier about limiting freedoms, some freedoms should be limited, the freedom to murder someone, the freedom to steal, etc.

Freedom ≠ free will imo.

This discussion is pretty useless though as there is no such thing as complete freedom, there will always be limitations in some way shape or form.

[FrancisM]

If you believe your personal convictions should dictate how others live their lives, you basically support restricting freedom altogether.

Don't get me wrong, you are entitled to your views and you are entitled to believe those should be enforced upon the rest of society. It just makes you anti-freedom.

[Legion]

If you believe your personal convictions should dictate how others live their lives, you basically support restricting freedom altogether.

Don't get me wrong, you are entitled to your views and you are entitled to believe those should be enforced upon the rest of society. It just makes you anti-freedom.

The same could be said about everyone. Everyone believes in restricting certain things.

My idea of freedom is different than yours that's all. When I think of freedom I think of the constitution and all the rights and liberties it protects, I don't think freedom means you can do whatever you want without consequence.

Freedom is a paradox imo.

[FrancisM]

No, it really isn't. I don't believe in restricting your life: I'm not forcing you to smoke weed or commit euthanasia. I don't believe in restricting marriage so you can only marry someone of the same sex. These are life-altering rights and liberities that touch the very core of our existence; the right to decide over your own life and body. Not to mention marriage, deciding who to share your life with.

These are liberties a dozen times more important then liberties regarding what you can and cannot own. Also because I don't believe my decision to marry, smoke weed, have euthanasia or an abortion (were I a woman) endangers your life in any way. You disapprove of it, but if you do not respect and support my right to choose my own life, you're actively restricing my freedom and, as I said before, in the most important aspects of life itself.

[Legion]

No, it really isn't. I don't believe in restricting your life: I'm not forcing you to smoke weed or commit euthanasia. I don't believe in restricting marriage so you can only marry someone of the same sex. These are life-altering rights and liberities that touch the very core of our existence; the right to decide over your own life and body. Not to mention marriage, deciding who to share your life with.

These are liberties a dozen times more important then liberties regarding what you can and cannot own. Also because I don't believe my decision to marry, smoke weed, have euthanasia or an abortion (were I a woman) endangers your life in any way. You disapprove of it, but if you do not respect and support my right to choose my own life, you're actively restricing my freedom and, as I said before, in the most important aspects of life itself.

It really is though, you can't have absolute freedom, it's never existed, some freedoms limit others freedom.

[yoyo8346]

But Legion, he is pointing out your hypocrisy. You preach and love freedom, yet you agree with restricting activities that are harmless to you, such as gay marriage, marijuana, etc.

Francis clearly wants you to respond to this.

[FrancisM]

Exactly. How would my (hypothetical) marriage to someone of the same sex restrain your freedom?

[Legion]

But Legion, he is pointing out your hypocrisy. You preach and love freedom, yet you agree with restricting activities that are harmless to you, such as gay marriage, marijuana, etc.

Francis clearly wants you to respond to this.

Like I said, my idea of freedom is being able to do anything I want as long as it isn't immoral or infringing on others freedoms. Free-will is not the same as freedom. People have the free-will to do whatever they want but their actions may have consequences.


Exactly. How would my (hypothetical) marriage to someone of the same sex restrain your freedom?

That's a moral issue, it doesn't infringe on my personal freedom but it is my believe that it is wrong and shouldn't be allowed.

Y'all call me a hypocrite yet y'all are hypocrites yourselves, you can't have 100% true freedom.

[FrancisM]

But your idea on morals are your personal convictions. I have my own, to which I am constitutionally entiteled - you cannot enforce your ideas upon me. By not supporting my right to chose, as I support yours, you are restricting my freedom.

As do many republicans. They hate freedom, and it's about time they just admit it.

[Legion]

But your idea on morals are your personal convictions. I have my own, to which I am constitutionally entiteled - you cannot enforce your ideas upon me.

Your right I can't, and you can't enforce you ideas upon me. That's what I mean though when I say you can't have perfect freedom. For instance, are you ok with murder? If someone thought murder was ok yet you didn't, do you think their freedom to murder should be limited?

[FrancisM]

Your opposition to same-sex marriage, euthanasia and abortion IS en-forcing your ideas upon others. Would you truly support freedom, as nearly no conservative or Republican does, you would support those institutions so that all may choose their own path.

For the record, I have no opinion on abortion (which is why I assume you brought up murder). I do not feel I'm entiteled to an opinion on something I'll never have to face. As a result, I support allowing abortion so that all may make their own choices.

[yoyo8346]

Murder and gay marriage is a false equivalency. One of them ends someones life in a violent and usually painful way, while the other makes someone happy and fulfilled with zero harm to anyone. I understand you use the bible as your moral guide, but c'mon. Restricting harmless activities because an ancient book told you to is hardly rational.

Don't get me wrong. I am not bashing religion (I myself am Jewish). But denying people happiness (that doesn't harm anyone) is pretty silly.

[Legion]

Your opposition to same-sex marriage, euthanasia and abortion IS en-forcing your ideas upon others. Would you truly support freedom, as nearly no conservative or Republican does, you would support those institutions so that all may choose their own path.

For the record, I have no opinion on abortion (which is why I assume you brought up murder). I do not feel I'm entiteled to an opinion on something I'll never have to face. As a result, I support allowing abortion so that all may make their own choices.

Then I guess I don't support freedom, I support the freedom that is protected by the constitution (freedom of speech, etc.)

Also, by your logic if you support abortion then you really don't support freedom either, by getting an abortion you infringe on that childs life.

This is why I said true freedom isn't possible.

[Legion]

Murder and gay marriage is a false equivalency. One of them ends someones life in a violent and usually painful way, while the other makes someone happy and fulfilled with zero harm to anyone. I understand you use the bible as your moral guide, but c'mon. Restricting harmless activities because an ancient book told you to is hardly rational.

Don't get me wrong. I am not bashing religion (I myself am Jewish). But denying people happiness (that doesn't harm anyone) is pretty silly.

It may not harm me but it does harm them, even if it's not in this life. I'm against sin because I know it's consequences, it's harmful to us. I love all people but that doesn't mean I have to agree with what they do, I'm against same-sex marriage because it's wrong and harmful to the person doing it.

[yoyo8346]

So you claim to be doing the righteous deed of defending them from hell at the cost of happiness in life...

On that note, I concede defeat.

As you were gentlemen.

[Dingle]

It may not harm me but it does harm them, even if it's not in this life. I'm against sin because I know it's consequences, it's harmful to us. I love all people but that doesn't mean I have to agree with what they do, I'm against same-sex marriage because it's wrong and harmful to the person doing it.

But it only does harm to them based on the beliefs of your religion. Murder does physical, undeniable, measurable harm (ending a life). The idea that gay marriage harms those involved can't be proven based on real facts, only religious bias. Considering that we live in a country with a separation between church and state, that religious bias should not be part of the equation in the marriage laws.

[FrancisM]

That position on abortion has some problems though. A child in the womb doesn't legally exist and thus isn't entiteled to the rights and protections given to us by law. From a legal point of view, abortion is as much murder as killing a stray dog - as harsh as that may sound. You could argue it is entiteled to moral rights because it exists in practise. However, that brings us to the discussion on when it still just a bunch of cells and when it has become a living thing entiteled to those moral rights. And that discussion is simply always subjective. So people must make that decision for themselves.

As a side-note: I can assure you I am quite healthy. Thank you for your concern, though.

[Legion]

So you claim to be doing the righteous deed of defending them from hell at the cost of happiness in life...

On that note, I concede defeat.

As you were gentlemen.

I can't claim I was doing a righteous thing as my thoughts on the peoples life in hell was secondary, I mostly added it for arguments sake though I do believe it to be true.

Also, happiness means very little if it ends up harming you.

[FrancisM]

The happiness you get from loving someone and being loved back is worth quite a lot to me.

[Legion]

The happiness you get from loving someone and being loved back is worth quite a lot to me.

I agree but not the love you are thinking of.

[Sgt.Kar98]

I have to ask. Seeing that even people in my own country (can't f ing believe this) are bashing because of the results,and there are a lot of protests,a rumor of California seceding,general outcry and probably a lot of violent arguments in the US,do you americans believe there's a chance of War of Rights being about the First American Civil War?

[Legion]

I have to ask. Seeing that even people in my own country (can't f ing believe this) are bashing because of the results,and there are a lot of protests,a rumor of California seceding,general outcry and probably a lot of violent arguments in the US,do you americans believe there's a chance of War of Rights being about the First American Civil War?

You mean a 2nd civil war? I don't think so, the likelihood of civil war was higher if Hillary was elected imo. That is what you mean right?

[thomas aagaard]

I'm a Christian so I believe same-sex marriage is a sin, weed is wrong, euthanasia isn't wrong as long as it's only animals, and abortion is murder.

Abortion I have a real big problem with because you are killing a child and aren't giving it a chance at life.

My idea of freedom is if it's not immoral and doesn't hurt anyone else, than I should be able to do it.

Do you also think we should kill anyone working on the Sabbath and how about allowing slavery again? (the bible got no issue with that)
You should if you take everything in the bible as written.


And why ban weed? it is not hurting anyone. Saying I can't some is a limit on my freedom... so why do you support a ban?
(not that I actually have ever tried it... havn't even tried tobacco)


It's much older than 2000ys. Morality isn't something we change, it's constant and can't be changed. You could always go against it but you can't change it.
murder, etc. will always be immoral no matter what you think.

Now that is just plain wrong and it should be rather obvious to you that it is... Or do you actually support slavery?

How about the total extermination of a culture? Again something the bible think is just fine... just read the old testament.,

Or again, should we kill people who work on the Sabbath?

[Legion]

Do you also think we should kill anyone working on the Sabbath and how about allowing slavery again? (the bible got no issue with that)
You should if you take everything in the bible as written.


And why ban weed? it is not hurting anyone. Saying I can't some is a limit on my freedom... so why do you support a ban?
(not that I actually have ever tried it... havn't even tried tobacco)



Now that is just plain wrong and it should be rather obvious to you that it is... Or do you actually support slavery?

How about the total extermination of a culture? Again something the bible think is just fine... just read the old testament.,

Or again, should we kill people who work on the Sabbath?

Here is a good sight about Christianity and can help with answering your questions better than I can.

Here is about the old vs new testament: https://gotquestions.org/difference-old-new-testaments.html

Here's one about slavery: https://gotquestions.org/Bible-slavery.html

The fact of the matter is we are all sinners deserving of death. The consequences of sin is death, God has every right to judge and destroy us because we have sinned. All those wars and killings in the bible were part of God's judgment against sinners.

Everyone on earth deserves to die, including me, thankfully we don't have to perish because God has offered us salvation through His Son Jesus Christ. If we will believe in him as our Lord and Savior we will be saved and forgiven of our sins.

[TrustyJam]

I respect you being religous and all - but you stating it is a fact that we are all sinners and deserve to die is a tad too much I'd say (maybe that is considered a fact in chrstianity, I don't know).

Everyone is going to die, sure - but who are you to tell me I deserve to die because a bloke possibly took a bite from an apple or someone two thousand years ago mistreated a dude who claimed to be gods son? :)

Also, not sure how much religious discussions have to do with the election (I guess it is sort of connected but surely not at the center of the matter here).

- Trusty

[Legion]

I respect you being religous and all - but you stating it is a fact that we are all sinners and deserve to die is a tad too much I'd say (maybe that is considered a fact in chrstianity, I don't know).

Everyone is going to die, sure - but who are you to tell me I deserve to die because a bloke possibly took a bite from an apple or someone two thousand years ago mistreated a dude who claimed to be gods son? :)

Also, not sure how much religious discussions have to do with the election (I guess it is sort of connected but surely not at the center of the matter here).

- Trusty

Well it's a fact I'm afraid, it's your choice to believe. Sin entered into the world because of Adam yet God judges us based off of our sins not Adams. God has provided a way to receive forgiveness and salvation, it's a free gift to all but he leaves it up to us to believe in Him, he wont force us to believe (though I hope you will, even if it's not today)

I know it isn't part of the main topic but I enjoyed talking about it all the same.

[TrustyJam]

Well it's a fact I'm afraid, it's your choice to believe. Also you don't die because Adam sinned (he's the reason we all sin) we die because of our own sins. God has provided a way to receive forgiveness and salvation, it's a free gift to all but he leaves it up to us to believe in Him, he wont force us to believe (though I hope you will, even if it's not today)

I know it isn't part of the main topic but I enjoyed talking about it all the same.

Hehe yeah it's always interesting to talk religion. :P

I find it facinating that some people can so blindly believe in something (to me) so far fetched - but I guess that is the whole point of believing. I too hope you someday will believe.. in not believing. :)

- Trusty

[Legion]

Hehe yeah it's always interesting to talk religion. :P

I find it facinating that some people can so blindly believe in something (to me) so far fetched - but I guess that is the whole point of believing. I too hope you someday will believe.. in not believing. :)

- Trusty

Well I wouldn't call it blind faith. I believe because there's more than enough evidence around me to prove God exist. Whether you believe in God or not, both are a matter of faith. It requires faith to believe and it requires faith not to believe.

[TrustyJam]

Well I wouldn't call it blind faith. I believe because there's more than enough evidence around me to prove God exist. Whether you believe in God or not, both are a matter of faith. It requires faith to believe and it requires faith not to believe.

That's where we differ greatly. I'll eat my hat and join the religous guys (how do you know your god is the right one - humans have come up with what, thousands if not tens of thousands of different gods throughout the ages - why is yours "the one"?) when science has prooven there is a heavenly father. Until then, I don't think it is at all hard not to believe - there's simply no evidence to choose to believe against. :)

- Trusty

[Legion]

That's where we differ greatly. I'll eat my hat and join the religous guys (how do you know your god is the right one - humans have come up with what, thousands if not tens of thousands of different gods throughout the ages - why is yours "the one"?) when science has prooven there is a heavenly father. Until then, I don't think it is at all hard not to believe - there's simply no evidence to choose to believe against. :)

- Trusty

I'll post another link to this site because it explains it alot better than I can, I urge you to read it as it's not something I can answer in 2 sentences (it's not too long though)
https://gotquestions.org/correct-religion.html

[TrustyJam]

I'll post another link to this site because it explains it alot better than I can, I urge you to read it as it's not something I can answer in 2 sentences (it's not too long though)
https://gotquestions.org/correct-religion.html

That site screams bias to me. I'm not going to read all of it as it genuinely makes me mad the way it is presented.

"There is no faith on the planet that can match the mountains of evidence that exist for Christianity." That can easily be countered by the fact that it is one of the very last huge religions. Earlier religions might have had as much "proof" in writings (I don't consider that proof at all, naturally) mostly lost by the teeth of time or they might not even have had an alphabet to record their "proof" with.

"This is a position no thinking atheist denies; they just claim that the universe is that eternal being. However, the problem with that stance is that all scientific evidence points to the fact that the universe had a beginning (the ‘big bang’). And everything that has a beginning must have a cause; therefore, the universe had a cause and is not eternal. Because the only two sources of eternality are an eternal universe (denied by all current empirical evidence) or an eternal Creator, the only logical conclusion is that God exists. Answering the question of God’s existence in the affirmative rules out atheism as a valid belief system."

Yes, it always ends up there in these kind of discussions. Notice how it states that god or "an eternal creator" exists in both options (universe with a beginning or an eternal universe) just to make sure I guess. :P It makes a lot of claims and jumps to "logical conclusions" that oozes of bias. Naturally I can't counter argue with you when you take it all the way out to the big bang as very little is known there. Notice how science has forced religion to push it's defences further and further out there though. 150 years ago people were laughing at Darwin today you have to go to the very limit of human knowledge regarding the creation of the entire universe in order to not being rolled over by the facts of science. It also states atheism is a belief system which is a bit of an insult I must say.

"Lastly, another big question of life is answered—that of ethics—as the Bible contains clear instructions on how mankind ought to live."

I find it incredibly dangerous to genuinely beleive an old book is not only a guide book but contain clear instructions on how to live.

- Trusty

[A. P. Hill]

... (how do you know your god is the right one - humans have come up with what, thousands if not tens of thousands of different gods throughout the ages - why is yours "the one"?) ...

Last I heard there were something on the order of 6,500* different religions/cults/etc., in the world. Yet the Holy Scriptures say there is but 1 true religion. Your task, Mr. Phelps, (que the mission impossible theme song,) should you take it .... find the right one.

So with the Scriptures stating that there is only 1 true religion and only 1 true God, we cannot assume that all religions lead to the same place like the spokes in a wheel. :)

[Legion]

That site screams bias to me. I'm not going to read all of it as it genuinely makes me mad the way it is presented.

"There is no faith on the planet that can match the mountains of evidence that exist for Christianity." That can easily be countered by the fact that it is one of the very last huge religions. Earlier religions might have had as much "proof" in writings (I don't consider that proof at all, naturally) mostly lost by the teeth of time or they might not even have had an alphabet to record their "proof" with.

"This is a position no thinking atheist denies; they just claim that the universe is that eternal being. However, the problem with that stance is that all scientific evidence points to the fact that the universe had a beginning (the ‘big bang’). And everything that has a beginning must have a cause; therefore, the universe had a cause and is not eternal. Because the only two sources of eternality are an eternal universe (denied by all current empirical evidence) or an eternal Creator, the only logical conclusion is that God exists. Answering the question of God’s existence in the affirmative rules out atheism as a valid belief system."

Yes, it always ends up there in these kind of discussions. Notice how it states that god or "an eternal creator" exists in both options (universe with a beginning or an eternal universe) just to make sure I guess. :P It makes a lot of claims and jumps to "logical conclusions" that oozes of bias. Naturally I can't counter argue with you when you take it all the way out to the big bang as very little is known there. Notice how science has forced religion to push it's defences further and further out there though. 150 years ago people were laughing at Darwin today you have to go to the very limit of human knowledge regarding the creation of the entire universe in order to not being rolled over by the facts of science. It also states atheism is a belief system which is a bit of an insult I must say.

"Lastly, another big question of life is answered—that of ethics—as the Bible contains clear instructions on how mankind ought to live."

I find it incredibly dangerous to genuinely beleive an old book is not only a guide book but contain clear instructions on how to live.

- Trusty

Like I said, I can't force you to believe. Atheism is a belief system in itself though.

Also, Christianity has always agreed that the universe has a beginning, scientist just call it the big bang. Christianity hasn't changed it's defenses, we've stuck to them, Christianity still believes in a young earth and doesn't agree with Darwinism.

Also, Christianity and science can agree with each other, they aren't mutually exclusive.

[TrustyJam]

Oh so you believe the earth is 6000 years or so old?

If so I think we better just stop this conversation as it is not going to get us anywhere good. :)

- Trusty

[Legion]

Oh so you believe the earth is 6000 years or so old?

If so I think we better just stop this conversation as it is not going to get us anywhere good. :)

- Trusty

Not 6000, I really don't know how old it is but I don't think it's billions of years old.

Bionically it doesn't make sense for the earth to be so old.

[Macliness]

Not 6000, I really don't know how old it is but I don't think it's billions of years old.

Guys this has gone from election to religion (both can go wrong quick) so please lets stick to the target goal of this thread and talk about the elections please!!

[Legion]

Guys this has gone from election to religion (both can go wrong quick) so please lets stick to the target goal of this thread and talk about the elections please!!

This discussion has gone on quite well so far, there's no reason not to continue it, unless you can't handle it.

[Macliness]

This discussion has gone on quite well so far, there's no reason not to continue it, unless you can't handle it.

it not that i can't handle it its just we have drifted from the main topic is all. all im asking is that we all bring it back into its tracks :)

[General. Jackson]

In Australia, we literally have a Blue Collar party and a Business party to put it simply. Our Blue Collar party is called the Labor Party & our business party is the Liberal Party. We then have Greens who are all environment insane etc.

Labor tends to benefit the blue collar workers and latter of the Liberal party. Very different to how the US works, it's interesting to see though.

--
I used to be a strong catholic and now I just don't know and or understand anymore. I still pray to God everynow and then in the hope there is one, but then I begin to question heaven and such. The final bit that pushed me into not believing is when I asked myself what was it like before I was born? Nothing. What's it like after death? Most likely nothing. Do I believe in Jesus? Yes I think he was a real person. The spirit is a product of ones mind, your mind is a product of your body, your body is the product of a physical element and when you die, your brain shuts down and dies. Along with that spirit which is a product of the mind which is in turn a product of the brain, so you tell me.

[Rithal]

Alright folks. This has been an interesting discussion however, for it to continue on the tangent it is on, someone needs to make a dedicated thread for it. Lets shift the conversation back onto the original topic of the election.

The last relevant post being...
A election system with proportional representation where the loosers votes are not wasted... and a multiparty system would have been a better solution.

It would also not be as divisive as the current system.


Is it democratic when the majority of the voters voted democratic just like in 2000? But the republican candidate still won?

The idiocy of the current system proved yet again. by thomas aagaard.

[Wildcat]

I have to ask. Seeing that even people in my own country (can't f ing believe this) are bashing because of the results,and there are a lot of protests,a rumor of California seceding,general outcry and probably a lot of violent arguments in the US,do you americans believe there's a chance of War of Rights being about the First American Civil War?

War of Rights is about the 2nd Civil War. The first being The American Revolution.

[Rithal]

In response to Sgt. Kar98, no there is next to no chance of another "civil war" in America. Besides, Californian citizens don't have the desire or means to fight in a war. (Most of them that is) ;)

[Oleander]

I will admit I was pretty surprised to see the outcome, but I can sympathize with it. But, we need to unite as a people, we cannot survive if we keep dividing ourselves. One war has already ravaged this country, we don't need to plant the seeds for another.

[Legion]

War of Rights is about the 2nd Civil War. The first being The American Revolution.

Actually that's not true, the revolution can't be considered the 1st American civil war as America didn't exist at the time. It was a revolution in almost every sense of the term, thinking of it as a civil war is a modern idea.

It's called the American Revolution for a reason, it was a revolution not a civil war.

Revolutions and civil wars are very similar and sometimes they overlap, but they are not the same.

[Wildcat]

Actually that's not true, the revolution can't be considered the 1st American civil war as America didn't exist at the time. It was a revolution in almost every sense of the term, thinking of it as a civil war is a modern idea.

It's called the American Revolution for a reason, it was a revolution not a civil war.

Revolutions and civil wars are very similar and sometimes they overlap, but they are not the same.

America may not of been a country, But the area in which the war happend was called British America so.. Also it was both a Civil War and Revolution.

[RhettVito]

Look Trump won get over it :) If your triggered go to a safe place and cry me a river :)

[BloodBeag]

The US is going to have a president and a large part of the leading party that don't believe in man-made climate change. come ooooooooonn


I know all the votes hadn't been counted but Hillary won the popular vote so in my mind Hillary supporters are completely alright to complain and alo because complaining is one of the fundamentals of free speech.




ahfjksdbfksdbjkfbjsdkfjsjk;f to the above comment

[BloodBeag]

sorry i'm replying to a comment 2 pages back but as a Christian, I don't take the old testament to be litteral and i'm pretty sure it's not meant to be. The whole story of Noah and the flood is very very similar to stories in many other religions and cultures and the story of genesis has been translated so many times that I read somewhere it was originally more of a poem.



Baaasically I (and a lot fo christians outside of evangelical USians and Africans) that the old testament is more just stories about how God works. I also study Geology and it makes complete sense for the Earth to be 4.55 billion years old

[General. Jackson]

Lol ok, my post about discussing Australian Politics compared to the US is off-topic. Hmm.

[VOLCUSGAMING]

Hey everyone!

Since Trump have been elected, you might want to be safe (No idea why! :P)...
So go to this link:http://www.risingsbunkers.com

[FrancisM]

Look Trump won get over it :) If your triggered go to a safe place and cry me a river :)

Democracy is not a football match. Grow up.

[BloodBeag]

White men (and maybe women I think) were the only group to vote in majority for Trump and this forum is about 99%+ white men

[yoyo8346]

I went to a seminar last night about the future of America in regards to the Trump administration, and I learned that even if he manages to scrap NAFTA, he would be stuck with the 1988 Canada–United States Free Trade Agreement. This guarantees Canada's relative economic safety, and would be extremely difficult for Trump to untangle as well.

[Legion]

America may not of been a country, But the area in which the war happend was called British America so.. Also it was both a Civil War and Revolution.

The war as a whole cannot be considered a civil war, you are correct though in stating that in some instances civil war was happening withing the revolution.
A civil war is where two factions wage war against each other, (CSA vs USA)
A revolution is where the citizens revolt against their government.

My point is it wasn't the 1st American civil war, it can be called a somewhat of a British civil war if you like but not an American civil war.
The 1st American civil war happened in 1860s.
The American revolution was about the patriots revolting in order to gain independence and form their own country.

[A. P. Hill]

... I know all the votes hadn't been counted but Hillary won the popular vote so in my mind Hillary supporters are completely alright to complain and alo because complaining is one of the fundamentals of free speech. ...

Again, the failure to understand the American political process. The rules/laws in this country dictate how the political process works, not the opinions of non understanding Europeans who focus on the wrong values. (Not an insult, it's an observation to be cleared up shortly.)

The way the political process works in the U.S. of A., is this. The people vote both popular and representativly. While it is now appearing that Clinton is now securing the popular vote, she did not have that advantage during the heat of the election night counting. Trump was clearly leading in that count for as long as it mattered, getting to the magic representative 270 score.

The states, which actually dictate government process, that the Fed oversees, provided the representative numbers. Trump managed to draw those representative numbers before Clinton did, thus securing, according to the laws of the land, the win, as we now know.

Once the magic number of 270 is attained, the winner is declared. Even with the 3 states still counting, Clinton can not, nor will she ever reach the 270 number. It is sort of like the popular numbers don't count, but in reality they do. It's the popular vote that secures the representative vote which gives the candidate the win.

As I said earlier, I sat and watched the whole thing until 2:00 a.m. by that time, there was no way by the representative numbers that Clinton could beat Trump. Her popular numbers at that time just were not there. In fact the ratio you see now was completely reversed. Trump had both the popular and the representative numbers by a large gap.

I hope this helps you in understanding the process.

Link of a map that might help explain the numbers. (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2016/presidential-election-headquarters)*

[thomas aagaard]

The American revolution was about the patriots revolting in order to gain independence and form their own country.

Since the war started more than a year before the DoI I would would argue that the revolution was originally about taxes, representation and a few other grievances..
And that the colonists simply wanted the same rights and representation as other English men...

And it was pretty much the British that push the crisis to open warfare.


Only after a year of fighting and after the British crown made it very very clear that they would not bend even a little, did independence become the goal.

So Independence was not the original goal, but became the alternative solution after the others failed.

[Mercuri]

The 1st American civil war happened in 1860s.

Good point there in your reply, but also I need to say, STOP NAMING AMERICA TO THE USA!

[Legion]

Good point there in your reply, but also I need to say, STOP NAMING AMERICA TO THE USA!

It's called The United States of America, we are called Americans. When I say America I mean USA and not any other country. If I was referring to the continent as a whole I would say North America. America is the country, North America is the continent.

[William F. Randolph]

I'm ready to fight my countrymen on the west coast and the north-east as soon as they take organized riots out of their own states. There will be hell to pay if law and order is not followed like the Republicans followed it for the last 8 years.

I say we let California, Washington, and Oregon leave as well provided their three state governments vote for it. We might not have fantastic movies anymore but quite frankly I don't give a damn.

[FrancisM]

Let's not start committing crimes yourself.


Again, the failure to understand the American political process. The rules/laws in this country dictate how the political process works, not the opinions of non understanding Europeans who focus on the wrong values. (Not an insult, it's an observation to be cleared up shortly.)

The way the political process works in the U.S. of A., is this. The people vote both popular and representativly. While it is now appearing that Clinton is now securing the popular vote, she did not have that advantage during the heat of the election night counting. Trump was clearly leading in that count for as long as it mattered, getting to the magic representative 270 score.

The states, which actually dictate government process, that the Fed oversees, provided the representative numbers. Trump managed to draw those representative numbers before Clinton did, thus securing, according to the laws of the land, the win, as we now know.



That's not the point. Yes, Trump has won according to the law, there is no doubt. But from the perspective of democracy, people are rightly mad that the candidate with the least votes won the election. It basically means some Americans are more entiteled to elect their president then others, which isn't fair.

[yoyo8346]

It's called The United States of America, we are called Americans. When I say America I mean USA and not any other country. If I was referring to the continent as a whole I would say North America. America is the country, North America is the continent.

Actually, North Americans are taught that North and South America are two separate continents, while the rest of the world is taught that America is one continent, containing north and south. That is why there are five rings on the Olympic flag.

http://www.pe04.com/olympic/trivia/oly001.gif


I'm ready to fight my countrymen on the west coast and the north-east as soon as they take organized riots out of their own states. There will be hell to pay if law and order is not followed like the Republicans followed it for the last 8 years.

Lol, what a romantic.

[Legion]

I'm ready to fight my countrymen on the west coast and the north-east as soon as they take organized riots out of their own states. There will be hell to pay if law and order is not followed like the Republicans followed it for the last 8 years.

I say we let California, Washington, and Oregon leave as well provided their three state governments vote for it. We might not have fantastic movies anymore but quite frankly I don't give a damn.

I'm not really willing to fight other Americans, they're our brothers.

[Legion]

Actually, North Americans are taught that North and South America are two separate continents, while the rest of the world is taught that America is one continent, containing north and south. That is why there are five rings on the Olympic flag.

http://www.pe04.com/olympic/trivia/oly001.gif

My point still stands, the USA is called America and Americans are from the USA.

[Mercuri]

It's called The United States of America, we are called Americans. When I say America I mean USA and not any other country. If I was referring to the continent as a whole I would say North America. America is the country, North America is the continent.

My point still stands, the USA is called America and Americans are from the USA.

You're wrong! you are not called americans for being from the USA, you are yourself called americans for the only reason you think you are the center of the world. And we all know that when you say america you mean the USA, we are bored to hear you. America is not a country, America is big territory divided in two continents North and South America (if you are from a country wich was part of the british empire, if you are from other you learn America is only one, not two continets https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continent), and the americans are all the people from this continents who you can also name as north ans south americans (if you are from a old british empire...), but in both forms to see the continents, no just you guys are the americans.
So you just took a wrong word to define your nacionality, for example in the spanish language you are called as "estadounidense" wich mean "USA citizen"
But men, I understand you, thats what you learned since the child.

[Legion]

You're wrong! you are not called americans for being from the USA, you are yourself called americans for the only reason you think you are the center of the world. And we all know that when you say america you mean the USA, we are bored to hear you. America is not a country, America is big territory divided in two continents North and South America, and the americans are all the people from this continents wich you can also name as north ans south americans, but no just you guys are the americans.
So you just took a wrong word to define your nacionality, for example in the spanish language you are called as "estadounidense" wich mean "USA citizen"
But men, I understand you, thats what you learned since the child.

Almost every other European country refers to US citizens as Americans, the Spanish are about the only ones that don't. America was the 1st country to form on this continent and we were the 1st to use America in our name, we were called Americans before our country was even founded.
We've been called Americans since the beginning, I don't really care if it offends or angers you.

[FrancisM]

Don't be a dramatic, Mercuri. Using the word 'Americans' for citizens of the USA is something that has developed over time and it really isn't that odd. The United States was the first 'modern' independent state in the Americas and there really wasn't, and there still isn't, a need for a word to describe all inhabitans of both continents. If it even once was incorrect, it has become correct trough use. Languages develop and change.

God forbid we ever start using 'USA citizen' as one word to replace 'American' (Amerikaan). 'Verenigdestateninwoner' just doesn't have the same ring to it.

[William F. Randolph]

You guys don't understand what I'm saying. Organized riots outside of their own states would practically be a rebellion. Not protests, and not local rallies, a rebellion. Either they go through their own government or if they feel that the federal government won't solve their problems they need to vote to secede from the Union and take their chances, most of rural America won't give a flying f***.

If riots within my own city occur I will be defending my property and my neighbors property to my fullest ability.

There are proper ways to do things, riots do not earn respect.

[Mercuri]

Almost every other European country refers to US citizens as Americans, the Spanish are about the only ones that don't. America was the 1st country to form on this continent and we were the 1st to use America in our name, we were called Americans before our country was even founded.
We've been called Americans since the beginning, I don't really care if it offends or angers you.

No no no and no xD
Spanish speackers are not the only ones who dont call you americans for being from the USA, Portugese, Italians, French, Rumania, Greece, Belgium etc... As i told you and the font I linked, only the english speacking countries that were part of the british empire like USA, Canada, UK, India, Austrailia etc uses the word "american" to define you, and its simple, its because you are the only americans who were part of the british empire.

So, it doesnt offends me, but I know other americans from other countries that yes. And doesnt metter when you beggins using wrongly the word, because its still wrong.
Aslo I need to ask, does "United States of America", the official name of your country offends you? You doesnt like it? answer is no? So, why you dont just use it!?


Don't be a dramatic, Mercuri. Using the word 'Americans' for citizens of the USA is something that has developed over time and it really isn't that odd. The United States was the first 'modern' independent state in the Americas and there really wasn't, and there still isn't, a need for a word to describe all inhabitans of both continents. If it even once was incorrect, it has become correct trough use. Languages develop and change.

God forbid we ever start using 'USA citizen' as one word to replace 'American' (Amerikaan). 'Verenigdestateninwoner' just doesn't have the same ring to it.

How can you say there is not need to name all the habitants of the continent? It make no sense, really confuse me. And it hasnt become the correct use, its only used in the english leanguage, I repeat :)

[TrustyJam]

No no no and no xD
Spanish speackers are not the only ones who dont call you americans for being from the USA, Portugese, Italians, French, Rumania, Greece, Belgium etc... As i told you and the font I linked, only the english speacking countries that were part of the british empire like USA, Canada, UK, India, Austrailia etc uses the word "american" to define you, and its simple, its because you are the only americans who were part of the british empire.

So, it doesnt offends me, but I know other americans from other countries that yes. And doesnt metter when you beggins using wrongly the word, because its still wrong.
Aslo I need to ask, does "United States of America", the official name of your country offends you? You doesnt like it? answer is no? So, why you dont just use it!?

We call them "Amerikanere" in Danish so your statement is not true. :)

- Trusty

[William F. Randolph]

Why do Germans call Germany Deutschland? Same principle, we own it you don't. Instead of doing this spend your time fighting this ridiculous Spanish law.

"Showing a "lack of respect" to those in uniform or failing to assist security forces in the prevention of public disturbances could result in an individual fine of between €600 and €30,000."

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150705/18174231556/spain-government-goes-full-police-state-enacts-law-forbidding-dissent-unauthorized-photography-law-enforcement.shtml

[Mercuri]

We call them "Amerikanere" in Danish so your statement is not true. :)

- Trusty

Yes, there are also the word "americano" that is the same as your and "american", but that doesnt mean its the correct one. One thing is the correctly way to call the things, and other the popular way

[TrustyJam]

Yes, there are also the word "americano" that is the same as your and "american", but that doesnt mean its the correct one. One thing is the correctly way to call the things, and other the popular way


It's the only word we have for them. So no, it is very much the correct way.

- Trusty

[Mercuri]

It's the only word we have for them. So no, it is very much the correct way.

- Trusty

yes it make sense you do it, still doesnt mean is a logical way, because they and you are still using a word that must be used to call al the americans, not just they.



Why do Germans call Germany Deutschland? Same principle, we own it you don't. Instead of doing this spend your time fighting this ridiculous Spanish law.

"Showing a "lack of respect" to those in uniform or failing to assist security forces in the prevention of public disturbances could result in an individual fine of between €600 and €30,000."

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150705/18174231556/spain-government-goes-full-police-state-enacts-law-forbidding-dissent-unauthorized-photography-law-enforcement.shtml

Germany is just the name you give them in english because the old germanic trives, we call them "Alemania", they can call theyselves as they want, its not the same because they are not stealling the name to anyone.
And what if i agree with that law, what if im part of police and im reciving insults every time lefties takes the streets just for doing my job?

[Legion]

yes it make sense you do it, still doesnt mean is a logical way.




Germany is just the name you give them in english because the old germanic trives, we call them "Alemania", they can call theyselves as they want, ist not the same because they are not stealling the name to anyone.

We're not stealing the name American from anyone else either, we were the 1st country to form and we were the 1st to be called Americans, it has been this way since the beginning.

[Mercuri]

We're not stealing the name American from anyone else either, we were the 1st country to form and we were the 1st to be called Americans, it has been this way since the beginning.

Yes you are, because before you formed your country, you and also the other members of the America continent were called americans, or did they received another name? I explained you that you and your british brothers called you americans because you are the terrirory from america in the british empire.

But mate I dont want to follow with this, this is not a personal problem, is a really big one between difenrent cultures, I know anyone will change the way other see this, just wanted to let you know and think about if its really correct or not.
So lets finish here my american friend and continue with your elections.

[Legion]

Yes you are, because before you formed your country, you and also the other members of the America continent were called americans, or did they received another name? I explained you that you and your british brothers called you americans because you are the terrirory from america in the british empire.

But mate I dont want to follow with this, this is not a personal problem, is a really big one between difenrent cultures, I know anyone will change the way other see this, just wanted to let you know and think about if its really correct or not.


It is correct though, and that's what I'm trying to point out. Americans have been calling themselves that for over 200ys, it's not right for you to expect them to change it.

This whole issue is really a modern thing, 200ys ago people knew America referred to the country.

I agree though lets drop this, it's not going to change just because you don't think it's correct.

[FakeMessiah27]

In Dutch we also only use the word "Amerikaan" for citizens of the USA. When we say "Amerika" we mean the USA. We then have words for North and South America, and we also refer to both continents together, but in plural, which would be: the Americas.

That said though, a discussion about what different languages call citizens of the USA seems a bit off-topic :D.

[Mercuri]

In Dutch we also only use the word "Amerikaan" for citizens of the USA. When we say "Amerika" we mean the USA. We then have words for North and South America, and we also refer to both continents together, but in plural, which would be: the Americas.

That said though, a discussion about what different languages call citizens of the USA seems a bit off-topic :D.

Arent we in the off-topic section? :P

[FakeMessiah27]

We might be in the off-topic section but the use of the word "American" is not the topic of this thread, so we are still off-topic within the scope of this particular thread, which is in turn off-topic in the scope of the discussion about the game :).

[Bravescot]

Thought you guys might like a bit of humour about this election. I'm sure most of you will appreciate this regardless of who you supported

http://i.imgur.com/D6wk8bg.jpg

[FrancisM]

Reminds me, When Florida first came in, Gary Johnson was at 10%. Must have jizzed his pants.

Altogether quite a good show for the Libertarians, though.

[thomas aagaard]

I'm ready to fight my countrymen on the west coast and the north-east as soon as they take organized riots out of their own states. There will be hell to pay if law and order is not followed like the Republicans followed it for the last 8 years.

If the republicans followed the law, then why do they not do their duty according to the Constitution and Advice and Consent on a new judge for the supreme court... The republicans in the senate are not interested in law... only their own political power.


. America was the 1st country to form on this continent and we were the 1st to use America in our name, we were called Americans before our country was even founded.
We've been called Americans since the beginning, I don't really care if it offends or angers you.

And wrong again. There where plenty of states in both north and south american when the Europeans showed up again.

Also it is named after a Spanish explorer... "Amerigo Vespucci"... And this cover both north and south america.

[Legion]

And wrong again. There where plenty of states in both north and south american when the Europeans showed up again.

Also it is named after a Spanish explorer... "Amerigo Vespucci"... And this cover both north and south america.

America was the 1st independent country in the Americas.

[thomas aagaard]

No it was not. plenty of states in central and south america.

The Incas and Aztecs just to name two of the very advanced states that where in no way behind what we find in Europe at the same time.
(when we are talking how to organizes states and how you run huge state organizations)

And the continent have been named american for about 500 years... that trumps your opinion by about 300 years.

[Legion]

No it was not. plenty of states in central and south america.

The Incas and Aztecs just to name two of the very advanced states that where in no way behind what we find in Europe at the same time.
(when we are talking how to organizes states and how you run huge state organizations)

And the continent have been named american for about 500 years... that trumps your opinion by about 300 years.

You clearly understood what I meant, don't be foolish. Clearly there were Natives here 1st, that wasn't even part of the argument. I was speaking in terms of European colonies.

Also Amerigo was Italian not Spanish.

[yoyo8346]

that trumps your opinion

lol

[thomas aagaard]

You clearly understood what I meant, don't be foolish. Clearly there were Natives here 1st, that wasn't even part of the argument. I was speaking in terms of European colonies.

Also Amerigo was Italian not Spanish.

So you need to be European to have a country? Or do you have a good explanation why the mentioned Kingdoms do not count?




And yes Amerigo was not from Spain, but he worked for the Spanish crown. That make him a Spanish explore. Just like a soldier who serve the Spanish king is a Spanish solder... no matter where he was born.

[Legion]

So you need to be European to have a country? Or do you have a good explanation why the mentioned Kingdoms do not count?


I never said that, and those civilizations no longer exist so there's really no use in bringing it up. Stop trying to create an argument.

[FrancisM]

Seriously guys, the word 'American' means a citizen of the United States of America in English. Whatever it is in Dutch, Danish, Spanish, Hindu or Mandarin Chinese is utterly unimportant. The English language has developed itself to this point where this word has that meaning. It might change one day, as languages change and develop troughout their use.

You can somewhat question whether the Inca or Aztek empires were countries, as the concept of state souvereignity didn't exist.

[Hatchmo]

I didn't bother reading all the replies to this post. With that being said, here is my opinion on the matter.

Hillary lost the election for herself. First of all, had another democrat like Bernie Sanders been given the nomination, he would have probably beaten Trump. Clinton can blame herself for that one. Also, Hillary lost major and traditionally democratic states. That's also on her. If she can't even garner the vote of traditionally hard core democrats, doesn't that tell you something?

I'm glad Trump won. First off, Hillary is a liar. She's had her chance to make a difference and introduce policies that actually helped someone. Instead, after most of her adult life in Washington politics, she's mostly been a failure. As Secretary of State, she failed many times...specifically to point to the Benghazi mess. Not only does she lie, but she apparently can't be trusted with sensitive data. Oh, that was just an accident? Tell that to the staffers who spend endless hours trying to delete all that data.

Trump is an outsider as far as politics are concerned. Yes, he's been around. Yes, he's donated money to many political cronies. However, he isn't influenced by people pulling his strings because they gave him money. He's not afraid to speak his mind, albeit not always with the most couth. He's also pro-America and what ever will help us prosper as a nation. He doesn't want to stop immigration like people claim...he wants to stop ILLEGAL immigration instead of giving them a pass like the current Administration. He wants to protect us. Strengthen us. Produce financial growth. Repeal the mess of Obamacare.

I could go on and on, but the bottom line is, I personally think he is what's best for our country. Only time will tell exactly what he'll do, good or bad. If we made a mistake, we'll find out the hard way. No matter what though, I still feel he would not mess us up as much as Hillary would have. He deserves a chance, just like Obama was given.

[TrustyJam]

Trump is an outsider as far as politics are concerned. Yes, he's been around. Yes, he's donated money to many political cronies. However, he isn't influenced by people pulling his strings because they gave him money.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/11/world/europe/trump-campaign-russia.html?_r=0

He might not have received a whole lot of money for his campaign (as far as I know he did at the later stage of it) but he's surely influenced all the same. :)

- Trusty

[FrancisM]

He's also thinking making the CEO of JP Morgan minister of finance. Fuck the elite, amirite people?

[Legion]

I didn't bother reading all the replies to this post. With that being said, here is my opinion on the matter.

Hillary lost the election for herself. First of all, had another democrat like Bernie Sanders been given the nomination, he would have probably beaten Trump. Clinton can blame herself for that one. Also, Hillary lost major and traditionally democratic states. That's also on her. If she can't even garner the vote of traditionally hard core democrats, doesn't that tell you something?

I'm glad Trump won. First off, Hillary is a liar. She's had her chance to make a difference and introduce policies that actually helped someone. Instead, after most of her adult life in Washington politics, she's mostly been a failure. As Secretary of State, she failed many times...specifically to point to the Benghazi mess. Not only does she lie, but she apparently can't be trusted with sensitive data. Oh, that was just an accident? Tell that to the staffers who spend endless hours trying to delete all that data.

Trump is an outsider as far as politics are concerned. Yes, he's been around. Yes, he's donated money to many political cronies. However, he isn't influenced by people pulling his strings because they gave him money. He's not afraid to speak his mind, albeit not always with the most couth. He's also pro-America and what ever will help us prosper as a nation. He doesn't want to stop immigration like people claim...he wants to stop ILLEGAL immigration instead of giving them a pass like the current Administration. He wants to protect us. Strengthen us. Produce financial growth. Repeal the mess of Obamacare.

I could go on and on, but the bottom line is, I personally think he is what's best for our country. Only time will tell exactly what he'll do, good or bad. If we made a mistake, we'll find out the hard way. No matter what though, I still feel he would not mess us up as much as Hillary would have. He deserves a chance, just like Obama was given.

I pretty much agree with everything you said, I would prefer someone like Castle in office because of his views on the UN and NATO, but Trump is ok imo.

[A. P. Hill]

My apologies, my work day interfered.

That said ..


Let's not start committing crimes yourself. ...

ROFLMFAO! Seriously?


... That's not the point. Yes, Trump has won according to the law, there is no doubt. ...

Yes, this is exactly the point. The laws say that as soon as one candidate reaches 270 electoral votes, the contest ends, it doesn't matter whose vote is left in the popular.

The point is and was, that at the time that Trump broke the 270 score, he was still ahead of Clinton in the popular vote, so according to law he won both. Clinton did the intelligent thing and conceded. She could have been a real pain and put up a fight if she thought she were in the right, but she knows the U.S. law apparently better than those of you saying that the votes coming in still count. She knew when to quit.


... But from the perspective of democracy, people are rightly mad that the candidate with the least votes won the election. It basically means some Americans are more entiteled to elect their president then others, which isn't fair.

It's entirely fair. And you would have called it fair had the numbers been reversed. Lets face facts.

What you're seeing now in a small section of the country are those of the snowflake generation who have not been taught that there are winners and there are losers. They've been coddled all their life all they know is to pitch a fit when things don't appear to go their way. They're wasting their time, and destroying property and their lives, because no one in the political realm in this country is going to agree with them.

For over 200 years this process has worked, and it still works. In fact, there have been 4 elections for president where the results were similar to this years election and yet, the candidate with the 270 electoral votes always got the job as president.

Oh and for the record, the United States is a republic, not a democracy. And that's a representative republic. Which is exactly what you just witnessed.

Sorry my friend your understanding of the American Political system is flawed.

[Legion]

Apparently Obama is thinking of pardoning Hillary before he leaves office, not certain but it seems likely.

[General. Jackson]

Can someone explain to me what she's being charged with exactly?

[Legion]

Can someone explain to me what she's being charged with exactly?

She hasn't been charged with anything yet but from what I understand she can be charged with multiple crimes.
Obstruction of justice is the main charge from my understanding.

[Mercuri]

Again, the lefties (suposed to be followers of the democracy) are not accepting the results of the democratics elections when they dont win, I hear californians want to secede from the union cause of the Trump's win (I mean the people not officialy the state's goberment), same happened in Spain in the last presidential elections. Just want to know your opinion about this guys.
What do you think about California leaving the USA? Republicans will win all the elections if that happens

[Bravescot]

They could make it in their own I recon. They, New York and Texas are the only three states financially strong enough to go independent. As an actually logical idea I think it's bonkers.

[FrancisM]

Again, the lefties (suposed to be followers of the democracy) s

What is this suppose to mean? That right-wingers do not have to respect democracy because they dislike it anyway?

And no, A.P Hill, I wouldn't have called it fair if Clinton had won with less votes. The American electoral system is unrepresentative and argueably the worst in the western world in representing its people (which is supposidly what democracy is about) and the very fact you can win an election with less votes is against the founding principle of democracy - the majority, eventually, wins. Saying 'it still works' and therefor it should not be altered is not only naive (because a bad electoral system detaches its people, as is clearly happening) but also ignores the fact it has been changed before. I'm not argueing that Clinton should be made president. I'm argueing for a change of system.

And yes, just in case you weren't aware, you're not entiteled to fight riots. You're entiteled to protect yourself, not to play police or the army.

[thomas aagaard]

Again, the lefties (suposed to be followers of the democracy) are not accepting the results of the democratics elections when they dont win, I hear californians want to secede from the union cause of the Trump's win (I mean the people not officialy the state's goberment), same happened in Spain in the last presidential elections. Just want to know your opinion about this guys.
What do you think about California leaving the USA? Republicans will win all the elections if that happens
Trump have talked a lot about the election being rigged and have been rather unclear about if He would accept the results. So He have done a lot to make people mistrust the election. And the DNC have done plenty to make the left mistrust the elections thanks to their rigging and outride cheating during the primaries have done the exact same on the left... So no surprise that some have hard time accepting the results.

Remember that the same happened in 1860 ;-) when the south lost the election... so would not be the first time in US history that the looser of a presidential election didn't want to accept the results... And they did actually g true with a unilateral secession.


I don't see an issue with states leaving the union, as long as they don't do it unilaterally. That is - They declare it by them self.
A state should go to Congress and say "we want to leave" and then find a solution. And this could be done using the same procedure used when adding a new state to the union. (so a % of the other states need to approve of it)

I really don't think this will happen. But if California did this, I would think the rest of the west coast might follow.
I believe California would be the worlds 7th largest economy if they where on their own?

[Legion]

What is this suppose to mean? That right-wingers do not have to respect democracy because they dislike it anyway?

And no, A.P Hill, I wouldn't have called it fair if Clinton had won with less votes. The American electoral system is unrepresentative and argueably the worst in the western world in representing its people (which is supposidly what democracy is about) and the very fact you can win an election with less votes is against the founding principle of democracy - the majority, eventually, wins. Saying 'it still works' and therefor it should not be altered is not only naive (because a bad electoral system detaches its people, as is clearly happening) but also ignores the fact it has been changed before. I'm not argueing that Clinton should be made president. I'm argueing for a change of system.

And yes, just in case you weren't aware, you're not entiteled to fight riots. You're entiteled to protect yourself, not to play police or the army.

Hill is right, the system works as it should and it's always been this way. Just because someones candidate didn't win doesn't mean we should change the system. This is the way the founding fathers made it and this is how it should stay.

Btw, the USA isn't a democracy, it's a democratic-republic.
It's not a true republic and it's not a true democracy, it's a combination of the two.

[FrancisM]

Oh please. The founding fathers (with just a few exceptions) believed in slavery and that only land-owning males should be able to vote. Stop pretending they're some kind of all-knowing Gods whose ways should never be questioned.

[Legion]

Oh please. The founding fathers believed in slavery and that only land-owning males should be able to vote. Stop pretending they're some kind of all-knowing Gods whose ways should never be questioned.

The way they set up the government and laid out all of our rights shouldn't be changed. You can think it's wrong all you want but it wont change anything.

[FrancisM]

But it has changed. Tremendously so. The president used to be elected by electors elected by the State Houses, not the people. The Vice-president used to be the guy with the 2nd most votes. The senators used to be elected also by the State houses, not by popular vote. And your rights? They decided females and people of colour should not have them. All of these things have been changed to improve the system. Saying the system works because your country hasn't fallen apart yet (Let's ignore that little disturbance in the 1860's) is a very odd definition of a working system.

[Mercuri]

What is this suppose to mean? That right-wingers do not have to respect democracy because they dislike it anyway?

No, you didnt undestand me. In a democratic system right center and left are suposed to be democrats. What I mean in that sentence this people (in this case the lefties) are not showing as democrats as all are supposed to be, independently of their political posición.


They could make it in their own I recon. They, New York and Texas are the only three states financially strong enough to go independent. As an actually logical idea I think it's bonkers.

In my opinion a region of a country cant make It by its own, all the members of the country need to be asked, this is happening in Spain with Catalonia who is the 2nd economic motor of the country, and they dont care about what is going to happen with the other poor regional of the country. I know whats going on in Scotland and I think is not the same cause you was a country in the fast and you have the right to decide by your own.

[thomas aagaard]

Hill is right, the system works as it should and it's always been this way. Just because someones candidate didn't win doesn't mean we should change the system. This is the way the founding fathers made it and this is how it should stay.

Btw, the USA isn't a democracy, it's a democratic-republic.
It's not a true republic and it's not a true democracy, it's a combination of the two.
They also gave different options on how you change the system... With amendments.. so clearly the fathers wanted future generations to change things...

and they made the system for a small union of states hugging the east coast... not a 300+ million union across a continent.

[Legion]

They also gave different options on how you change the system... With amendments.. so clearly the fathers wanted future generations to change things...

and they made the system for a small union of states hugging the east coast... not a 300+ million union across a continent.

It's not that they wanted things to change but they gave the option to future generations to do so if they see fit. Just because we can change things doesn't mean we should.

Whether it's for a small group of states or a huge amount of states, it all works the same. It doesn't matter how large the population grows, the process remains the same, it doesn't suddenly function different just because the population grows.

EDIT: Interesting vid.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=inSRzwYbjos

[Bravescot]

At the end of the day at least Mike Pence is not the President. He is by far worse than anything I could have imagined America would vote for.

He believes in Aversion Therapy
He passed a Bill that allows women to be jailed for miscarrying.
He very well may want to erode the separation of church and state.

I really really really want Trump to be an amazing president, and I do not say that lightly at all, so that Pence will never be allowed into office.

[thomas aagaard]

No the process for change is the same, but with huge changes of the country... some changes have been needed to the Constitution.
(the ban on slavery, the right to vote for women, the two term limit on the president, and so on...)

Here in Denmark we originally had a two chamber system but in early 20th century it was realized that it was not needed and one attempt on removing the upper chamber was done in the mid 1930ties.
(but it failed since a specific % of the total voters much vote yes and too few showed up) so it was not changed until 1953.


The clip. A lot of BS in it.
He is a disgusting man who is only dividing the US population even more and spreading hate and fear. And he is only adding the the problem, not helping solve it.

A demonstration or even a riot is not a rebellion. Unless you got a statehouse declaring Independence?

And both Trump and Clinton (or the DNC) have done a lot to make everyone distrust the election system... so not really surprising that there are reactions like this.
Had Clinton won we would have seen the exact same reaction, just from other groups.

Is some talking about secession or moving to Canada? Naturally, just like four years ago.. and 8 years ago.

Had Clinton won Trump might not even have accepted the election. On the 6th November he tweeted that "The electoral college is a disaster for democracy". and he have in speeches made commend about how he might not accept the election since it is rigged.

The US have a huge challenge with a very divided population. And the two party system and politicians who care more about their donors and their own political power than serving the public don't help.

[Legion]

No the process for change is the same, but with huge changes of the country... some changes have been needed to the Constitution.
(the ban on slavery, the right to vote for women, the two term limit on the president, and so on...)

Here in Denmark we originally had a two chamber system but in early 20th century it was realized that it was not needed and one attempt on removing the upper chamber was done in the mid 1930ties.
(but it failed since a specific % of the total voters much vote yes and too few showed up) so it was not changed until 1953.


The clip. A lot of BS in it.
He is a disgusting man who is only dividing the US population even more and spreading hate and fear. And he is only adding the the problem, not helping solve it.

A demonstration or even a riot is not a rebellion. Unless you got a statehouse declaring Independence?

And both Trump and Clinton (or the DNC) have done a lot to make everyone distrust the election system... so not really surprising that there are reactions like this.
Had Clinton won we would have seen the exact same reaction, just from other groups.

Is some talking about secession or moving to Canada? Naturally, just like four years ago.. and 8 years ago.

Had Clinton won Trump might not even have accepted the election. On the 6th November he tweeted that "The electoral college is a disaster for democracy". and he have in speeches made commend about how he might not accept the election since it is rigged.

The US have a huge challenge with a very divided population. And the two party system and politicians who care more about their donors and their own political power than serving the public don't help.

In all honesty I think that if Hillary had won people would have just sucked it up like all the other times. Riots are against the law and are rebellion by definition. The constitution protects our right to gather and protest but not riot.

Half of the country didn't even vote so if you wanna blame anyone for Hillary not being elected, blame those who don't vote.

Imo Liberals are a bunch of crybaby snowflakes and hypocrites, they are a disgrace to America and have no pride in being American.

I say let the kids have their tantrum and face the consequences if they don't settle down and obey the law.

[Bravescot]

Are all my points just getting ignored...kind of hurts :(

[A. P. Hill]

Are all my points just getting ignored...kind of hurts :(

This conversation is obviously not about you ....

That said ...

Okay, let’s address this “Hillary might win the popular vote, isn’t that Electoral College situation just awful” thing head on.

No, it’s not awful. It’s great, and it protects the importance of your vote. It’s also uniquely American and demonstrates yet again the once-in-creation brilliance of the Founding Fathers.

First of all, she’s probably not going to win the actual number of votes cast. She may win the number of votes counted, but not the votes cast.

States don’t count their absentee ballots unless the number of outstanding absentee ballots is larger than the state margin of difference. If there is a margin of 1000 votes counted and there are 1300 absentee ballots outstanding, then the state tabulates those. If the number of outstanding absentee ballots wouldn’t influence the election results, then the absentee ballots aren’t counted.

Who votes by absentee ballot? Students overseas, the military, businesspeople on trips, etc. The historical breakout for absentee ballots is about 67-33% Republican. In 2000, when Al Gore “won” the popular vote nationally by 500,000 votes and the liberal media screamed bloody murder, there were 2 million absentee ballots in CA alone.*A 67-33 breakout of those yields a 1.33-.667 mil Republican vote advantage, so Bush would have gotten a 667,000-vote margin from CA’s uncounted absentee ballots alone! So much for Gore’s 500,000 popular vote “victory.” (That was the headline on the NY Times and it was the lead story on the NBC Nightly News, right? No? You’re kidding.)

But... getting back to the “Win the popular vote/lose the Electoral College” scenario: Thank G-d we have that, or else CA and NY would determine every election. Every time.

I’ll draw a boxing analogy for you. In boxing, the scoring for a completed fight (one where there’s no knockout, but instead goes the full distance) is done either on a Rounds basis or a Points basis (agreed upon in advance). Let’s say it’s a 10-round fight, scored on the Rounds basis. The judges decide which boxer wins each round and the fight is scored 7-3 or 6-4 or 8-2.

The other way a fight can be scored is on the Points basis. Under this system, a fighter is given 10 points for winning the round, the loser gets 1-9 points, depending on how close or badly he loses it.

Let’s say Jones has two really big rounds where he knocks Jackson down a few times and really has him in trouble, winning those two rounds by scores of 10-6. But Jones only wins two other rounds, and those by very close 10-9 margins.

Jackson wins the 6 other rounds, all by 10-9 margins. No question that Jackson won those six rounds, but they weren’t overly dramatic. Just solid wins.

So Jackson wins by rounds, 6-4.

Jones wins by points, 94-90.

CA and NY are the 10-6 rounds. Those two states will unduly and disproportionately affect the election --every time. The other big population states are all 10-9 rounds. That means that the vast majority of 48 states and their populations will be subject to the whim and desire of just two states. If those two states have similar demographics and voting preferences at any particular point in time (which they do now), then those two states call the shots for the entire country.

But the Electoral College brilliantly smooths out the variances in the voting proclivities among states and regions. Farmers in the middle of the country and importers/exporters on the shore get roughly equal say, as do Madison Ave execs and factory workers in Tennessee.

Shortcomings? Sure. The EC can make an R vote meaningless in a very few heavily D states or vice-versa. But without the Electoral College, the country’s entire population is subject to the disproportionate voting preferences of the few most populous states.

Read more:*http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/...#ixzz4Phr0BkTz

[Legion]

Are all my points just getting ignored...kind of hurts :(

I got you buddy.
I think Pence is going to be a good balance for Trump, I wouldn't want two hotheads being together. In all honesty though I don't think Pence would be all that bad as president. I think the majority of Americans would be ok with it, obviously Europeans may feel differently, but if this election has shown anything, it's clear that Americans and Europeans think very differently.

[TrustyJam]

I got you buddy.
I think Pence is going to be a good balance for Trump, I wouldn't want two hotheads being together. In all honesty though I don't think Pence would be all that bad as president. I think the majority of Americans would be ok with it, obviously Europeans may feel differently, but if this election has shown anything, it's clear that Americans and Europeans think very differently.

You mean half of the US population and the europeans think differently. :P

Also cool it with the derogatory verbs aimed at the liberals.

- Trusty

[Bravescot]

I got you buddy.
I think Pence is going to be a good balance for Trump, I wouldn't want two hotheads being together. In all honesty though I don't think Pence would be all that bad as president. I think the majority of Americans would be ok with it, obviously Europeans may feel differently, but if this election has shown anything, it's clear that Americans and Europeans think very differently.

Cheers Legion, you got my back there ;).

I think most Europeans don't actually know who Pence is and if they did I thin they'd loose their collective minds if get got into office. Either way you guys have Trump now and I can't say I'm not pleased to see his statements about banning Muslims from the US vanishing from his website. He's taking on a heavy mantle and if the office has shown anything
http://static.boredpanda.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/before-and-after-term-us-presidents-8.jpg
http://static.boredpanda.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/before-and-after-term-us-presidents-fb.jpg
http://truttmd.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/presidents-stress-JPG.jpg
It's that Trump doesn't have enough orange to hide that much ageing! xD

[Legion]

You mean half of the US population and the europeans think differently. :P

Also cool it with the derogatory verbs aimed at the liberals.

- Trusty

I would say it's over half but there is really no way to tell.

Also, I'm sorry if I've offended you but it's the truth, at least here in the US.


Cheers Legion, you got my back there ;).

I think most Europeans don't actually know who Pence is and if they did I thin they'd loose their collective minds if get got into office. Either way you guys have Trump now and I can't say I'm not pleased to see his statements about banning Muslims from the US vanishing from his website. He's taking on a heavy mantle and if the office has shown anything
http://static.boredpanda.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/before-and-after-term-us-presidents-8.jpg
http://static.boredpanda.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/before-and-after-term-us-presidents-fb.jpg
http://truttmd.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/presidents-stress-JPG.jpg
It's that Trump doesn't have enough orange to hide that much ageing! xD

True, president is definitely a stressful job, I don't envy them in any way.

[TrustyJam]

I would say it's over half but there is really no way to tell.

Also, I'm sorry if I've offended you but it's the truth, at least here in the US.



True, president is definitely a stressful job, I don't envy them in any way.

It's about as much truth as me saying republicans are all a bunch of bible thumbing, gun loving anti minority people. See, nothing is ever black and white and certainly not when talking about millions of people.

- Trusty

[Legion]

It's about as much truth as me saying republicans are all a bunch of bible thumbing, gun loving anti minority people. See, nothing is ever black and white and certainly not when talking about millions of people.

- Trusty

I should have worded it better, I was referring to the people rioting and being violent.

Everything you said about republicans pretty much describes me (even though I'm not a republican), except for the minority part, though I am anti illegal and think they should be deported.

[Legion]

This election has brought into full light the deep political divide which is in America. The problem is; no one knows how to bridge that divide. Currently, both party's strategy for unifying America is complete destruction of the other party.
The main problem is that the two parties will never ever agree on a few issues. Namely; abortion, gun control, big government vs. small government, and, a new one, euthanasia of people who have medically been condemned to die. Neither side is willing to compromise on anything, causing the great divide that we see today. Thus they try to destroy "the other guy".
So how do we fix it? Do we step up our efforts to cooperate? Or do we let California and a few other states secede so that we can have a "right-wing" and "left-wing" America?
No one agrees on how to fix it, either.

This is one of the reasons the founding fathers never wanted a two party system, people go with their part most of the time and refuse to compromise.
Don't get me wrong, I'm the same way and there are a few things I will never compromise on, but we really need to find a way to work together as Americans.
The two party system is definitely part of the problem imo, but it goes much deeper than that.

[FrancisM]

And you can only fix the Two-party system by changing the electoral system because Single-member constituencies with FPTP always end up with two (main) parties.

[Bravescot]

And you can only fix the Two-party system by changing the electoral system because Single-member constituencies with FPTP always end up with two (main) parties.

So, here is one for everyone.

Say the US was to change their electoral system this year and adopt a new system. What system do you think would be better suited for a nation like the US that might promote a greater system of parties and remove the dead lock of the current system?

Please don't start picking one another's choice apart right off the bat. Try thinking of an answer first and then begin to debate one another's choices.

[David Dire]

Say the US was to change their electoral system this year and adopt a new system. What system do you think would be better suited for a nation like the US that might promote a greater system of parties and remove the dead lock of the current system?

Communism.

[FrancisM]

1. - Elect House of Representatives by (option A). Single transferable vote in state-wide constituencies for the smaller states and larger districts for the major states or (Option B). Alternative vote in the current congressional districts. This allows people to actually cast their vote based on preference rather then hathed for the other party. Votes are now never spoiled. Small parties will receive larger share of the votes or even become competitive, forcing other parties to adapt to the actual political climate. The current main parties can only adapt to a certain degree before they come too spread. But even if they are able to, this will make Congress already more representational.

2. - If congressional districts are maintained, have them being drawn by neutral commitees. Gerrymandering is a huge problem.

3. Install Alternative Vote single-member elections like Mayor, Governor and President.

4. Either abolish the electoral college, or at the very least abolish the First Past the Post-system in it and replace it by a proportional system.

If you have no idea how STV works: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8XOZJkozfI

AV works the same way, but with only one candidate being able to get himself elected.

[William F. Randolph]

Idea I had, there's talk of Michelle Obama running for President, and obviously we had Bill Clinton's wife running recently. Should couples be limited to two presidential terms, seeing as how the spouse is usually somewhat influential in some Presidential decisions?

Interesting idea, because co-op presidencies between spouses are a currently possibility leading to a max of 16 years of power in the White House, regardless of who holds the official title of President.

[yoyo8346]

Idea I had, there's talk of Michelle Obama running for President, and obviously we had Bill Clinton's wife running recently. Should couples be limited to two presidential terms, seeing as how the spouse is usually somewhat influential in some Presidential decisions?

Interesting idea, because co-op presidencies between spouses are a currently possibility leading to a max of 16 years of power in the White House, regardless of who holds the official title of President.

They need to be elected though, so I don't see a problem. FDR himself was in office for 12 years. I'm making an assumption when I say this, but I think it's more that you just don't like the Obamas rather than you want it to be more fair.

[VOLCUSGAMING]

Idea I had, there's talk of Michelle Obama running for President, and obviously we had Bill Clinton's wife running recently. Should couples be limited to two presidential terms, seeing as how the spouse is usually somewhat influential in some Presidential decisions?

Interesting idea, because co-op presidencies between spouses are a currently possibility leading to a max of 16 years of power in the White House, regardless of who holds the official title of President.

That idea is idiotic! (No offense, or maybe a bit :p :) :p)
That would lead to women-oppression, and if a man or women is smart, tough and trustworthy enough i think they deserve to be president...
Also if Michelle wanted to be president she and obama could just get divorced and then married after....


I'm making an assumption when I say this, but I think it's more that you just don't like the Obamas rather than you want it to be more fair.
I guess you are right.

[VOLCUSGAMING]

I am anti illegal and think they should be deported.
Did you know that a study have shown that it wouldn't be good for the US if all illegal imigrants were sent away, it would actually be very bad!

I couldn't find the specific article but i found another one:http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-08-18/here-s-what-the-u-s-economy-would-look-like-if-trump-deported-undocumented-immigrants!

[Legion]

Did you know that a study have shown that it wouldn't be good for the US if all illegal imigrants were sent away, it would actually be very bad!

I couldn't find the specific article but i found another one:http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-08-18/here-s-what-the-u-s-economy-would-look-like-if-trump-deported-undocumented-immigrants!

I'm willing to face the consequences. The bottom line is they shouldn't be here illegally, if they want to stay then they need to become citizens.

[VOLCUSGAMING]

The bottom line is they shouldn't be here illegally, if they want to stay then they need to become citizens.
I understand, but then Trump should help them become legal citizens instead of sending them away.

[Legion]

I understand, but then Trump should help them become legal citizens instead of sending them away.

I'd be fine with that, but in reality it doesn't cost hardly anything to become a citizen (naturalization is the cheapest method, around $700) and there are already programs in place to help people who can't afford it.
There's really no excuse for people not becoming citizens, but if they really need help then I say help them. If they refuse then they need to go.

[FrancisM]

And they should all be able to speak correct English, right?

[VOLCUSGAMING]

I'd be fine with that, but in reality it doesn't cost hardly anything to become a citizen (naturalization is the cheapest method, around $700) and there are already programs in place to help people who can't afford it.
There's really no excuse for people not becoming citizens, but if they really need help then I say help them. If they refuse then they need to go.

I agree that if they don't want to become citizens they shall leave the country.
But generally i think that the world looks wrong at illegal imigrants and refugees, if we just made them citizens they could deliver a strong work force...

[thomas aagaard]

In all honesty I think that if Hillary had won people would have just sucked it up like all the other times. Riots are against the law and are rebellion by definition. The constitution protects our right to gather and protest but not riot.

Half of the country didn't even vote so if you wanna blame anyone for Hillary not being elected, blame those who don't vote.


That still don't make it a rebellion, unless you seriously think the hope to topple the government by doing it?

They are angry and frustrated... but it is not an organised rebellion where they are trying to change the government.

The civil war was a rebellion (from the point of view of the union) so was the war of independence., This is not.. this is "just" riots.
(please note I don't think it is acceptable behavior. Peaceful Demonstrations yes, riots no)


I fully agree that Clinton (and the DNC) are to blame.
She got something like 5½ million voted less then Obama did four years ago. She is corrupt and in the pocket of wall street and would be even more war happy than Obama. And I really don't think dynasties are any good for a democracy. The US will be better of without more Bush's and Clintons.

Among young people 51% voted last time... 19% this time. (don't remember if it was democratic votes or votes in general)
Her attitude sucked and she behaved like she had earned the presidency... and she never managed to tell people why they should show up and vote for her.


T
Okay, let’s address this “Hillary might win the popular vote, isn’t that Electoral College situation just awful” thing head on.

Trump think it is wrong... he wrote so on twitter on the 6th.


And what I think is really wrong is the fact that there are nothing stopping the college from electing Clinton the president.
In most states it is not illegal and in the states where it is, you just get a small fine.

So yes the system is stupid.
And the whole "winner takes all" is just undemocratic.. since that is a huge part of the problem. You can become the president with something like 35% of the votes.


What do make sense is some type of weighted system, where states do get x votes based on population size. That make perfect sense.

And giving the smaller states relative more weight that the big states also make sense.
(just like the two chamber system makes sense for a big Union with big and small parts. Th EU have done something similar for the same reasons)

But it should be done proportionally like two states do.

[Legion]

And they should all be able to speak correct English, right?
Yes, there's nothing wrong with speaking your native language of course but if you want to be a citizen you should learn English.


I agree that if they don't want to become citizens they shall leave the country.
But generally i think that the world looks wrong at illegal imigrants and refugees, if we just made them citizens they could deliver a strong work force...

True, but America already has a strong workforce. We need people who are going to be beneficial to the country. Immigration used to be harder (in some ways) than it is today, they turned back people at the gate and sent them home.

We really need selective immigration like we used to have, that way immigrants have time to assimilate, that way they can take on the culture, language, etc.

[Legion]

That still don't make it a rebellion, unless you seriously think the hope to topple the government by doing it?

They are angry and frustrated... but it is not an organised rebellion where they are trying to change the government.

The civil war was a rebellion (from the point of view of the union) so was the war of independence., This is not.. this is "just" riots.
(please note I don't think it is acceptable behavior. Peaceful Demonstrations yes, riots no)


I fully agree that Clinton (and the DNC) are to blame.
She got something like 5½ million voted less then Obama did four years ago. She is corrupt and in the pocket of wall street and would be even more war happy than Obama. And I really don't think dynasties are any good for a democracy. The US will be better of without more Bush's and Clintons.

Among young people 51% voted last time... 19% this time. (don't remember if it was democratic votes or votes in general)
Her attitude sucked and she behaved like she had earned the presidency... and she never managed to tell people why they should show up and vote for her.

It may not be a rebellion in the usual sense, but it is a rebellion. Any act of disobedience against law and authority is an act of rebellion. I'm not saying they are trying to overthrow the government.

[thomas aagaard]

So, here is one for everyone.

Say the US was to change their electoral system this year and adopt a new system. What system do you think would be better suited for a nation like the US that might promote a greater system of parties and remove the dead lock of the current system?.

The two chamber system with all members getting the same representation in one chamber and the other based on population do make a lot of sense.
(The EU got something similar)

But change it to a Multi party system. And to get that you need to change the representation to a proportional system for each state.

So if a state have 20 members of the house and a 3rd party get 10% of the vote, they get two of the 20 seats.

To make it work in the senate it should properly change to 4 members pr. stat.


another option would be allowing election alliances. So if the green party is allied with the democrats, then if they do not get elected, their voted go to the democrats. This make it easier for small parties, since there is no risk of wasted votes.


As Senator Vinick mention in the west wing. In Europe the republicans would be 3 or 4 parties.



Idea I had, there's talk of Michelle Obama running for President, and obviously we had Bill Clinton's wife running recently. Should couples be limited to two presidential terms, seeing as how the spouse is usually somewhat influential in some Presidential decisions?

She said no way to running.


And I would say the same to that idea. A person is an individual. A wife (or husband) should not be legally limited by what another person did.

[FrancisM]

The two chamber system with all members getting the same representation in one chamber and the other based on population do make a lot of sense.
(The EU got something similar)

But change it to a Multi party system. And to get that you need to change the representation to a proportional system for each state


Not necessarily. As I mentioned earlier, you can achieve an open party system with STV or AV. Americans are so used to their system of local representation that I think it's politically impossible to convince them to install proportional representation. Maybe for a State House election.




another option would be allowing election alliances. So if the green party is allied with the democrats, then if they do not get elected, their voted go to the democrats. This make it easier for small parties, since there is no risk of wasted votes.

This can be achieved with AV/STV. And its preferable, because it gives people the ability to decide themselves who their 2nd or 3rd choice is, rather then the parties.


Yes, there's nothing wrong with speaking your native language of course but if you want to be a citizen you should learn English.

You made a double negative in your post.

[thomas aagaard]

Not necessarily. As I mentioned earlier, you can achieve an open party system with STV or AV. Americans are so used to their system of local representation that I think it's politically impossible to convince them to install proportional representation. Maybe for a State House election.




This can be achieved with AV/STV. And its preferable, because it gives people the ability to decide themselves who their 2nd or 3rd choice is, rather then the parties.



You made a double negative in your post.

There are ways of combining local representatives with a proportional system... we got one here in Denmark.

[William F. Randolph]

They need to be elected though, so I don't see a problem. FDR himself was in office for 12 years. I'm making an assumption when I say this, but I think it's more that you just don't like the Obamas rather than you want it to be more fair.

No I don't like them, but just the idea that we could've had the same family in the oval office for 16 years is kind of a loophole to that two term deal, I know this won't ever be done but it is an interesting way to look at it.

[Lackay]

i found it harder to vote for clinton primarily due to the incredible nastiness that comes from her supporters... the conservatives I know in my life served in the military, are law enforcement officers, and firefighters. not a shred of hate, bigotry or racism came from them. just a severe distrust of hillary clinton, and rightly so. i share in the confusion over why the republican party refuses to accept the facts of global climate change. it happens regardless of our actions, but our actions are increasing its speed and it should be addressed. neil degrasse tyson and billl nye need to have a serious sit down with trump and the republicans

[Mercuri]

You guys telling that the 2 parties system is the problem because it divides the people, imagine having 5 parties like we have in Spain (from far-right, right, center, left and far-left) and tell me wich system divides more the population... Imagine the fascist and the marxist participating in the politics, tv debates or going voting with the democratics parties, tell me this system is less problematic than yours :/

[thomas aagaard]

We got nine in parties in "folketinget" atm. And coalition governments of 2-3 or 4 parties are common.
(currently we don't have one, and that is rather abnormal)


And another two parties are able to run the next time.
(one is the "christian democrats" they received like 0,5% of the votes last time.... the other is a new right wing Trump wannabe party. hate the muslims and more money to the rich... and less to the poor.)

Sure they are divided into red and blue block. Since the prime minister is the one who can gather the most support...
(the red being the parties that is most inspired by socialism, big state and similar.
So blue include the economic liberals, who want a small state and low taxes... and it include the nationalistic and conservative parties. And then there are the progressive party who don't want to be placed on the classic left/right line and are ready to make deals with both sides. But do support (red) the social democrats. )

And party loyalty is, just like in the US way, way to common.
But with more parties it is a lot easier to make compromises since you just need to find a party that agree with you on the issue.
And even parties that in some areas are rather fare from each other, do agree with each other on others.

And this also help giving a tradition of very wide compromises, so you can often have most parties supporting a bill. The advantage is that after an election the agreement will still hold.
This make long term planning and changed easier and make the whole system more stable.

You simply don't have the same risk of the opposition grid locking everything as have happened to a large extent in the US for he last 8 years.

[FrancisM]

You guys telling that the 2 parties system is the problem because it divides the people, imagine having 5 parties like we have in Spain (from far-right, right, center, left and far-left) and tell me wich system divides more the population... Imagine the fascist and the marxist participating in the politics, tv debates or going voting with the democratics parties, tell me this system is less problematic than yours :/

Spain also has huge regionalist issues, was a dictatorship for 40 years just a few decades ago and had a historic civil war. Imcomparible with the USA. Besides, people already ARE divided - a two-party system just ignores this and pretends everything is fine, which is how you get angry people who feel politics don't represent them. People who argue for a Majority system because 'it works better' fail to see that the point of parliaments are to represent the people and perform checks and balances over the executive government, and therefor it needs to be representative.

[yoyo8346]

An interesting clip from last night's airing of Real Time with Bill Maher. It features Eric Holder (former US attorney general) and talks about what a few of you have been discussing


https://youtu.be/PrF16RJl7yA

[Lackay]

party loyalty is losing steam in the US among millennials. noticing how both parties fail to meet the needs of their supporters all too frequently lol

[FakeMessiah27]

I think, more than anything, the First-Past-The-Post system is the problem. If people could simply vote for the party they most agree with, without having to fear that by doing so they end up helping a party with the exact opposite beliefs into power, will eventually allow more parties to establish themselves.

[thomas aagaard]

I think, more than anything, the First-Past-The-Post system is the problem. If people could simply vote for the party they most agree with, without having to fear that by doing so they end up helping a party with the exact opposite beliefs into power, will eventually allow more parties to establish themselves.

Fully agree. As I might have mentioned before, back in late 19th early 20th century Denmark had that system... and changed it since it is not democratic and gave some very unfair results. Especially when two parties decided to work together keep a 3rd one out of power.
(so in zone A everyone from the two parties would vote party 1 candidate into power. and in the ext zone they would vote party 2)

Just to show the difference using numbers from our election last summer.

We got 9 parties represent after the last election.
25% votes to party 1.
20% to party 2.
20% to party 3.
the rest to the rest of the parties. And their number of MPs are very close to this %.
(one further party was electable but got less than the needed 2% and didn't get in)

If we used the US system and used 10 election zones or "states" (storkredse) where the each zone would get the number of MPs that they represent today. with a "winner takes all" system... (so similar to the system used in the house in the us)
Are done with the real numbers from last election.
Party 1 would get 78% of the seats. (would take 8 out of 10 "states")
party 2 would get 13%
Party 3 would get 9%
The rest of the parties would not get represented.

With 78% of the seats party 1 would be able to do pretty much want they want.


Another option is imagining a two party system, where every MP was elected in a one person election zone.
The parties that support the current government is one party.(closest to the republicans)
This include party 2 and 3...

And the rest of the parties who support the social democrats (closest to the democrats) is the other party.

The split today are 52% / 48%
But using the US system the representation would be 60% /40%

[yoyo8346]

http://imgur.com/7BRANwI.png

lol, this message clearly resonated in the U.S. election

[Lackay]

I don't know... if we changed our system to the popular vote, California would swing the election blue every single time. We've got to at least give the right a chance, right?

when you say popular vote, do you discount the 30ish percent of people in California who are staunch conservatives?

[Legion]

I don't know... if we changed our system to the popular vote, California would swing the election blue every single time. We've got to at least give the right a chance, right?

We shouldn't changed the system to popular vote, we should leave it as is. The only thing we should change is the two party system.

[Lackay]

We shouldn't changed the system to popular vote, we should leave it as is. The only thing we should change is the two party system.

i bet they work in a perfect world scenario, but as others have mentioned before, you end up giving extremists a better political platform by dividing up moderates on both sides of the isle

[Legion]

California has a population of 40 million people. That's something like ~12% of the entire U.S. population. I am discounting those 30% of Californians who are conservatives, because Californian liberals outnumber them by such a huge margin that they have enough influence to sway the elections by whole percentage points. Trump had an extremely solid lead in the popular vote over Clinton before west coast votes were counted.

I do agree that the two-party system has to go, though. People are simply too different to group into two political parties. The problem is that there would have to be a party split on both sides of the aisle to keep the elections fair.

I also should add that it is my opinion we need to give more power to the states. Liberals are right when they say Trump does not represent them. So why not make state governors have a little more power, so that everyone is able to choose their leader based on their regional needs, and make it much more difficult for the president and the high government to dictate state legislation?

Thats how it's supposed to work, the main power is supposed to be with the states/people.

Here's a pretty good article of how the government is actually supposed to work based on what the constitution says.
http://conservatives4palin.com/2011/05/the-constitutional-role-of-the-federal-government.html

The system doesn't work as good as it should due to the fact that the government has gotten so large, there was never meant to be large government in the US, it's supposed to be small, and the majority of the power should be with the states/people.

[A. P. Hill]

Sorry so late on this, but work sucks when it takes so much of my attention.

But I did want to correct this statement


Btw, the USA isn't a democracy, it's a democratic-republic. ...

It's not a democratic republic, it's a Representative Republic, thus the Representative Electoral College vote and the term House of Representatives. :)

[FakeMessiah27]

The Electoral College could even stay in place if they did away with the First-Past-The-Post. Instead of giving all of the electors of a state to the candidate who won the majority, assign electors based on the % of people who voted for a certain candidate. So if there was a super state with 100 electors, and 60 percent voted party A and 40% voted party B; party A gets 60 electors to sent to the Electoral College and part B gets 40. That way if you're a conservative living in California you don't feel like your vote is going to waste, and if you're a democrat in Texas, same story.

Both the EC and the alternative leave a certain group less represented, so both have their unfair sides. It's just a matter of what you feel is more important, the actual majority (or the popular vote) or the smaller states who otherwise get overshadowed by more populated states.

Personally, I feel like the actual majority should count harder, but then again I'm from a small country with a very centralised government, lacking the decentralised tradition that the USA have.

[Legion]

Sorry so late on this, but work sucks when it takes so much of my attention.

But I did want to correct this statement



It's not a democratic republic, it's a Representative Republic, thus the Representative Electoral College vote and the term House of Representatives. :)

Our government is a constitutionally limited representative democratic republic.
Representative democracy and representative republic are the same thing.

The US is by definition a democratic-republic, it has elements of both a democracy and republic.

[thomas aagaard]

Thats how it's supposed to work, the main power is supposed to be with the states/people.
.
I do think we can all agree that the people should have the power.
But Currently up to 50% of the people of each state are not represented because of the winner takes all system.
And that is the real problem since that system is what cause the two party system.

I think we need to split the presidential election, the house and the senate.
The proportional system is the biggest issue with presidential elections. But it could be done proportionally within each state.
So each state would still have a different number of votes but it would be split to the different candidates like Main? do..
(but get rid of the actual human college since there is currently nothing that stop them for electing Mcain, Biden or some other person (who is legally qualified) as president... in most states it would not even be illegal, and where it is, they would just get a small fine)


Changing to a proportional system would certainly help on the very voter turnout... since every vote would count. (in Denmark its between 85%-89% at our elections for Parliament)


But if you want a multi party system then you need proportional elections for the congress. (within each state)
The "winner takes all" system is what cause the two party system since if one party split into two, then the two new parties would never win any elections.


So if we look at the House since that would be the easiest to change.
With the current system one party will always get all of Californias votes, even if there where 5 parties.
But if it was changed to a proportional system (with in each state) then California would send representatives from a good number of parties to the House.


The senate should properly double in size since with only two representatives pr. state a multiparty system would not make much of a different for each state.


Our government is a constitutionally limited representative democratic republic.
Representative democracy and representative republic are the same thing.

The US is by definition a democratic-republic, it has elements of both a democracy and republic.
Agree. The important part is not republic or democracy.
But the fact that it is representative... like almost other democracies are. (the Swiss are one of the few clear exemptions)

The people elect representatives to do the governing and voting on bills and similar.

[Bravescot]

http://i.imgur.com/Vdg1ckv.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/AThPeOO.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/OTqy0z5.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/SBh3mmB.jpg

[FrancisM]

I took a half hour to make an excell sheet and see how the election would have gone if electoral votes were given out proportionally. I assumed that, as in most countries, a candidate is awarded no seats unless he has at least 1.

Trump recieves 273, Clinton 262, Johnson 3 and McMullin 1.

Though, we must also assume that people would vote different in this system, as voting in a 'safe' state actually has some purpose now. I'll play around a little bit with it tomorrow.

[Pvt.Scott]

Welp. Better make my opinion heard here.
Anyway, I am still pretty pissed at the election. But, I really don't feel like getting to a massive debate.
But, I will always believe that Hillary Clinton should be president of the United States of America. Hope those protests go well. Peace, I'll be back in a month or two.

[Oleander]

I took a half hour to make an excell sheet and see how the election would have gone if electoral votes were given out proportionally. I assumed that, as in most countries, a candidate is awarded no seats unless he has at least 1.

Trump recieves 273, Clinton 262, Johnson 3 and McMullin 1.

Though, we must also assume that people would vote different in this system, as voting in a 'safe' state actually has some purpose now. I'll play around a little bit with it tomorrow.

I don't think it would have made people vote differently, most don't keep up with such thing. I think the influence would have been so small that it would make no difference.

One thing I want to say is that the people talking about using the popular vote to choose a President are the same people that support a party that uses Superdelegates to choose their candidate

[FakeMessiah27]

I don't think it would have made people vote differently, most don't keep up with such thing. I think the influence would have been so small that it would make no difference.

I disagree.

A lot of people don't bother voting for a party besides the Republicans or Democrats, and instead vote for whichever one of those two they like best or dislike the least. In the current system, if a new conservative party were to be created it would barely get any votes because conservative voters would know that a vote for the new party helps the Democrats since it reduces the chance of the Republicans gaining the majority needed to win in a First-Past-The-Post system. The new party obviously doesn't stand a chance to get that majority either. The same would be true if a new progressive party is created that might sway Democratic voters.

All in all, First-Past-The-Post keeps the two party system alive. If it were to be changed to a representative system (which would be big news, so I think it's safe to say people would definitely know about it) people would know that a vote for a smaller party is not a wasted vote, since that smaller party would still get seats in parliament and could then work together with other parties of similar mind.

At the same time it would also mean, as has been stated before by others, that votes in "safe" states for the losing party actually matter. To go to two of the popular examples, if I were a Republican in New York or California I probably wouldn't even bother voting.

[thomas aagaard]

I took a half hour to make an excell sheet and see how the election would have gone if electoral votes were given out proportionally. I assumed that, as in most countries, a candidate is awarded no seats unless he has at least 1.

Trump recieves 273, Clinton 262, Johnson 3 and McMullin 1.


They are still counting votes in California, new york and 1-2 other states...

But I do agree that a proportional system within each state would be the logical step... without abolishing the system where small states have more power pr. capita than the big states. (and that system do help protect the smaller states)

[FrancisM]

It doesn't matter. I played around with the percentages and even if Trump gets 2 procentpoint more votes in California, it doesn't increase his seatcount. I did the same for a number of other states and some end up with an extra seat for Trump or Clinton, but for most a two-procent point difference doesn't alter the outcome.

[thomas aagaard]

It is still millions of votes and they properly mostly going to Clinton (since it is the big democratic states that is still counting) so it will make her win on the popular vote even bigger.

[FrancisM]

I doubt it. Percentages don't change that much once the greatest share of the votes have been counted. We'll see, though. I'll run the test again in due time.

[A. P. Hill]

It is still millions of votes and they properly mostly going to Clinton (since it is the big democratic states that is still counting) so it will make her win on the popular vote even bigger.

The point being made is ... the electoral college is the way the United States selects its President. And at the time that Pennsylvania was decided to go Trump, Trump had both the Electoral College and the popular vote over Clinton. What's to argue?

[FrancisM]

That no election ever is over until the very last vote has been counted. This should be a obvious.

[A. P. Hill]

That no election ever is over until the very last vote has been counted. This should be a obvious.

It's not. It's just that the government here said that with the electoral college involved, 270 is the magic number, popular votes after that don't mean anything. Get used to it, that's the way it's been for close on 200 years here. No need to change it now.

[FrancisM]

Votes may not change the outcome of the election anymore, but votes are never, ever meaningless. Every vote must be counted. To claim Trump actually won the popular vote because he was, at some point, ahead while millions upon millions of votes (of YOUR countrymen) has not been counted yet, is ludicrious.


Get used to it, that's the way it's been for close on 200 years here. No need to change it now.

Stop claiming the system hasn't changed because it has, and stop claiming there is no need to change it solely because it has been in place for a long time. That's a plain fallacy.

[Legion]

It's not. It's just that the government here said that with the electoral college involved, 270 is the magic number, popular votes after that don't mean anything. Get used to it, that's the way it's been for close on 200 years here. No need to change it now.

People will complain about everything, the system works, people are just angry that they elected Trump instead of Hillary. If Hillary had won the election they wouldn't be complaining.

[thomas aagaard]

Had trump won the popular vote and lost the college then Trump and his people would be complaining.
And considering that he a number of times questioned if he would accept the election (if he lost) it is also the question if he would accept it in that case.

[Lackay]

Had trump won the popular vote and lost the college then Trump and his people would be complaining.
And considering that he a number of times questioned if he would accept the election (if he lost) it is also the question if he would accept it in that case.

i thought the losing side complaining was common knowledge at this point

[Senseispcc2255]

I am from a very little country where there are many political parties that share power and not this two party system that divide a country. I did follow this presidential election and why in such a big country is there only a choice between a "clown" that has no experience of the most experience demanding job of all and a "woman" how has experience but links to the bad parts of the job that should disqualify her for it?! Why a so big country and so little choice?!