Verumae

congratulations. you've lost the argument. you've already embarrassed yourself pitifully, but honestly, just walk away.
 
for what it's worth, a very brief summation of why your most dear beliefs are wrong on an axiomatic level:
 
there are nation-states for white ethnic groups. in fact, there's an entire continent you can fuck up like that if you so please. it's called europe. your race does not have the exclusive and sole right to authority over the world's third largest nation, especially not one that was taken only within the last four centuries or so by brutal genocide and conquest. every american citizen has the right to have their interests served by the state and white nationalism fails to account for that. if blacks, mexicans and other ethnic minorities are your enemies, then congratulations, you are literally a white supremacist. it really is that simple.

Regardless I don't think anyone who's penned articles like these should be given a fuckin' chance

so you say you want whites to remain the minority, but even if we were to completely halt immigration, whites will lose majority status within the next few decades. how do you intend on changing that other than by gassing the melanin-enriched?

Which is racist, because your assumption is somehow only white people can uphold the constitution. As long as people abide by the principles laid out by the founding fathers it shouldn't matter what their skin color is or where they come from, but you seem to think differently. I think what that really comes down to is a fear that if people of color hold power, they'll treat white people who white people treated people of color. "My people have benefited from imperialism and the subjugation of other races for hundreds of years, but now because of all of these Mexicans pouring into my country, my kids might have to learn fucking Spanish! Oh the horror of being white!" Are you people serious?
 
Now, I can understand the idea that immigrants tip the scales in favor of the Democrats which unbalances the two parties, but if the Republicans are unable to adapt or compromise, that's on them. As far as what I see they refuse to do this, by the way. If anything they've become even more extreme and pandered to more radicals over the last decade which is making their situation even worse. Why should the Republicans deserve to have any power when they insist on making themselves more and more socially irrelevant? 

conservatives have some pretty ass-backwards views, so them losing is an objectively good thing

You've contradicted yourself.
 
Apartheid was a system put in place by the Dutch in South Africa. It wasn't a system of separation, it was objectively a system of oppression.
 
The Dutch were immigrants.
 
If you genuinely believe that Apartheid was a good thing, then by proxy you are saying that immigrants coming into a country and oppressing the native population through the enforcement of their own beliefs is a good thing.
 
So I guess you would be cool with immigrants coming in and implementing Sharia Law, correct?
 
But nah man, keep on posting your funny 4chan frog meme man!

that's what I thought ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
 
I will commend you for recognizing that your most prudent choice here is to sit on the sidelines and to sling insults given that you don't seem to understand what the adults here are talking about
 
seeing as your petulance is largely inconsequential to me, I'd just like to offer a bit of advice should you reconsider and attempt to enlighten us with your superior intelligence and argumentative ability: if you come at the king, you'd better not miss

how much validation do you get from having not participated in one of the most clear-cut and one-sided arguments in history?
 
edit: one other good thing to watch out for in north carolina, raison: if you ever see one of these restaurants, pull over immediately and go crazy
 




I don't think you can find either one of these restaurants outside of the bible belt

"haha I just called "human rights" a buzzword, man im so smart. i really dont understand why every minority disagrees with my superior world view."
 
-raison, getting his swastika tattoo. 

This isn't a game of Civ, life is not a "competition", yet somehow, we've managed to turn it into one.
"Nation-states" aren't going to work. We can see it now, the UK is scrambling to pick itself back up after Brexit, Israel and Pakistan have been in an uneasy state for quite some time, and it's highly obvious that our "nation of states" is starting to come apart at the seams. Quite frankly, it's high time to federalize the entire nation, no more "United States of America", just "America". You say that domestic politics is ugly, but politics between two different nations is far uglier.

"Acting with prudence" is not the promotion of one group over all others, acting with true prudence would be breaking down the barriers we've put between ourselves, stop thinking in terms of "blacks" and "whites", and cooperate as people. Instead, you only want to put up physical, geographical, and legal barriers, but also reinforce cultural ones. 
You still voted for him.

Regardless, you're set in your willful ignorance, and I'd likely be making greater use of my time by bashing my head into a wall repeatedly.
Your ideology has caused immense harm to many people, and will continue to do so until the movement itself dies out.
Be on the wrong side of history if you want, I'm tired of this "debate".

congratulations. you've lost the argument. you've already embarrassed yourself pitifully, but honestly, just walk away.
 
for what it's worth, a very brief summation of why your most dear beliefs are wrong on an axiomatic level:
 
there are nation-states for white ethnic groups. in fact, there's an entire continent you can fuck up like that if you so please. it's called europe. your race does not have the exclusive and sole right to authority over the world's third largest nation, especially not one that was taken only within the last four centuries or so by brutal genocide and conquest. every american citizen has the right to have their interests served by the state and white nationalism fails to account for that. if blacks, mexicans and other ethnic minorities are your enemies, then congratulations, you are literally a white supremacist. it really is that simple.

let me go through this post inane point by inane point.
 
1. I explained why the original purpose of the electoral college was to keep people like you from voting. that's ostensibly a good thing. I also explained why the product of the electoral college in its current state is extremely unfortunate. but that bit is obvious if you're not incredibly ignorant.
 
2. your response was "democracy is not important, what's important is that I get my way". you literally just quoted my entire post without actually so much as attempting to rebutt anything that I said.
 
3. you are the only one not arguing. you're just vomiting garbage onto your keyboard with the smug self-righteousness that only comes from conservatism: ie, "I'm right because that's the status quo"
 
4. there is no mask here. I legitimately and unashamedly believe that you should be disenfranchised, as did our founding fathers. you are cancerous to democracy.
 
5. liberalism is not a left-wing ideology. literally all of the founding fathers were classical liberals, as am I. go google the word "liberal", come back and explain to me how it has anything to do with the political left.
 
6. you still haven't once explained how even genuine left wing ideologies are in any way bad for society or how a victory for the political left would not have objectively been the best outcome of this election. 
 
your incredulity comes not from any genuine fault of argumentation but from your own ignorance. I have made many clearly structured arguments thus far but your response is to laugh from your failure to understand them. I suppose that's not out of character for you. the bit about parties is a strawman, but the democratic party objectively does come closer to serving the interests of the american people than the republican party, and if you don't believe that, congratulations, you're willfully ignorant. and if you think voting a republican into the white house -- a republican who is going to appoint top republican sycophants to be the heads of various essential federal agencies -- somehow served to kill the republican establishment, well, I don't think I can really address that without copping an easy infraction.
 
if we can make it through the next four years without your party completely destroying our planet, our nation and our democracy, then you're going to have a very, very miserable life in about twenty years. and I'm looking forward to it.
 
edit: john caveson, please take your reputation away from me you petulant child. you truly haven't the slightest bit what us adults are talking about here and I wish not for my own actions to enable you any bit of validation.

this is pathetic. you are an embarrassment to your country and even your party. when did I imply anything about genocide? what aspect of liberalism supports genocide? what form of genocide specifically targets fascists? but yes, rest assured, I'm armed and your man crush isn't going to change that. with that said, someone in this thread actually is advocating for violence to achieve a political end:
 
 
furthermore, you seem to think that this election is some kind of war, except you're literally at war with a majority of the american people:
it's embarrassing enough that you think donald trump actually represents your own interest. "you" might have "won" but I can assure you, everybody lost. that includes you. and you're going to keep losing, in life, in elections, and in internet arguments if you come at me swinging with the ideological might of an elementary school student. 

a pathetic argument from a pitiful ideological basis. congratulations, discontent with present circumstances and pervasive ignorance were able to mobilize enough of your delusional brethren to in a day set our country back years. but no matter, the tide of social progress is unstoppable. you'd better pray that trump declares martial law and cancels the next election, because your comrades are dying off by the day, and soon enough, when unemployment skyrockets under a homogeneously republican administration, cletus and mabel aren't going to be on your side anymore. 
 
you, as do your allies in congress and your despicable president-elect, display open and unashamed contempt for democracy. but I've got some bad news for you: after four years of trump, you're still going to be unhappy, you're still going to be unsuccessful, and you're still going to externalize all of your problems onto vulnerable demographic groups. four more years of regress beyond that won't change reality either. you are on the wrong side of history and you will be dragged kicking and screaming into the twenty-first century. 
 
of course, it is entirely possible that you are happy and successful -- I'm sure some republicans are -- but then why would one support the GOP? I suppose the answer to that lies in willful ignorance and gross delusion -- perhaps a more shameful alternative. no matter. although it is not without oscillation, progress comes and it won't be stopped. and although you may not have it that it would come through democracy, worry not -- it will come. 
 
of course, when that happens, if you don't want to live in a liberal democracy, there are still conservative strongholds on the planet that won't change any time soon. saudi arabia, russia, cuba, just to name a few. I think you'll like it there. 

Well this has been an interesting discussion...I really hope raison's trolling there because goddamn, dude.  Also, slight comment on the "we're gonna become Brazil" comment you made there-isn't the current government pretty conservative?  Because I'm pretty sure they recently impeached the left-leaning president and replaced her with a really conservative government.  So wouldn't you WANT the US to be more like Brazil at this point?
 
 
Anyways, it seems like a lot of Democrats, including Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and my boy Chuck Schumer, are really rallying for Keith Ellison for the new head of the DNC.  I never had heard of him, but he seems pretty legit to be honest-I think he would be a good candidate to try and pull the Democrats further left of center, which is where you could argue they're at right now.  Plus, he's a black muslim, which I'm sure will endear him to people like...well, I guess people like our buddy Raison.

"yeah fuck climate change, basic human rights, freedom of speech! just so long as we whites stay in power and i can freely jerk off without some mexican watching me through the window."
 
-raison, after voting

"When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. ... They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."
Yeah, "doesn't see color".

i think you dropped this raison:
 

congratulations. you've lost the argument. you've already embarrassed yourself pitifully, but honestly, just walk away.
 
for what it's worth, a very brief summation of why your most dear beliefs are wrong on an axiomatic level:
 
there are nation-states for white ethnic groups. in fact, there's an entire continent you can fuck up like that if you so please. it's called europe. your race does not have the exclusive and sole right to authority over the world's third largest nation, especially not one that was taken only within the last four centuries or so by brutal genocide and conquest. every american citizen has the right to have their interests served by the state and white nationalism fails to account for that. if blacks, mexicans and other ethnic minorities are your enemies, then congratulations, you are literally a white supremacist. it really is that simple.

well hes not wrong.

you legitimately just need to stop talking. is that what you really think destroys a democracy? hitler was democratically elected. did germany devolve into nazism because of sore losers? 
 
and you better believe I'm exercising my second amendment right. donald trump has open contempt for democracy and private firearm ownership is one of the most important democratic institutions. he's advocated for disarming suspected criminals before with no trial or investigation. 
do you really think this is what's happening? that there are offices just filled with democrats around the country where they say "okay, we've been doing great importing these immigrants but I think we should aim for 10% growth this year"
 
the only people who can vote in our elections are united states citizens. if you aren't getting the most votes from united states citizens, tough fucking luck. if people aren't keen on your shit economic policy and fascist immigration plans, that's not a fault of democracy.
 
I'd just like to go ahead and point out that the electoral college was literally designed to stop donald trump from happening. in its original iteration, it would have done so. it had nothing to do with the balance of power between states and urban or rural areas -- that's what the senate is for, and each state gets an elector for each senator. but the winner-take-all system is a recent development and has to do strictly with game theory involving the two dominant parties. the winner-take-all system assures that while neither of them can win every election, third parties and unaffiliated candidates will never gain the slightest bit of traction.
 
here are some facts about the electoral college:
1. under the original plan, states weren't supposed to hold elections for president. they simply selected their electors (by the means of their choosing) and the electors voted independently of each other and independently of the electorate
 
2. under the original plan, donald trump never would have happened, because in general, any federal public official is presumed to be more educated and more intelligent than the average voter. and while they may not necessarily be more fit to choose the president than every single voter, they're doubtlessly more fit to choose him than trump voters. because electors were not allowed to hold public office and because they were so few in number, they were considered to be largely above the pathetic tactics that are used to win the presidency today: demagoguery, corruption, pandering, ignorance, etc. alexander hamilton:


 
3. let's be very clear: the electoral college was designed to disenfranchise voters. because while universal suffrage may be important to a democracy, direct election of the president is not. under the original plan, the electors could never disobey the popular vote because there was no popular vote. but today, remnants of the original plan still exist, such as faithless electors. I just want trump supporters to remember that when the electoral college convenes, most electors there have the legal option to cast their ballots for clinton, johnson, stein, etc. regardless of who their state voted for, and I'd argue that they even have something of an obligation to do so.
 
4. under the original plan, it was considered to be improbable that any candidate would sweep the electoral college majority more than perhaps once every few elections. and if a candidate managed to do so, they were considered to be the clear choice for president. this was because the electoral college itself was intended to be a check on parties (again, the electors themselves did not have any affiliation, nor any supposed obligation to vote in a specific way -- this was before the two parties managed to consolidate power in just about every state in the union). thus, there would generally be five or so people in reasonable contention for the presidency. even a candidate markedly more popular than the rest would only get, say, 40%, and the election would be decided by the house of representatives. this was considered to be a desirable outcome, given that representatives are, like electors, generally more intelligent and educated than trump voters, and they are both directly elected and directly representative of the country's population distribution. 
 
again, there are no laws on a federal level that actually require states to cast their ballots on a winner-take-all basis. it's a completely inane idea that more or less accounts to gerrymandering (albeit from a bottom-up perspective rather than top-down) and it inarguably accomplishes the exact same effect. in this election, over half of all ballots cast literally did not matter -- that is to say, three million people in california could have stayed home and no matter what the other states decided, it could not have possibly changed the election. four million people in texas could have stayed home and no matter what the other states decided, it could not have possibly changed the election. that is not democracy. the electoral college in its current state is an abomination; it was neutered when it should have been killed. it can no longer achieve its original purpose and functions now to simply consolidate power into the hands of the two major parties. if you defend it, do so only knowing that it was designed to keep you from voting, and reasonably so. 

this is pathetic. you are an embarrassment to your country and even your party. when did I imply anything about genocide? what aspect of liberalism supports genocide? what form of genocide specifically targets fascists? but yes, rest assured, I'm armed and your man crush isn't going to change that. with that said, someone in this thread actually is advocating for violence to achieve a political end:
 
 
furthermore, you seem to think that this election is some kind of war, except you're literally at war with a majority of the american people:
it's embarrassing enough that you think donald trump actually represents your own interest. "you" might have "won" but I can assure you, everybody lost. that includes you. and you're going to keep losing, in life, in elections, and in internet arguments if you come at me swinging with the ideological might of an elementary school student. 

a pathetic argument from a pitiful ideological basis. congratulations, discontent with present circumstances and pervasive ignorance were able to mobilize enough of your delusional brethren to in a day set our country back years. but no matter, the tide of social progress is unstoppable. you'd better pray that trump declares martial law and cancels the next election, because your comrades are dying off by the day, and soon enough, when unemployment skyrockets under a homogeneously republican administration, cletus and mabel aren't going to be on your side anymore. 
 
you, as do your allies in congress and your despicable president-elect, display open and unashamed contempt for democracy. but I've got some bad news for you: after four years of trump, you're still going to be unhappy, you're still going to be unsuccessful, and you're still going to externalize all of your problems onto vulnerable demographic groups. four more years of regress beyond that won't change reality either. you are on the wrong side of history and you will be dragged kicking and screaming into the twenty-first century. 
 
of course, it is entirely possible that you are happy and successful -- I'm sure some republicans are -- but then why would one support the GOP? I suppose the answer to that lies in willful ignorance and gross delusion -- perhaps a more shameful alternative. no matter. although it is not without oscillation, progress comes and it won't be stopped. and although you may not have it that it would come through democracy, worry not -- it will come. 
 
of course, when that happens, if you don't want to live in a liberal democracy, there are still conservative strongholds on the planet that won't change any time soon. saudi arabia, russia, cuba, just to name a few. I think you'll like it there. 

a pathetic argument from a pitiful ideological basis. congratulations, discontent with present circumstances and pervasive ignorance were able to mobilize enough of your delusional brethren to in a day set our country back years. but no matter, the tide of social progress is unstoppable. you'd better pray that trump declares martial law and cancels the next election, because your comrades are dying off by the day, and soon enough, when unemployment skyrockets under a homogeneously republican administration, cletus and mabel aren't going to be on your side anymore. 
 
you, as do your allies in congress and your despicable president-elect, display open and unashamed contempt for democracy. but I've got some bad news for you: after four years of trump, you're still going to be unhappy, you're still going to be unsuccessful, and you're still going to externalize all of your problems onto vulnerable demographic groups. four more years of regress beyond that won't change reality either. you are on the wrong side of history and you will be dragged kicking and screaming into the twenty-first century. 
 
of course, it is entirely possible that you are happy and successful -- I'm sure some republicans are -- but then why would one support the GOP? I suppose the answer to that lies in willful ignorance and gross delusion -- perhaps a more shameful alternative. no matter. although it is not without oscillation, progress comes and it won't be stopped. and although you may not have it that it would come through democracy, worry not -- it will come. 
 
of course, when that happens, if you don't want to live in a liberal democracy, there are still conservative strongholds on the planet that won't change any time soon. saudi arabia, russia, cuba, just to name a few. I think you'll like it there. 

you legitimately just need to stop talking. is that what you really think destroys a democracy? hitler was democratically elected. did germany devolve into nazism because of sore losers? 
 
and you better believe I'm exercising my second amendment right. donald trump has open contempt for democracy and private firearm ownership is one of the most important democratic institutions. he's advocated for disarming suspected criminals before with no trial or investigation. 
do you really think this is what's happening? that there are offices just filled with democrats around the country where they say "okay, we've been doing great importing these immigrants but I think we should aim for 10% growth this year"
 
the only people who can vote in our elections are united states citizens. if you aren't getting the most votes from united states citizens, tough fucking luck. if people aren't keen on your shit economic policy and fascist immigration plans, that's not a fault of democracy.
 
I'd just like to go ahead and point out that the electoral college was literally designed to stop donald trump from happening. in its original iteration, it would have done so. it had nothing to do with the balance of power between states and urban or rural areas -- that's what the senate is for, and each state gets an elector for each senator. but the winner-take-all system is a recent development and has to do strictly with game theory involving the two dominant parties. the winner-take-all system assures that while neither of them can win every election, third parties and unaffiliated candidates will never gain the slightest bit of traction.
 
here are some facts about the electoral college:
1. under the original plan, states weren't supposed to hold elections for president. they simply selected their electors (by the means of their choosing) and the electors voted independently of each other and independently of the electorate
 
2. under the original plan, donald trump never would have happened, because in general, any federal public official is presumed to be more educated and more intelligent than the average voter. and while they may not necessarily be more fit to choose the president than every single voter, they're doubtlessly more fit to choose him than trump voters. because electors were not allowed to hold public office and because they were so few in number, they were considered to be largely above the pathetic tactics that are used to win the presidency today: demagoguery, corruption, pandering, ignorance, etc. alexander hamilton:


 
3. let's be very clear: the electoral college was designed to disenfranchise voters. because while universal suffrage may be important to a democracy, direct election of the president is not. under the original plan, the electors could never disobey the popular vote because there was no popular vote. but today, remnants of the original plan still exist, such as faithless electors. I just want trump supporters to remember that when the electoral college convenes, most electors there have the legal option to cast their ballots for clinton, johnson, stein, etc. regardless of who their state voted for, and I'd argue that they even have something of an obligation to do so.
 
4. under the original plan, it was considered to be improbable that any candidate would sweep the electoral college majority more than perhaps once every few elections. and if a candidate managed to do so, they were considered to be the clear choice for president. this was because the electoral college itself was intended to be a check on parties (again, the electors themselves did not have any affiliation, nor any supposed obligation to vote in a specific way -- this was before the two parties managed to consolidate power in just about every state in the union). thus, there would generally be five or so people in reasonable contention for the presidency. even a candidate markedly more popular than the rest would only get, say, 40%, and the election would be decided by the house of representatives. this was considered to be a desirable outcome, given that representatives are, like electors, generally more intelligent and educated than trump voters, and they are both directly elected and directly representative of the country's population distribution. 
 
again, there are no laws on a federal level that actually require states to cast their ballots on a winner-take-all basis. it's a completely inane idea that more or less accounts to gerrymandering (albeit from a bottom-up perspective rather than top-down) and it inarguably accomplishes the exact same effect. in this election, over half of all ballots cast literally did not matter -- that is to say, three million people in california could have stayed home and no matter what the other states decided, it could not have possibly changed the election. four million people in texas could have stayed home and no matter what the other states decided, it could not have possibly changed the election. that is not democracy. the electoral college in its current state is an abomination; it was neutered when it should have been killed. it can no longer achieve its original purpose and functions now to simply consolidate power into the hands of the two major parties. if you defend it, do so only knowing that it was designed to keep you from voting, and reasonably so.