Cretler

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

"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. 

i think you dropped this raison:
 

well hes not wrong.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-bannon-flattered-and-coaxed-trump-on-policies-key-to-the-alt-right/2016/11/15/53c66362-ab69-11e6-a31b-4b6397e625d0_story.html
 
like, this shit writes itself.

And here we are back to square one. Just because they overlook racism and sexism, and keep company with racists and sexists, and have been praised by other racists and sexists, doesn't make them racist or sexist.
 
He's racist.
 
"You have an individual, Mr Bannon, who’s basically creating the ideological aspects of where we’re going." - The former Imperial Wizard of the KKK.
 
It's really not that hard.

you know what, you're right. im going to give trump a chance. maybe he is not the racist sexist idiot hes been claiming to be for the entire election. maybe hes a reasonable guy, that would in no way hire a white supremacist as his chief strategist
 
 
oh...

you know what, you're right. im going to give trump a chance. maybe he is not the racist sexist idiot hes been claiming to be for the entire election. maybe hes a reasonable guy, that would in no way hire a white supremacist as his chief strategist
 
 
oh...

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

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

i think you dropped this raison:
 

"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".

what am i getting wrong? it doesnt matter whatever bullshit reason you try to come up with to justify your vote for trump. the fact is that you knowingly voted for a bigot and helped put people who have openly expressed their hatred for everyone who isn't a straight white male into some of the most powerful positions in the country. because of your vote, you helped create a system that does not give a shit about the future of the world, the human rights of every minority, and the freedom for those people to express their thoughts and desires. all because you dont like white people not being in power, whatever that means.
 
its that simple. you can whine about me creating a strawman all you'd like, it doesnt change the fact that youre an idiot.
this is the correct and right way to think. too bad not everyone agrees with that.

well hes not wrong.

i think you dropped this 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

i think you dropped this raison:
 

i think you dropped this raison:
 

i think you dropped this raison:
 

well hes not wrong.

well hes not wrong.

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.