Implying non tech illeterate candidates were even a choice

>implying non tech illeterate candidates were even a choice

Other urls found in this thread:

latimes.com/politics/la-me-pol-ca-motor-voter-law-20151016-html-htmlstory.html
snopes.com/california-motor-voter-act/
politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2016/nov/18/blog-posting/no-3-million-undocumented-immigrants-did-not-vote-/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

>implying trump isnt open to discussion and can change his mind
he's already changed his mind about the obamacare (the 2 good elements) and man-made climate change

i mean i'm shocked by how many people voted for trump, but let's be clear that closer to 2 million *more* people seemed to vote for the aging robot lady. it's entirely because our voting system is so hilariously retarded as to be obstructive that we're going to be seeing trump in the white house.

no, he's trying to bow to popular opinion, he realised that if he got rid of obamacare, 22m people who no longer get healthcare would fuck him up during the midterms, so he cucked himself.

he's doing the same with every other opinion he's ever had.

You mean... Like almost any politician would?

Huh... Really makes you think...

he's been having his daughter sit in on meetings with heads of state.

his daughter of the famous shoes. you must know of them. they're really excellent shoes.

this guy said he was going to put everything in a blind trust with his kids. now he's saying there's no need. like we're literally all fucking retarded and just playing along like he didn't specifically offer this one thing.

Trump has never made his mind up about any issue, he just copies the position of the last person he talked to. He really is a puppet.

>FCC should handle spectrum licenses, but nothing else, Trump advisor wrote.
Good.

He never said anything about a blind trust

for real? he said it in the primary debate
>BARTIROMO: So you’ll put your assets in a blind trust?
>TRUMP: I would put it in a blind trust.

>Voting in warhawk Hillary

>Imblying hillary is better

I will enjoy these next 4 years of libtard whining

>implying the president has free reign to do what he wants

He can't just go and get rid of things y'know

NO, HES GOING TO GET RID OF PAJEET!!!

>advocating for more regulation
>"hurr drumph is finished"
Can't tell if troll or butthurt transexual

More like taco goblins in california voted illegally. It's why we have an electoral college.

Pic Related transfaggots

also here

Except he's has the legislature on his side and can appoint judge(s) to approve his shit. What republican (in the legislature in particular) would oppose Trump? We have at least 2 years of this guy just proposing stupid ideas and the republicans in the legislature agreeing with him.

>More like taco goblins in california voted illegally. It's why we have an electoral college.
lol what? we had the electoral college before we even owned louisiana, let alone the far west. get a grip on reality, nasty hombre.

I think his lawyer also mentioned it during an interview.

Illegal aliens are not citizens but can vote in California

Spotted the fucking taco goblin. What I said remains true and has fuckall to do with when it was implemented. Commiefornia has infinitely more taco goblins than any state in the union. It would not be fair for them to dictate national policy.

WHAT THE FUCK
WHY IS THIS A THING?

yeah when i first went looking i mostly saw references to his lawyer explaining what kind of blind trust would be enacted, but considering the guy who replied to me said trump never said it i was honestly afraid that unless i grabbed the clip of trump specifically saying those words he would just weasel out and be like "OH OH NO TRUMP DIDN'T SAY IT THEN"

Your source is a screencap of a google search that shows like one sentence from an article from a no-name website?

>latimes
>no name
latimes.com/politics/la-me-pol-ca-motor-voter-law-20151016-html-htmlstory.html

snopes.com/california-motor-voter-act/

Your source is crying about a google search you could have done yourself?

It's okay guys these industries can regulate themselves I swear goy

And then he said:
Well, I don’t know if it’s a blind trust if Ivanka, Don and Eric run it. If that’s a blind trust, I don’t know. But I would probably have my children run it with my executives and I wouldn’t ever be involved because I wouldn’t care about anything but our country, anything.”

Nah, that's a pretty good measure. NASA and NIST should be next, we don't need any more leeches on the federal budget. Everything should be dictated by the marlet.

His definition of a blind trust is not a blind trust. He has always said his kids would run it.

1) and you think this made california swing blue, do you? do taco goblins also have some cunning time travel technology to retroactively apply this to the last 20+ years of elections?

2) why we have the electoral college is because we don't have the political will to eliminate it because it's in our constitution and people revere the constitution to the point of being afraid to amend anything. it's been more than 45 years since we last drafted an amendment to the constitution. at best, you can only argue about why we had it in the first place, which was to reverse the decisions of uneducated masses who don't know any better.

you know. states with mostly meth heads and truckers

are you a fucking commie?

Apparently it was a rumor that was started either by some random on fecesbook or by breitbart.

Didn't he get someone from Verizon to be the fcc advisor?

We're fucked

AT&T dictated the market and they gained a monopoly. These isp's don't like to play by the rules and fuck consumers over any chance they get.

it's good to know that the man who's going to make america great again has not even a vague idea what a blind trust is. like a high school dropout could have felt around for the meaning of "blind trust" based on what they know "blind" to mean, but trump evidently didn't connect that it kind of rules out his children running it.

we're so fucked it's honestly terrifying. our only hope is that trump makes sure he never says or does anything before running it past an attorney. he honest to god needs to be about 50 times more careful with his words than he's been up till now. it's not super encouraging that one of the frontrunners for the department of homeland security doesn't even realize to cover his goddamn notes when in goddamn public.

we are so so fucked. not even because of policies or anything. we're just going to have a white house that would be better run by the three stooges.

Fuck the FCC anyway

You know what wouldn't be fair? Letting the candidate who apparently lost overall by a rather large margin(up to 2 million people at this point) to win because he pandered to people in like 3 states where he narrowly won by like 50,000 people.

No need to amend something that clearly works. The "uneducated masses" clearly understand what they didn't want. Some old feminist who would shove more muslims and taco goblins up their asses after stealing every last dime they have to pay for it.

Commiefornia swung red for Reagan. Since then millions of taco goblins have have invaded it's territory. So no. There is not one fucking thing wrong with fully supporting the constitution.

Stay mad tacogoblin and enjoy mexico with your family.

>Sup Forums thread
Trump won now just get out of this fucking board

>mfw I will setup infinite amount of jammers in starbucks after FCC is eliminated

ohh can't wait for it

The butthurt and salt is delicious, keep it coming.

And the alternative was a sec of state that had classified material on a home server that was compromised by no less than 4 nation-states. Not to mention the CF with tens of millions if "donations" from foreigners. Its not like plans for a wall are a secret or anything.

The electoral college prevents a tyranny of majority; that is, the election of a charismatic candidate who holds sway in primarily urban centers. This does sound elitist (and as you said is outdated), but the founding fathers had good reason to implement it.

If we examine the voter turnout in the 2016 election, we can see that approximately 50% of the popular vote is concentrated in urban centers. Given that urban centers are densely populated by their physical design, many ideals and beliefs are concentrated in large groups of populations. Additionally, politicians can put in less effort to attract greater proportions of the population. If the vote was solely based on the population, you would most likely see candidates focus their efforts on the urban centers of our nation.

The desires of urban centers do not necessarily reflect the desires of the non-urban America.

The electoral system encourages candidates to campaign uniformly throughout the country. This allows candidates to communicate their message across the nation, allowing the effective input of a widely distributed population. This also helps prevents voters from feeling disenfranchised (which we can see with the "Rust Belt" and Democrats). The populist message of the Trump campaign resonated with the white working class in the "Rust Belt" and Trump. Trump, seeing that Clinton was neglecting this area, capitalized upon on the "Rust Belt", appealing to the many disenfranchised districts throughout it. We can see that many of these districts voted Obama in the previous two elections, only to flip to Trump.

Furthermore, the electoral vote gives smaller states more weight so to speak. Each state receives 1 elector vote for every House member and 1 for each Senator. This helps facilitates the campaigning of smaller states or at the very least appeals to their interests policy-wise.

What would be fair is to only let citizens cast votes in elections.

>No need to amend something that clearly works.
works is debatable, and "clearly" is off the table if it's disputed, which it is. i'm not even saying by me. if you're unaware of the people that are arguing this was wrong, then it's not clear that it works.

>The "uneducated masses" clearly understand what they didn't want.
again, ~1.7M more people voted for the aging robot lady. but the point of the electoral college wasn't to correct them in this way. it was supposed to correct their fuckups by giving the electors final say when they go to washington.

this kind of uneducated stuff is what i'm talking about. you're the kind of person we spent a lot of time designing the system to safeguard against. i mean it's just a good thing you don't need to understand baby-proofing to be safeguarded by it, am i right baby?

We don't actually know who won yet. The electors cast their votes in December. Electors are not obligated to vote how the states tells them so we really don't know what will happen. Trump is a very unlikable candidate so I think its likely that a few will abstain or vote for someone else but Trump is still likely to win.

Kinda like how it already is? What kind of statement is that?

Submit all your ideas at greatagain.gov

I wrote big pleads about open source, bounty hunting, encryption, and the NSA

Who knows, maybe some of your input will be put to use

In Cali, all you need is a driver's license.

literally.
facing.
the.
cameras.

you couldn't make this shit up. i don't even know of any politically themed comedies that made a joke like this because the character would have to be the most bumbling, hapless moron in the universe. audiences would reject it as being too patronizingly stupid.

it's unprecedented how amateurish this is. we're going to hear about this guy getting confidential information stolen when he leaves it on a table at starbucks while going to the bathroom.

Okay so they focus on NYC and LA and they still lose the popular vote because those two states aren't even a sizable portion of the population. The US doesn't have many large population centers there's like a handful of large ones and the rest are more like small towns of less than a million people each. This would actually make "red" and "blue" states more competitive if anything

Conveniently ignoring the alternative to Trump makes you an ideologue.

When they scan your drivers license and find out you're an illegal they'll deny you a ballot.

you mean the story with literally nothing to back it up with?

politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2016/nov/18/blog-posting/no-3-million-undocumented-immigrants-did-not-vote-/

God you're stupid. You cant compare a electoral college election to a non-electoral college election, the game is played differently in either of those cases.

With the electoral college, candidates have to go to swing states and smaller areas of the US to gather support.

Without the electoral college, candidates would just go to huge population centers to gather support.

to be fair, the electoral college wasn't really designed to ensure a balance of representation between rural and urban areas. straight up weighted voting could have accomplished that (basically giving the same number of votes to these states, but without dealing with electors).

the electoral college — that is, the aspect that involves electors — exists purely so that these dudes could show up and talk amongst themselves and be like "yeah, the people of Virginia chose Richard Johnson for VP but he fucks niggers so that's obviously not going to happen" (in 1836).

>popular vote meme
>After anons already explained that the popular vote was not only rigged but focused in urban areas.
>intellectual elitism most likely accompanied by euphoria
>devolves into calling me a baby

Denying reality is beyond childish.

that's not the definition of ideologue... oh god, do you not have access to google?!?

that's cute! you're adorable :)

>With the electoral college, candidates have to go to swing states
yes

>and smaller areas of the US to gather support.
There's little reason to campaign in most small states. These places typically vote republican. You might stop there on the way to a state that actually matters overall but there's nothing forcing you to stop there.

Oh I agree with the weighted voting system while maintaining the current number of elector votes. That would make campaigning in states like California or Kansas actually matter.

Making one argument without considering the alternative is.

:D


Not an argument.

>trump wins
>Sup Forums would never shut the fuck up about it
>clinton wins
>Sup Forums would never shut the fuck up about it
>third party wins
>Sup Forums would implode
Reverse shitposting was a mistake

This isn't/pol just another thinly disguised/pol thread

Mods are shit and should be purged

>FCC is no more
>Saturate 2.4GHz/5GHz spectrum within a 5km radius from your home
>Never have problems with wifi
What a time to be alive

Finally. Tits on the telly.

yeah. well weighted plus proportional allotment. but there are problems with the whole thing, because the poor granularity of the current system means that at certain ranges a state that barely qualifies for an additional electoral vote affords that state's voters more influence than other states' voters.

what's honestly totally fucking crazy is that each state is allowed to run their own election however they see fit. like i agree with leaving certain things to the states (logistical matters for example), but basic ground rules would be helpful. i suspect that states have adopted winner take all strategies in part to encourage battling for a state (nobody would spend as much time in ohio if you were battling for 10 votes vs 9 or 11), and partly because the parties of entrenched states (like CA, TX, NY) wouldn't want to give up like 30% of their electoral votes to the other side (or worse, to a third party candidate). the only state that i can think of that splits electoral votes is maine, and nobody wants to be maine

I'm all for any policy that reduces the size and scope of government. face it, the FCC is a post-WWI relic. most of it SHOULD go.

Well at least some good might come from this.

Although the FCC only manages antenna channels. Cable is free to do whatever they want on their own networks they just voluntarily censor their stuff.

there's not really an argument. you said all the words that we use at the adult table. i'm proud of you!

>22m people
BULLSHIT ALERT

are you guys not on the internet right now? why do you want tits on tv?

they're never going to put the specific niche fetish stuff that you want on.

Watching the weather forecast by a busty blond will be a great step in making America great

you can already get that on the internet...

>NUmales upset about deregulation

>MURRIKA IS FINISHED & BANKRUPT
Finally it's true.

i just worry that the people that voted for trump did it because they thought it would make naked women reading the news a thing, even though it was already a thing that you got for free if you were half-competent at using the internet.

here's some news for ya. the clitons know exactly how the system works and how to count electoral votes. confident that the election was theirs, they just couldn't be bothered to campaign to those pesky deplorables. it was this pure arrogance that cost hiliary the coronation, er election.
Trump won. Hiliary lost. Get over it.

Oh, so you are a concern troll, then?

The way I see it Hillary won in the one way that *should* matter but lost in a way that *shouldn't* matter. I'm not trying to protest the current election but future elections shouldn't be based on electoral votes. I don't think anyone really supports the system but everyone likes when it works in their favor at least for the moment.