I never got this. Why would America vote for a corrupt bald businessman?

I never got this. Why would America vote for a corrupt bald businessman?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=V6s7jB6-GoU
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Weak b8, bro

What B8?

He's right though.

Luthor is the public enemy of Superman. Who the hell would vote for him?

No matter in what reality, Americans are stupid

If only you knew how bad things really are.

People who hate dirty illegal aliens stealing the jobs of hardworking Americans (police, military, firefighters) for an infinitesimally smaller pay (literally for free)

But Superman takes jobs nobody else would do.

Like what police officer is going to fight Darkseid?

...

That Lex Luthor didn't have a very good run, but Red Son Lex Luthor saved the US from both a second Civil War and massive famine and economic depression, turning it into the new world superpower. He also balanced the budget for a previous President basically just as an afterthought on a scrap of paper to get him to leave him alone.

The previous president and opposing party must have really shit the bed.

>Like what police officer is going to fight Darkseid?

This
The previous one must of royally fucked up to let Luthor in. Probably promised a shit ton of stuff and never delivered any of it.

>democracy doesn't work
>Trump lost the popular vote
When are people going to learn the electoral college doesn't work!

>Topical
Luthor is a genius though. You just know he'd be the most competent at it, though you better hope that he spends more time working instead of coming up with ways to fuck Supes over.

That's why Red Son President Luthor was best President Luthor. Superman was a belligerent foreign power so his work in stopping him was good. President Luthor in the other continuity fucked himself over by conspiring against superheroes who were technically on his side, so he didn't even get a full term.

YA HAVE TA ADMIT

I PLAYED THIS STINKIN' COUNTRY

LIKE A HARP FROM HELL!

I like this thread.

Could Luthor clean up Gotham?
Curse, crazies and all?

Nah that is kind of a bad example, because Luthor would routinely fuck up the lives of his own people if it meant hurting Superman. He turned the US into a fucking dictatorship. In the end everything is good and peachy, so either Luthor didn't work hard enough up until that moment or the only reason his people were miserable was to fuel his crazy schemes.

Luthier is a tremendous guy. He knows the best people.

California can't decide the fate of the US alone.

We're a democratic REPUBLIC.
That means you need to win the plurality of states, not just the coast states.

The EC was designed so politicians can't just fuck off to big cities and ignore the rural voters.

Also in almost all cases direct democracies lead to mob rule and that's not good for anyone.

Luthor*

>He turned the US into a fucking dictatorship.

Not seeing a problem there. Nothing inherently bad about dictatorship.

Metallic people, glowing people. There's this guy, this tremendous guy, they call him Vandal, tremendous person. That's just a nickname by the way, nothing more folks. This guy says he was around for thousands of years, seen some serious stuff folks. And Luthor has people like him on the team, amazing.

It has to be a dictatorship only so that he can work on ways to kill Superman.

because calafornia is a corrupt place that shouldn't decide the direction of the nation

can't eat without farmers
bet you didn't even know that

Why do political threads always bring out at least one dude who doesn't understand the meaning of republic and democracy and feels the need to share it with the world?

Why don't you read the comic and find out?

Heh, you don't need farmers when you have Walmart! Duh!

There are Farms in California. There probably should be, but there are.

Superman was literally lobotomizing dissidents and working with Brainiac at that point, he needed to be dealt with.

You tell me. In the end, a lot of Americans voted for a corrupt careerist women so that can't be that surprising and the other half voted for a clown.
Whelp, I pity Americans for having such shitty choices in the first place but then again they don't seem to care about fixing their shit.

>waah the candidate who spent 20x more on advertising their name than Trump barely squeaked out ~2 million votes more, they deserve the win because they were more heavily promoted and forced by everyone in the media and superPAC's influence

Here's a 5 minute summation of why the electoral college is a genius method for a voting system for a REPUBLIC of states over the tyrannical rule of majority.
youtube.com/watch?v=V6s7jB6-GoU

But please, instead keep complaining about moving the goalposts AFTER Hillary lost and didn't end the way you expected. Ignore all the journalists who touted the strength of the electoral college before the election, saying that Trump would lose it easily, with numbers like 350+ for Clinton. Blame the electoral college for the media hyping her up like she would get all of these things handed to her on a silver platter, rather than dealing with the reality that it fell on the press, the DNC, and their corrupt "grossly negligent" candidate that very few people trusted. At the end of the day, everyone who hates Trump for winning is just mad that he focused on ground game, his voter base and constant rallying, which is what a populist candidate needs to do to win an election. Hillary was a terrible candidate and a terrible campaigner, and there's nothing anyone can do about it.

I hope you know that in order to call for such a foolhardy radical change to our voting system would require years, or even decades before it finally saw the outcome you might desire. An extremist viewpoint that keeps changing to suit leftists who seem to complain when they don't get the outcome THEY want, an outcome that heavily favors them because it gives all of the voting power to coastal cities and left-leaning urban environments rather than equal representation of all state entities.

almonds and avocados mostly, yeah. They probably COULD convert to more traditional food crops if need be but Cali needs water from other states badly though.

Luthor worked with Brainiac to miniaturize a major Russian city. He endangered and hurt, and killed people with his anti-Supes weapons, like that time in England. Opposed dissent in his own county too, closed Daily mail, I think.

They were both bad, Superman just had a bigger advantage.

>can't eat without farmers
>bet you didn't even know that
You can eat without midwestern farmers pretty easily though.

Like I don't even disagree with the idea that coasts shouldn't solely decide America's direction, but acting like the farmers have some unseen economic importance for the country is pretty silly.

If Luthor is so smart, why doesn't he learn magic to defeat Superman? Do you need to have inherent powers to use it in DC?

Magic is just another kind of technology. He used the technology he was more familiar with. In order for him to learn magic he'd probably have to get involved with some malevolent entity that'd end up taking his soul in return or something, so it made more sense for him to stick to the technology that was already well defined and accessible through open source public documentation and resources.

No, it's not democracy that's the problem, it's the fact that legalized bribery AKA campaign """""contributions""""" is considered free speech by the bought and paid for Supreme court. Giant transnational corporations have used their largess to purchase both political parties, meaning that in effect we really only have 1 party in the United States today - the Dolla Dolla Bill Ca$h Money Party.

They're probably red.

>Technology
No.

This. No one would vote for a bald guy

Because he fights for humans and not kryptonian or other mutant powered scum
The future where lex luthor becomes the leader of all earth is always better than when superman does it

>There's never been a bald president before

People like to go on about
>out of 300+ million people, this is what we ended up with as choices?

But if you zoom out enough to get past each candidate's flaws in character that the media liked to megaphone for clickb8 during all of 2016, there were two clear choices presented to voters.
1. more of whatever Obama was doing
2. something different

And the result was a sea of red all over the map

user, stop. You're hurting the corporations' feelings. They're people too.

>Hillary was a better choice

No, user, the electoral college saved america from the popular vote, the problem is that the choice was between a turd and a corrupt criminal turd

Replace one kind of illegal alien for another and you've got the up and coming POTUS, albeit add one bad toupee.

>that map
YEAH, FUCK AQUAMAN.

yes I too saw that south park episode, i'm sure many people are going to hide behind that same excuse when they answer "why did you vote the alleged billionaire to de-corrupt politics when he can't even be trusted to release his fucking taxes"

Oh right, his audit will be done sometime between Jan 20th and the heat death of the universe.

HA HA
I DIDN'T VOTE
I JUST WANT TO GET LAID

>"why did you vote the alleged billionaire to de-corrupt politics when he can't even be trusted to release his fucking taxes"
Because there was enough drive to gamble on an orange man over the status quo. Contentment creates apathy, and that kind of situation would have likely given Hillary the office with very little challenge.

People only get fired up about shaking the status quo when they feel some kind of discontent that's large enough to act on, even if they're not able to eloquently articulate it in words.

Trump is bad.

I'm obviously not expecting him to succeed, even though i'd love to be wrong wrong wrong and find out he actually manages to do something right. That said, what do his supporters do if (when) their golden emperor that's gonna solve everything turns out to fluster and sink instead of bring about these great changes that'll make life better? Or just turns out to be one of the most self-serving corrupt fucks out there?

Yeah I realize as i'm typing this that this isn't pol and people here would probably like to keep it that way.

not at all actually

They'd blame Obama as usual.

>Yeah I realize as i'm typing this that this isn't pol and people here would probably like to keep it that way.
From what I've seen, people on here are very eager to talk about these subjects. There have been at least three threads made today that were thinly-veiled Donald Trump threads, or at least accidental ones.

Obongo was a community organiser and thought international politics were a big town hall meeting.
Trump is a business man and thinks international politics are a series of big business deals.
They are both wrong.
We are so fucked.

>what do his supporters do if (when) their golden emperor that's gonna solve everything turns out to fluster and sink instead of bring about these great changes that'll make life better?
I dunno, jump to the next guy who had observed Trump's tactics during 2016 and tries to same thing? The political arena has become a lot like sports, where there's not a lot of thoughtful 'why?' behind who they support, they're just there to feel like part of some kind of underdog or defender narrative.

I enjoyed Trump sending an earthquake into the RNC though, and then causing the implosion of the DNC simply by winning. I'm not particularly conservative, but I think the Republicans been pretty spineless for a while, and that's not good, even if for some reason I found myself to be a diehard democrat. They have to be checking and challenging each other.

>tyrannical rule of majority

So this is autism in its purest form.

You say that but we're clearly not fucked after 8 years of Obama. Other countries only started getting worried when it looked like Drumpf was getting elected.

Yes he is, he said exactly what he needed to in order to get into office, he doesn't believe in anything but himself.

bahaha, get a load of this idiot.

Not him, but Obama certainly couldn't be better. For one, he was very passive to what republicans inside the country (and his own cabinet) were doing, and generally acted indifferent to a lot of the problems going on around the world and within our own borders.

The fact that he said he'd win a third term is genuinely offensive to me because - yeah, you could, but only because you're too much of a pussy to take a side.

That being said, Trump is a national disaster and doesn't even compare to the Obama administration.

But what about this: the media and whoever opposes him will watch him much more hawkishly than they would have watched Hillary. If he does anything scandalous in office, there are plenty of people waiting to pounce and rip him and Pence out of office.

*could've been better

Sorry, I'm half-awake here.

Cali has farms dude. You hicks aren't that important.

As the media should do. Or are you suggesting they completely ignore what the president and his cabinet does, like in say Russia?

Because the other option is a corrupt politicians that ran a smear campaign against someone within her own party and another smear campaign afterwards.

I'm just stating an observation. Trump is under much more continuous scrutiny compared to what Hillary would have gotten, isn't that at least one positive?

California has cattle, fruit, nuts, vegitables, wine and wool.
Texas has cattle, corn, wheat, pork chickens and eggs and dairy.
The north east has orchards, sea food and wine.
Florida and the carolinas have tobacco, peachs, apples, berries, pork and potatoes.
The Midwest as America's breadbasket is bullshit made up by bigfarm and the ethanol industry. Do you even 4H bro?

Also, it wouldn't only be the media keeping an eye on everything he does. Even with his own party, do you think all of them would really risk themselves to defend Trump if he does something really bad, or would they be much quicker to throw him on the street?

I don't really understand what you're getting at here. Many of the major media companies focused solely on Clinton's emails for months on end, despite it leading to nothing, whilst Trump still hasn't even released his tax returns.

If Clinton had won, she'd have been just as scrutinized, if not moreso. Which, again, is what happens when you're president.

I mean, tyranical rule of the majority would at least represent more people than the tyranical rule of the minority... Why should some votes count more than others? Equality indeed

>Even with his own party, do you think all of them would really risk themselves to defend Trump if he does something really bad, or would they be much quicker to throw him on the street?

They'll say they don't support what he said for roughly a day than double down on him the next. Where were you during the election?

Uh, the media obviously favored Hillary over Trump. Almost all of them predicted that she would win. For whatever scandals Hillary got over the news, Trump had his own headline even more often.

>thinking Trump's tax returns matter more than careless actions that may have harmed national security

I'm a never Trumper but that line of reasoning from the left is fucking retarded.

Other World Powers have been worried since Obama went up to the Olympic committee and his presentation was "Hey wouldn't it be so great if the Olympics could be in Chicago, because I'm great."

He's been a manchild the entire presidency towards Russia refusing to conduct any talks with them in the middle east or and belittling their status on the national stage.

Russia and Egypt primarily are glad the meddling child is gone and they've finally got someone that will talk and not try to stir up more conflicts.

Oh please, that's just politics. Hillary's supporters smeared Obama, and she implied implications by race-baiting and gender-baiting all through the '08 primaries, and he got over it. Intra-party smearing and humiliating the people who voted for the other guy is actually just and good.

He was probably running against the Joker or some meme candidate.

>finally got someone that will talk and not try to stir up more conflicts.
Dude already pissed off China

>she'd have been just as scrutinized
She got away with the email scandal and ran for the presidency. Are you so sure about that? Any other lesser connected politician would have been ruined forever.

That also goes for Trump to a degree with his own most publicized scandals, but his weren't so directly connected to official government conduct.

Better Luthor than that foreign chancellor that stupidly allowed a bunch of extraterrestrial aliens to enter their country without checking with the intergalactic police (aka Green Lanterns) to see if any of them are criminals/terrorists. Which ultimately led to a bunch of extraterrestrial alien criminals/terrorists hiding with their country.

China's leaders don't get pissed, they get amused and kind of smug

That Luthor was a fine example.

>He's been a manchild the entire presidency towards Russia refusing to conduct any talks with them in the middle east or and belittling their status on the national stage.
You don't have any family in the American military do you? Russia had a bad couple of decades after the ussr fell but they are very much back as a world power and putin knows it. Obongo didn't want to get his hands dirty but trying to contain Russia was him listening to his advisors.
Who are right to recognize Russia as having a big fucking hard on for the U.S.

I'm not talking about something like Trump calling Rosie O Donnell fat, I'm talking about something as bad as watergate.

In fact, the parties and authorities would probably just have to get out of the way for the lynch mob who gathers at D.C. for his head

>Smart
>Big and buff (6' 2", 210 lbs), has a fantastic chrome dome
>Has actual plausible deniability for most, if not all, of his major schemes
>Presented himself as an outsider
>Ran on a platform of change
>Implied his blatant contempt for the people instead of stating it outright
>Kept his bankrolling low-key instead of bragging about it like an idiot
>Challenged the previous administration after their disastrous response to a nation crisis (even though he was responsible for the shitty response)

By every practical metric, he was a highly electable candidate. Just keeping his contempt to himself would have been good enough to get him far, and his good looks would have sealed it; everything else is just gravy.

Even if you go by popular vote, California isn't going to decide the election on its own. Sure, it's big, but so is Texas. California just happens to be a bit bigger.

It's not really about California specifically, but the most urban and metro parts of the country versus the rest of it.

The U.S. is unique in just how massive and varied its occupied land and states are. If the more rural states feel like they're being pushed around by the federal government without much benefit or compromise on their behalf, what reason do they have to continue complying with the union?

And it's somehow better that the urban areas, which have more people, get ignored in favor of rural areas, who have fewer? Why should someone be considered more or less of a person simply because of where they live?

Shaming? Losing government benefits? Getting Waco'd? There's probably a lot of ways to coerce states into complying that have nothing to do with them feeling like they have a stake in the Union. Pundits from the urban states fantasize about that shit whenever something weird happens in the rural states, so I'm sure they could probably come up with better ideas.

No one ever called it ideal, it's a compromise to keep large swaths of the country from becoming too disruptive and disenfranchised with the federal government, to the point they don't want to participate cordially. If the 3 minimum is taken away, there would be a huge stink that would disrupt other issues that time could be spent on instead.

On the flip side, states with the largest urban centers will always still hold dozens and dozens of more electoral votes than some sparsely populated midwestern rectangle with 3 votes. They still hold a ton more influence.

He's not corrupt though, every form of income was absolutely legal, sure in his free time he tried to kill Superman, but he didn't break any law being a millionaire.

It is genuinely unbelievable. America has not elected a bald President since TV became common. A good head of hair is a major prerequisite for the Presidency.

The problem is that the rural states might lose any benefits they have anyway and simply get strongarmed into complying if their fate is permanently dictated by the urban coasts. The other question is if federal government should be that powerful in the first place where they can have that much influence

Well, if you look at California internally, most of the population is concentrated in the urban areas on the coast and they do a ton of stuff by popular vote. Does that mean that the agricultural areas in the central valley get shafted? No, in fact agriculture interests are immensely powerful in California. It's just that they don't get to simply ignore the majority and get their way no matter what just because they live in rural areas.

In the last governor election, Jerry Brown got 1.5 million more votes than Kashkari, his republican opponent. That meant the Jerry Brown won, because he got more votes. Kashkari didn't auto-win despite the popular vote simply because his supporters lived in rural areas. Does that mean that the rural areas are totally ignored? No, they still have plenty of pull in Sacramento. Just not enough to always get their way regardless of popular opinion.

And at the end of the day, that's what an election is supposed to do, make the government responsive to popular opinion. You say that it's okay to ignore the popular vote in order to please people in rural areas and keep them comfortable with the federal government, but at the end of the day what you're doing is declaring that some people matter more than others simply because of where they live. You say it's necessary in order to hold the union together, but what about the larger number of people who are going to notice that they are considered to be lesser creatures? That's not exactly conducive to a stable union.

But it did, the 2.8 million extra votes for Clinton came EXCLUSIVELY from California. No other state. It's on record, you can go look it up.

So no, you're wrong

>ITT: people who haven't read the President Luthor arc