Is Trump Resigning?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BriarFox

You're arguing to one side of me. I'm not saying that Trump should have campaigned in California. He never could have won it. I mentioned California because its popular vote illustrates why Trump won. He won because he appealed to a vague nostalgia, a fear of difference, and a deeply rooted chauvinism. That message never would have gained traction in a generally prosperous and liberal place like California. It did gain traction across enough of the U.S. to pull off an Electoral College upset and steal the election, but he wasn't (and isn't) as popular nation-wide as you're making him out to be.

Here's the take-away: Literally the majority of people in the U.S. don't like Trump. We're currently in a government of the minority.

---

Trump won because Hillary was a weak ass candidate. ANY Republican would have destroyed her.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelston

Trump won because Hillary was a weak ass candidate. ANY Republican would have destroyed her.

---

You know, this exchange is really emblematic of the PC politics folders. Lots of ignoring points and arguing something entirely different.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BriarFox

You know, this exchange is really emblematic of the PC politics folders. Lots of ignoring points and arguing something entirely different.

---

No, I think you refusing to believe Hillary was a weak candidate is the point. I think Bernie would have won. You keep saying things like "popular vote" and "california". None of those things have ever mattered. You don't campaign for the popular vote. If you did, I think the map would have looked different. Trump would have campaigned different.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelston

No, I think you refusing to believe Hillary was a weak candidate is the point. I think Bernie would have won. You keep saying things like "popular vote" and "california". None of those things have ever mattered. You don't campaign for the popular vote. If you did, I think the map would have looked different. Trump would have campaigned different.

---

My initial point was about a biased electoral playing field, and then about structural causes for the election, not about Hillary's strength or weakness. That's your skewed perception of my argument, and another classic example of simplifying something complex into something easier to grasp. As for her strength, though, I think that had Hillary been a man, she would have beaten Trump by 20 points or more. That said, I'm delighted to see that Trump's basically fucked up everything since he stepped into office and currently has an approval rating of 38% and falling. Enjoying your president?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BriarFox

My initial point was about a biased electoral playing field, and then about structural causes for the election, not about Hillary's strength or weakness. That's your skewed perception of my argument, and another classic example of simplifying something complex into something easier to grasp. Had Hillary been a man, she would have beaten Trump by 20 points or more. That said, I'm delighted to see that Trump's basically fucked up everything since he stepped into office and currently has an approval rating of 38% and falling. Enjoying your president?

---

No, you just popped up and blamed Gerrymandering. Trump won places that Republicans haven't won in a long time.... yet somehow Gerrymandering is how.

Because Democrats don't use gerrymandering........

Gerrymandering is a reward (whether you like it or not) for winning elections, Democrats are not winning elections thus they don't get to gerrymander.

Quote:

---

Had Hillary been a man, she would have beaten Trump by 20 points or more.

---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNH32rKXqd0

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BriarFox

You know, this exchange is really emblematic of the PC politics folders. Lots of ignoring points and arguing something entirely different.

---

You mean how you blamed gerrymandering on Trump's election and how he didn't even win the popular vote.. and when I asked you to explain it, you said it was an 8th grade concept and you didn't want to interfere with our circle jerk?

Yea, I agree.

Seriously though, thanks for playing the role of time4fun for a little bit. Not sure what absolutely triggggggggggggggggggggered you again, but get back on those meds and slink back to your safe space again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BriarFox

My initial point was about a biased electoral playing field, and then about structural causes for the election, not about Hillary's strength or weakness. That's your skewed perception of my argument, and another classic example of simplifying something complex into something easier to grasp. As for her strength, though, I think that had Hillary been a man, she would have beaten Trump by 20 points or more. That said, I'm delighted to see that Trump's basically fucked up everything since he stepped into office and currently has an approval rating of 38% and falling. Enjoying your president?

---

Yes, yes... the country didn't vote for Hillary only because she was a woman.

GTFO of here with your retarded projection.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelston

No, I think you refusing to believe Hillary was a weak candidate is the point. I think Bernie would have won. You keep saying things like "popular vote" and "california". None of those things have ever mattered. You don't campaign for the popular vote. If you did, I think the map would have looked different. Trump would have campaigned different.

---

You keep ignoring the fact that before Bush in 2000, a president had not become the president despite more US citizens voting for the other person in over a hundred years. Now it's happened with two of the last three presidents, both times in favor of Republicans. The mantra of "that's how it's always been" doesn't mean as much as you seem to think it does when even the oldest living US citizen wasn't alive yet to witness the previous time that this situation had occurred. You want to act like it doesn't matter, but a whole lot of people think that it's wrong and it does matter.

I know you're going to respond with "but that's still how it's always been" and how something that literally had not happened since the 1800's happening for two of the last three presidents, both Republican, couldn't possibly mean that the system could have been manipulated or that anything even slightly underhanded could have occurred. I guess I just still have a little hope.

2017 Iowa State Fair Cast Your Kernel current results.

By party:

Republican: 58%
Democrat: 39%
Libertarian: 3%

Governor:

Kim Reynolds (R): 52% (A woman, how can this be?)

Nate Boulton (D): 21%

http://whotv.com/2017/08/10/2017-iow...ernel-results/