We're doomed.

[N e s s]

It pisses me off how millennials think that their vote "didn't count" and went ahead and voted for 3rd party. Everybody knew that Gary Johnson and Jill Stein weren't going to win, the people who voted for them didn't care enough to consider the fact that we could have Donald Trump as a president, and now look at the hell hole we're in.

In fact, I'm atleast 95% sure that Donald didn't even think he was going to win. Why else would he go whining that the election was "rigged against him"? He would have rather burned the whole house down rather then think of the greater good. I'm done with all of this crap, it pisses me off enough how kids at my school actually have the nerve to make jokes about it too. I've heard kids in my class actually say "One nation under trump" during the pledge of allegiance, and they don't even act phased about it.

Moral of the story: literally anyone can become president and we're all screwed.

- - - Post Merge - - -

eh we'll be fine. we survived as a country this long for more than 300 years, WE SHOULDNT LET THIS ELECTION BRING US DOWN, either if youre a Hillary supporter or a Trump supporter, keep on living life normally.

Also, no. I'm not going to live life normally when there is a walking turd who is about to be the main face of america.

 

[Red Cat]

eh we'll be fine. we survived as a country this long for more than 300 years, WE SHOULDNT LET THIS ELECTION BRING US DOWN, either if youre a Hillary supporter or a Trump supporter, keep on living life normally.

The president of the United States isn't just some figurehead like the Queen of England. There is a reason why billions of dollars were spent on the election. There is a possibility things will be okay and I certainly hope so, but I'm not too optimistic about the next four years.

 

[Jawile]

To everyone who thinks that a 3rd party vote is "wasted": you're wrong.

If a third-party candidate takes 5% of the vote, they receive a ton of money to campaign with next election ($9+ mil.) so I'd say even if they don't win the election, that'd be a win for the party. Getting third parties the votes they deserve will help us end the awful two-party system we have going right now. So if someone told you that you wasted your vote voting for Johnson, Stein, or any of the other candidates: tell them they're wrong. There's no such thing as a wasted vote (except if you wrote in Harambe or something)

 

[Red Cat]

To everyone who thinks that a 3rd party vote is "wasted": you're wrong.

If a third-party candidate takes 5% of the vote, they receive a ton of money to campaign with next election ($9+ mil.) so I'd say even if they don't win the election, that'd be a win for the party. Getting third parties the votes they deserve will help us end the awful two-party system we have going right now. So if someone told you that you wasted your vote voting for Johnson, Stein, or any of the other candidates: tell them they're wrong. There's no such thing as a wasted vote (except if you wrote in Harambe or something)

If a third-party gained 2% more of the vote every presidential election, you'd be dead before a third-party candidate actually wins. Trump was basically a third-party candidate, but he ran in the Republican primary and won because people got out and voted for him. The Green and Libertarian parties are a joke. They don't even win local or state elections so they sure as hell aren't going to win a national election anytime soon.

 

[-Apples-]

Moral of the story: literally anyone can become president and we're all screwed.

That is true. It happened with every president, even with Lincoln. And I'm not really a fan of him (I actually am more of a Ted Cruz supporter), but I do accept the results of the election (no matter who wins), and one thing I'm glad that happened is that it shows how radical leftism is a complete disaster. It already failed with the fiscal issues several times, but it's already failing on the social issues. For example, remember that case when a family-owned Christian bakery shut down because they refuse to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple (since that means they would be forced to attend the wedding)? The lawyer involved in the case ran for Secretary of State in Oregon and lost. Even when Oregon is one of the most socially liberal states in America, the voters would not vote him for his bullying of that family. This is one of the extreme leftist cases where even the left wing couldn't tolerate. America has been moving further to the left wing for like 240 years, but it already reached the tipping point. The bathroom debate, political correctness, and safe spaces are some of the many social issues where the left wing is at the extreme. I believe that all of this is the final straw.

And the shift from left to right is not just happening in America, but also in Europe. Remember Brexit? That was an example of how radical leftism on the social issues is failing. Even other parts in Europe are switching to the right.

The bottom line is, fiscal liberalism failed several times, but social liberalism is already beginning to implode. A lot of you guys may support the liberal side of the current social issues, and may not like seeing that get reversed, but they really don't work.

Also, no. I'm not going to live life normally when there is a walking turd who is about to be the main face of america.

I thought Obama was the worst president, but I lived my life normally under the past eight years (except when I was forced to eat little in response to a weight loss surgery). I'm sure you'll do fine.

 

[nintendofan85]

Just so you guys know, Ross Perot was the last third-party candidate that did well in an election.

 

[SugardewVillage]

That is true. It happened with every president, even with Lincoln. And I'm not really a fan of him (I actually am more of a Ted Cruz supporter), but I do accept the results of the election (no matter who wins), and one thing I'm glad that happened is that it shows how radical leftism is a complete disaster. It already failed with the fiscal issues several times, but it's already failing on the social issues. For example, remember that case when a family-owned Christian bakery shut down because they refuse to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple (since that means they would be forced to attend the wedding)? The lawyer involved in the case ran for Secretary of State in Oregon and lost. Even when Oregon is one of the most socially liberal states in America, the voters would not vote him for his bullying of that family. This is one of the extreme leftist cases where even the left wing couldn't tolerate. America has been moving further to the left wing for like 240 years, but it already reached the tipping point. The bathroom debate, political correctness, and safe spaces are some of the many social issues where the left wing is at the extreme. I believe that all of this is the final straw.

And the shift from left to right is not just happening in America, but also in Europe. Remember Brexit? That was an example of how radical leftism on the social issues is failing. Even other parts in Europe are switching to the right.

The bottom line is, fiscal liberalism failed several times, but social liberalism is already beginning to implode. A lot of you guys may support the liberal side of the current social issues, and may not like seeing that get reversed, but they really don't work.



I thought Obama was the worst president, but I lived my life normally under the past eight years (except when I was forced to eat little in response to a weight loss surgery). I'm sure you'll do fine.

Yeah, Obama is definantly not the worst president, and Trump is obviously far worse than Obama.
Also, that family you were talking about, I'm not completely against the situation that happened, I understand they didn't want to go to the wedding (probably because of their beliefs) but, I am against them refusing to do it because the couple is gay.

- - - Post Merge - - -

Also, no. I'm not going to live life normally when there is a walking turd who is about to be the main face of america.

I don't think it is possible for me to live a normal life.

 

[Red Cat]

That is true. It happened with every president, even with Lincoln. And I'm not really a fan of him (I actually am more of a Ted Cruz supporter), but I do accept the results of the election (no matter who wins), and one thing I'm glad that happened is that it shows how radical leftism is a complete disaster. It already failed with the fiscal issues several times, but it's already failing on the social issues. For example, remember that case when a family-owned Christian bakery shut down because they refuse to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple (since that means they would be forced to attend the wedding)? The lawyer involved in the case ran for Secretary of State in Oregon and lost. Even when Oregon is one of the most socially liberal states in America, the voters would not vote him for his bullying of that family. This is one of the extreme leftist cases where even the left wing couldn't tolerate. America has been moving further to the left wing for like 240 years, but it already reached the tipping point. The bathroom debate, political correctness, and safe spaces are some of the many social issues where the left wing is at the extreme. I believe that all of this is the final straw.

And the shift from left to right is not just happening in America, but also in Europe. Remember Brexit? That was an example of how radical leftism on the social issues is failing. Even other parts in Europe are switching to the right.

The bottom line is, fiscal liberalism failed several times, but social liberalism is already beginning to implode. A lot of you guys may support the liberal side of the current social issues, and may not like seeing that get reversed, but they really don't work.



I thought Obama was the worst president, but I lived my life normally under the past eight years (except when I was forced to eat little in response to a weight loss surgery). I'm sure you'll do fine.

People were saying conservatism was dead in America in 2008 when Obama won, so I highly doubt liberalism is dead especially since Clinton won the popular vote. A lot of people are wishy-washy and go back and forth between parties and will get pissed at Trump when he fails to accomplish his big promises. Social liberalism has not failed; in fact, socially liberal things like same-sex marriage and pot legalization have become so mainstream that even conservatives don't care about them that much anymore. They care about things like trade policy more than morals and family values. Trump can't even read a bible verse correctly much less remember one, so it's not like him getting elected was a huge victory for social conservatives.

- - - Post Merge - - -

I don't think it is possible for me to live a normal life. I am completely ok with Trump getting assassinated. #AssassinateTrump

Trust me, you don't want Mike Pence to be president.

 

[-Apples-]

People were saying conservatism was dead in America in 2008 when Obama won, so I highly doubt liberalism is dead especially since Clinton won the popular vote. A lot of people are wishy-washy and go back and forth between parties and will get pissed at Trump when he fails to accomplish his big promises. Social liberalism has not failed; in fact, socially liberal things like same-sex marriage and pot legalization have become so mainstream that even conservatives don't care about them that much anymore. They care about things like trade policy more than morals and family values. Trump can't even read a bible verse correctly much less remember one, so it's not like him getting elected was a huge victory for social conservatives.

I'm not saying that liberalism is dead because as long as people are supporting it, it still lives. But what it's showing is that we're reaching the limit on how far left our country has gotten on the social issues. People on the radical left would always support making our country even more liberal, but we're already at the extreme. We fought slavery, disenfranchisement of African-Americans, and Jim Crow laws, but we couldn't tolerate racial quotas, painting whites as racist, or throwing in "racism" over lack of diversity or anything the Democrats do not like. We legalized same-sex marriage, but we couldn't tolerate forcing people to violate their beliefs to promote it. We praised second-wave feminists and civil rights leaders, but we couldn't tolerate social justice warriors or Tumblr feminists. We became more aware of the environment, but we couldn't tolerate people who shame global warming skeptics. I'm basically trying to say that we really hit the extreme left as we were going leftward, and people couldn't take it anymore. Yeah, I know Trump is a social liberal, but even he wouldn't agree with the radical left.

And yes, we were swinging back and forth over the years, but we have been moving mostly left-winged in our history. It was a good thing up until 1969, but everything after 2009 was what I am against most.

 

[N e s s]

To everyone who thinks that a 3rd party vote is "wasted": you're wrong.

If a third-party candidate takes 5% of the vote, they receive a ton of money to campaign with next election ($9+ mil.) so I'd say even if they don't win the election, that'd be a win for the party. Getting third parties the votes they deserve will help us end the awful two-party system we have going right now. So if someone told you that you wasted your vote voting for Johnson, Stein, or any of the other candidates: tell them they're wrong. There's no such thing as a wasted vote (except if you wrote in Harambe or something)

So basically vote 3rd party because it gives them money to campaign another election they'll probably lose

lol k whatever floats ur boat

- - - Post Merge - - -

I'm not saying that liberalism is dead because as long as people are supporting it, it still lives. But what it's showing is that we're reaching the limit on how far left our country has gotten on the social issues. People on the radical left would always support making our country even more liberal, but we're already at the extreme. We fought slavery, disenfranchisement of African-Americans, and Jim Crow laws, but we couldn't tolerate racial quotas, painting whites as racist, or throwing in "racism" over lack of diversity or anything the Democrats do not like. We legalized same-sex marriage, but we couldn't tolerate forcing people to violate their beliefs to promote it. We praised second-wave feminists and civil rights leaders, but we couldn't tolerate social justice warriors or Tumblr feminists. We became more aware of the environment, but we couldn't tolerate people who shame global warming skeptics. I'm basically trying to say that we really hit the extreme left as we were going leftward, and people couldn't take it anymore. Yeah, I know Trump is a social liberal, but even he wouldn't agree with the radical left.

And yes, we were swinging back and forth over the years, but we have been moving mostly left-winged in our history. It was a good thing up until 1969, but everything after 2009 was what I am against most.

I honestly can't understand how you can accept Donald as a president. Have you seen the people he has on his cabinet? Mike pence literally thinks he can convert people to be straight by shocking them, and Jeff Sessions is straight up racist. Look up quotes that Jeff sessions has made and tell me what you think.

 

[Flare]

Pls...
Can us Hillary and Trump supporters kust try and get along?
Both have their positives and negatives.
While I supported Hillary, I will accept Trump as the new president. If we just try to stay calm between one another, then everything will be good.

 

[-Apples-]

I honestly can't understand how you can accept Donald as a president. Have you seen the people he has on his cabinet? Mike pence literally thinks he can convert people to be straight by shocking them, and Jeff Sessions is straight up racist. Look up quotes that Jeff sessions has made and tell me what you think.

Yes I am aware of who he's choosing for his cabinet, but I don't think they're racists. The term "racist" means "a person who hates another person because of their skin, their ethnicity, or their nationality". It doesn't only mean "thwarting diversity" or "whites against non-whites". It also means that you are willingly to discriminate based on their skin, ethnicity, or nationality for the reason being that they are different in those traits. You may be well aware of what the term really means, but if you're gonna assume that these cabinet members (or anybody who voted Trump, opposed Obama, or opposes left-wing ideologies) hate people because of their traits for any reason, you have to look at the real issue. Yes, I can understand there are racial issues in each issue, and sometimes it affects minorities negatively, but the Republicans' focus isn't about race; it's about morals, economic freedom, and practicality. Basically, they care more about their issues and not about race. But when it comes to racial issues, they're against intolerance and will accept diversity. They just don't celebrate it or force it.

For example, voter ID laws were considered "racist" because "it prevents minorities from voting". In my opinion, it won't actually stop non-whites from voting, no matter what party they're on, but it does require them to show their ID, license, passport, or anything with their information like that. It doesn't really matter because you would basically need it for almost everything. To buy guns or alcohol, you would need to share your ID. To buy on credit, you would need to share your ID. To watch an adult movie or go to a public casino, you would need to share your ID. To get on public transportation, you would need to share your ID. And yet, when it comes to voting, the liberals call it "racist", not caring about the ID requirements of anything else. And it's all because of "diversity". If anything, liberal politicians depend on voter fraud to win elections, and voter IDs actually prevent that. Of course they'll call what they don't like "racist". And even if voter fraud is rare, the majority of the people support these laws (even among the Democratic voters).

Really, I'm at the point where I wouldn't believe anybody that uses the term "racist" in an argument. I wouldn't explore racial issues, and believe it or not, liberals are more intolerant than conservatives, yet they don't realize it or believe it's true.

 

[Red Cat]

Yes I am aware of who he's choosing for his cabinet, but I don't think they're racists. The term "racist" means "a person who hates another person because of their skin, their ethnicity, or their nationality". It doesn't only mean "thwarting diversity" or "whites against non-whites". It also means that you are willingly to discriminate based on their skin, ethnicity, or nationality for the reason being that they are different in those traits. You may be well aware of what the term really means, but if you're gonna assume that these cabinet members (or anybody who voted Trump, opposed Obama, or opposes left-wing ideologies) hate people because of their traits for any reason, you have to look at the real issue. Yes, I can understand there are racial issues in each issue, and sometimes it affects minorities negatively, but the Republicans' focus isn't about race; it's about morals, economic freedom, and practicality. Basically, they care more about their issues and not about race. But when it comes to racial issues, they're against intolerance and will accept diversity. They just don't celebrate it or force it.

For example, voter ID laws were considered "racist" because "it prevents minorities from voting". In my opinion, it won't actually stop non-whites from voting, no matter what party they're on, but it does require them to show their ID, license, passport, or anything with their information like that. It doesn't really matter because you would basically need it for almost everything. To buy guns or alcohol, you would need to share your ID. To buy on credit, you would need to share your ID. To watch an adult movie or go to a public casino, you would need to share your ID. To get on public transportation, you would need to share your ID. And yet, when it comes to voting, the liberals call it "racist", not caring about the ID requirements of anything else. And it's all because of "diversity". If anything, liberal politicians depend on voter fraud to win elections, and voter IDs actually prevent that. Of course they'll call what they don't like "racist". And even if voter fraud is rare, the majority of the people support these laws (even among the Democratic voters).

Really, I'm at the point where I wouldn't believe anybody that uses the term "racist" in an argument. I wouldn't explore racial issues, and believe it or not, liberals are more intolerant than conservatives, yet they don't realize it or believe it's true.

Buying alcohol, going to an adult movie, and flying on a plane are not basic constitutional rights that form the bedrock of democracy. Voting is. Any American citizen who is at least 18 years old should have the right to vote without any cost or excessive barriers. For some people, getting a photo ID is very time consuming and costly and that is an excessive burden. In the state that I live in, you can vote if you preregister with your Social Security number at your address or register same-day if you also show any proof of residence such as a utility bill. These are enough to match a name with an address and citizenship and there have been an extremely low number of documented cases of voter impersonation (like about a dozen cases statewide each election). Voter ID laws, however, can disenfranchise thousands of eligible voters in the name of stopping the voter fraud boogeyman.

On the subject of racism, there is explicit and implicit racial bias. Explicit racism is open and intentional discrimination of minorities. Implicit racial bias is discrimination against minorities under the guise of treating everyone equally. Laws like voter ID and stop-and-frisk aren't explicitly written to target minorities, but many studies have shown that they disproportionately affect minorities negatively. Choosing to ignore that evidence and still supporting laws which harm minorities without any adjustments to protect them is a form of implicit racial bias. It's easy to support voter ID if you have a driver's license and it's easy to support stop-and-frisk if you aren't a minority living in an urban area. It's easy to support mandatory minimum sentencing for marijuana if you don't use drugs and it's easy to oppose LGBT protections if you're straight. Part of a healthy country is that people should be able to put themselves in other people's shoes and right now most Americans don't do that unfortunately.

 

[ForgottenT]

America chose the lesser of two evils, get over it already, at least you're not sitting with Hillary who wants to start WW3, not to mention that she'd just be doing whatever the big companies or the 1%s want, also her campaign was funded by saudi arabs, is that really who you wanted for president? What a joke, Donald is like an angel in comparison of that witch.

But it still boggles my mind how stupid Americans are, how did these two make it to the end seriously?!

 

[Red Cat]

But it still boggles my mind how stupid Americans are, how did these two make it to the end seriously?!

People getting their information from sites like Infowars could be an explanation.

 

[ForgottenT]

People getting their information from sites like Infowars could be an explanation.

It doesn't matter where the info is from, what is important is what is being said, maybe if you guys spend half the amount of money you spend on military on education instead you'd have proper candidates and not end up with psychopath vs realtor.

 

[Red Cat]

It doesn't matter where the info is from, what is important is what is being said, maybe if you guys spend half the amount of money you spend on military on education instead you'd have proper candidates and not end up with psychopath vs realtor.

It does matter where the info is from. There is a difference between a journalist spending many hours doing interviews and research for a story versus some guy writing an article in his basement. Just because you agree with what some random guy is saying doesn't mean he is a credible source of information. I agree that the United States spends too much on the military, but Donald Trump kept saying how our military is a disaster and that we need to rebuild it. He said during debates that we need to invest more money in the military. That's why it's important to either follow the candidates statements and record yourself or get that information from a reliable source that quotes people verbatim instead of editorializing everything.

 

[ForgottenT]

It does matter where the info is from. There is a difference between a journalist spending many hours doing interviews and research for a story versus some guy writing an article in his basement. Just because you agree with what some random guy is saying doesn't mean he is a credible source of information. I agree that the United States spends too much on the military, but Donald Trump kept saying how our military is a disaster and that we need to rebuild it. He said during debates that we need to invest more money in the military. That's why it's important to either follow the candidates statements and record yourself or get that information from a reliable source that quotes people verbatim instead of editorializing everything.

Did you even watch the video, nothing was written, it's a montage of what Trump have said through the years, there's no writing, no journalism, I could have made that video, you could have made that video, anyone could have, I don't really care who's president in USA as long as they don't start freaking WW3 like Hillary would have.

Yes I do follow what he have said, but you gotta stop listening to the propaganda spewed by the corrupt media, listen to it straight from his mouth, and not from some journalist, I agree with Trump you guys should fix your military, it's a good thing, you don't want to appear weak, cause if you do you'll probably get ****ed over, you gotta have a functioning military in case **** hits the fan.
Trump is by no means an Angel, he have said lots of stuff that I don't agree with, but the point is that Hillary would have been worse, if it was up to me neither of them would be anywhere near the white house, but at the very least Trump loves your country, he cares about you guys, even if he makes mistake at least he's not in the pockets of the 1% or other countries for that matter like the other choice did.

 

[-Apples-]

Buying alcohol, going to an adult movie, and flying on a plane are not basic constitutional rights that form the bedrock of democracy. Voting is. Any American citizen who is at least 18 years old should have the right to vote without any cost or excessive barriers. For some people, getting a photo ID is very time consuming and costly and that is an excessive burden. In the state that I live in, you can vote if you preregister with your Social Security number at your address or register same-day if you also show any proof of residence such as a utility bill. These are enough to match a name with an address and citizenship and there have been an extremely low number of documented cases of voter impersonation (like about a dozen cases statewide each election). Voter ID laws, however, can disenfranchise thousands of eligible voters in the name of stopping the voter fraud boogeyman.

On the subject of racism, there is explicit and implicit racial bias. Explicit racism is open and intentional discrimination of minorities. Implicit racial bias is discrimination against minorities under the guise of treating everyone equally. Laws like voter ID and stop-and-frisk aren't explicitly written to target minorities, but many studies have shown that they disproportionately affect minorities negatively. Choosing to ignore that evidence and still supporting laws which harm minorities without any adjustments to protect them is a form of implicit racial bias. It's easy to support voter ID if you have a driver's license and it's easy to support stop-and-frisk if you aren't a minority living in an urban area. It's easy to support mandatory minimum sentencing for marijuana if you don't use drugs and it's easy to oppose LGBT protections if you're straight. Part of a healthy country is that people should be able to put themselves in other people's shoes and right now most Americans don't do that unfortunately.

When you described explicit racism, that's intolerance at its finest. Of course everyone who is intolerant of people based on race, sex, sexual orientation, religion, class, age, beliefs, and nationality are classified as evil. This does not just include those straight white males that couldn't tolerate people that are different to them, but it includes everyone that hates anyone based on those traits I named. I know there are worse evils out there that do worse things, but even being intolerant on any side is still in that world of evil.

But when you described implicit racism, I don't think that's racism, and even if it is, it's still not intolerance. When it comes to anything, such as work, crime, skill, entertainment, punishment, and the law, it doesn't matter what group you're in. You work hard, you get paid well. You do your homework or tests correctly, you get good grades. You start a fight with a cop, you are universally known as a rebel. There's more to say, but all of this should apply to everyone equally. Granted, it doesn't solve the inequality issue, as that would result in accusations of racism against anything that is either not solving the issue or making the issue worse. However, to combat that, you're gonna have to treat people unequally, but only to have the others catch up, not to worsen the problem in history. And that is still discrimination, even when good intentions are made. I wouldn't classify this as evil since it's not directing hate towards someone, but it takes away freedom, which is un-American.

I don't like seeing inequality based on race either, but when I believe everybody should be treated equally, they should have the same quality of services based on the same pay, same salary based on the same level of work and hours of work, and the same punishment based on the same crime, no matter who they are. Nothing is perfect, and both your opinions and my opinions are flawed, but I'm just explaining why I don't see racism from where you call it "implicit racism".

 

[Red Cat]

Did you even watch the video, nothing was written, it's a montage of what Trump have said through the years, there's no writing, no journalism, I could have made that video, you could have made that video, anyone could have, I don't really care who's president in USA as long as they don't start freaking WW3 like Hillary would have.

Yes I do follow what he have said, but you gotta stop listening to the propaganda spewed by the corrupt media, listen to it straight from his mouth, and not from some journalist, I agree with Trump you guys should fix your military, it's a good thing, you don't want to appear weak, cause if you do you'll probably get ****ed over, you gotta have a functioning military in case **** hits the fan.
Trump is by no means an Angel, he have said lots of stuff that I don't agree with, but the point is that Hillary would have been worse, if it was up to me neither of them would be anywhere near the white house, but at the very least Trump loves your country, he cares about you guys, even if he makes mistake at least he's not in the pockets of the 1% or other countries for that matter like the other choice did.

If you walk up to two guys and one always tells the truth and one always lies, then of course the guy who is lying to you is going to say that the person who tells the truth is lying to you. That's why fringe media sites say the mainstream media is "corrupt" and "biased"; they have to tell you that other media outlets are lying to you because they are selling you an inferior product and they don't want you to know that.

You're right that both you and I could have made that video, and that's the problem. Neither of us are journalists and neither is the producer of that video. That video does indeed use Trump's own words, but it selectively omits his own words and actions which paint an unflattering picture of him.

The problem the U.S. and most of the world with a free press has is that half of the people believe the person telling the truth and half believe the person who is accusing the truth-teller of being a liar, and thus we basically have two different realities now.