On 11/13/2016 at 9:17 PM, Riley24 said:

Trump told his supporters to riot if he lost, and that he would only lose if it was rigged against him.

As for rioting, I am not aware of, but as for if he would lose was an entirely different story. His comment was we'll see, it was entirely possible at the time that the election was going to be rigged based on George Soros's owned electronic polls, and the actual rigging of the DNC primary against Bernie Sanders. I will say that it is entirely a possibility that there was rigging on both sides to a small extent, and with the upcoming recount we might see to what extent this occurred, and possibly by whom.

 

On 11/13/2016 at 9:17 PM, Riley24 said:

He supported the idea that "2nd Amendment people" should shoot and kill Hillary if she won.

He never even said any of this, you are putting ideas and words into his mouth. He said "If she gets to pick her judges, there's nothing you can do folks...although the Second Amendment folks maybe there is". The bolded part is the part you are referring to, this did not advocate for assassination- actually it was rather vague. It was supposedly meant to be about the influence and reliability of 2nd Amendment activists who are unwavering in support and unity. It definitely left room for interpretation, but I did not personally take it as an assassination threat. 

On 11/13/2016 at 9:17 PM, Riley24 said:

We're not protesting because we think it was rigged, we're protesting an undemocratic election system that allowed the most unpopular candidate in history to become President.

As of today, I have yet to hear of a protest of the electoral college itself. I have seen and heard many protests that want Clinton to become president, but not a single one against the system itself.

 

On 11/13/2016 at 9:17 PM, Riley24 said:

I don't give a flying fuck about how impolite liberal protesters are.

You should, thank god that they've more or less stopped blocking traffic on highways and roads. At the time, this was a serious safety concern for emergency crews, however, I still have yet to see any actual evidence of them blocking ambulances (outside of one BLM protest earlier this year), but that's a different topic. It was definitely a possible danger to themselves and others. It also blocked people from getting to and from work, and disrupted commerce, while at the same time accomplishing nothing because they were trying to protest against something that can not be changed (not the electoral college, the election result itself).

 

On 11/13/2016 at 9:17 PM, Riley24 said:

And I'm not a Hillary supporter, mind you. I despised her almost as much as Trump.

Thank god.

Well, I know in the end no one will care, so here we go.

 

In this election we Libertarians had absolutely NO ONE. Gary Johnson was absolutely not the right candidate for the party, he was at best a pot smoking Democrat who left his party because he didn't fit in with the Marxist, Feminist, or other social justice narratives that hijacked the political left in the West. That's not the point.

 

Here's the thing, my family all voted Trump, but I can't see through his unconstitutional rhetoric. It's not the border talk, it's not the 'racist, misogynist, homophobic, xenophobic, transphobic' talk, it's not the flip flopping on certain issues, it's the fact that he is attacking the 1st Amendment. I'm glad he's in support of the 2nd Amendment, but trying to limit the press, and make even more severe libel laws for things that are against him even though libel laws are already good enough to go against anything that is actually a problem.

 

Now, compared to Clinton, he definitely is the better option. However, it's only because he is going to bring change for the better. How can trying to stay out of Syria as much as possible be bad? How can trying to strengthen ties with Russia be bad? How can accepting migrants who are from countries that aren't even Syria, and have already broken international laws be good? Nevermind that they haven't provided any benefits to the EU countries that accepted them, that they also increased all crime rates, and that terrorist attacks have skyrocketed. How can wanting to bring manufacturing back be bad to anybody?

 

This is the end of the Clinton Dynasty in politics, and that's something to be thankful of despite Trump.

 

Hey, I guess there's nothing to do but wait and see what happens now.

You guys are all missing the point, Trump is now the president and we all have to accept that, whether it be Democrat or Republican. Let me tell you guys something; my grandfather is a really smart guy, everyone in St. James, New York knows him and they respect and admire his decisions. He is a Republican and even the Democrats in St. James agree with him. He wanted Trump to win from the get-go, which is saying something. However when Trump won, the Democrats in St. James were sad that Hillary lost, but they did not go around protesting and setting things on fire. What my grandfather did was not rub it in their faces, but he told them he was sorry and then he explained the benefits of a Trump presidency. So my point is, that we have things to gain from this election and we can not go around protesting, setting things ablaze, and saying that Trump is not our president because it is just outright childish and wrong. That's all I have to say and lets put politics aside and talk about Thanksgiving or Christmas or what happened when you were using LSPDFR.

17 hours ago, crkinnh said:

Well, I know in the end no one will care, so here we go.

 

In this election we Libertarians had absolutely NO ONE. Gary Johnson was absolutely not the right candidate for the party, he was at best a pot smoking Democrat who left his party because he didn't fit in with the Marxist, Feminist, or other social justice narratives that hijacked the political left in the West. That's not the point.

 

Here's the thing, my family all voted Trump, but I can't see through his unconstitutional rhetoric. It's not the border talk, it's not the 'racist, misogynist, homophobic, xenophobic, transphobic' talk, it's not the flip flopping on certain issues, it's the fact that he is attacking the 1st Amendment. I'm glad he's in support of the 2nd Amendment, but trying to limit the press, and make even more severe libel laws for things that are against him even though libel laws are already good enough to go against anything that is actually a problem.

 

Now, compared to Clinton, he definitely is the better option. However, it's only because he is going to bring change for the better. How can trying to stay out of Syria as much as possible be bad? How can trying to strengthen ties with Russia be bad? How can accepting migrants who are from countries that aren't even Syria, and have already broken international laws be good? Nevermind that they haven't provided any benefits to the EU countries that accepted them, that they also increased all crime rates, and that terrorist attacks have skyrocketed. How can wanting to bring manufacturing back be bad to anybody?

 

This is the end of the Clinton Dynasty in politics, and that's something to be thankful of despite Trump.

 

Hey, I guess there's nothing to do but wait and see what happens now.

I agree completely!

On 11/22/2016 at 8:35 PM, ScarletDraconis said:

Without changing the electoral college system, it could be reworked. The 'winner-takes-all' rule makes little to no sense. Each state has a set number of delegates, why not divide them between the two candidates depending on the % of votes they got? It would be clearly more fair. Let's say a state has 20 delegates, one candidate gets 60% of the votes, the other gets 40%. Instead of having the 20 delegates going the one candidate with the bigger score, there could be 12 delegates going to the candidate with 60%, and 8 to the candidate with 40%. On top of being more fair, it would be much much more representative of the actual population and its political views.

This is similar to the system that Nebraska and Maine use, just a heads up for you. This is not debating anything.

Well, this Video describes it very well:

 

20 hours ago, NeulandInternet said:

Well, this Video describes it very well:

 

Pretty accurate.

the funny thing is, i was talking to american today and he said you guys need trudo. i was like lol because up here no one wants trudo! your TRUMP/Hillery is our Trudo. our harper is your obama. it just goes to show what bad state America is in. 

24 minutes ago, awsomeboy232 said:

it just goes to show what bad state America is in. 

Definitely agree that America in its current state is a....fixer upper....(for  lack of better terms).

 

 I think what makes this country great is its rich history and traditions, expansive individual liberties for all citizens, individual and states' rights, and I know that I feel a lot of pride in all of these things. I think time will really be the only way to gauge the degree to which the new president elect can be efficacious in the policies he drafts, how he reduces the massive national debt, and most important to me, maintains the principles I mentioned above.

 

I said it before and I'll say it again, I think that Trump definitely better encompasses the values of what the US always has been and should continue to be.

On 11/15/2016 at 3:13 AM, Original Light said:

Donald Trump is a very smart man, and I've always admired him. 

 

Are we thinking of the same Trump? The one that said "The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive."?

 

Guy sure is a genius.

Edited December 2, 20169 yr by Constable Lego

6 hours ago, Constable Lego said:

 

Are we thinking of the same Trump? The one that said "The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive."?

 

Guy sure is a genius.

 

I admire him on different aspects, not his personal life, his affairs, his controversies, etc. And I don't agree on everything, such as the statement you just quoted. I do, however, admire the business he built. Any billionaire is impressive to me, because let's face it, how many are there in our world? And you do have to be  very intelligent to turn $1 million, or $10 million (or however much his father gave him), into $8 billion dollars. You can argue "But he inherited millions from his father", it doesn't change the fact that he turned it into several billions. 

3 hours ago, Original Light said:

 

I admire him on different aspects, not his personal life, his affairs, his controversies, etc. And I don't agree on everything, such as the statement you just quoted. I do, however, admire the business he built. Any billionaire is impressive to me, because let's face it, how many are there in our world? And you do have to be  very intelligent to turn $1 million, or $10 million (or however much his father gave him), into $8 billion dollars. You can argue "But he inherited millions from his father", it doesn't change the fact that he turned it into several billions. 

I don't want to steer the discussion too far off, but I wanted to mention that I agree on it being impressive. When I ask people what they'd do with $1M, the first thing I hear is "Buy". Buy, buy, buy, spend, spend, spend. No investments or savings. That's something that I can easily admire about the man. 

If you really think he decides of everything by himself, you're naive. He's at the head of several businesses. He has councellors, economists, statisticians, no businessman takes decisions on the fly and by himself, it doesn't work like that. :)

1 hour ago, ScarletDraconis said:

If you really think he decides of everything by himself, you're naive. He's at the head of several businesses. He has councellors, economists, statisticians, no businessman takes decisions on the fly and by himself, it doesn't work like that. :)

The notable part about Donald Trump is that he took the initiative. I can't name a single person that's immensely successful  without any sort of outside help or support. Of course he had help, but he took the initiative to make his own name great. Doesn't matter what you think of the man, you have to admit that his name does hold a lot of value. 

Well, I don't know what pulled me out of hibernation to comment on this, and am quite surprised it hasn't been locked yet. But just to throw my two cents in...

 

I dislike both candidates. Hillary is the epitome of what's wrong with politicians in our country. She's a liar and fraud. Trump is an obnoxious bigot. But, I'd rather have a bully as a leader than a murderer. The mere fact that Hillary is able to run for office and still have 2 criminal investigations ongoing shows how messed up of a country we are. And, at the end of the day, I'd rather go to work knowing my president isn't going to throw me under the bus. 

On 12/2/2016 at 5:41 AM, Constable Lego said:

 

Are we thinking of the same Trump? The one that said "The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive."?

 

Guy sure is a genius.

Genius- no, but his statement is partly correct at the very least. The fact that you don't acknowledge it is ridiculous. 

 

To boil it down, the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) limits the amount of CO2 a factory can output which has a detrimental effect to productivity in manufacturing due to the amount of CO2 output by production of an amount of products, and if they want to produce the same amount they would normally be able to- they'd have to either develop ways to lessen the output to legal limits or develop devices to lessen CO2 output unless they want to lessen production to keep the legal amount output. All this screws companies over of a lot of money, so much that it might not even pass the break even point financially.

 

All of this means that companies have a higher incentive to move to countries like China who have no CO2 limit on top of no minimum wage, and the more companies that moved to China, the more companies are forced to also move in order to compete with their competitors financially- unless they want to run their companies into the ground.

On 12/2/2016 at 3:13 AM, awsomeboy232 said:

the funny thing is, i was talking to american today and he said you guys need trudo. i was like lol because up here no one wants trudo!

I'd never take Trudeau. Trudeau is wayyyyyy too far left. In my opinion he's already running Canada into the ground, nevermind his views- which I must say to just read his statement after Castro's death as an example.

2 hours ago, Pavelow said:

Trump is an obnoxious bigot. . 

1

Out of curiosity, do you mind elaborating on what exactly you believe makes Donald Trump a bigot? I'm not disagreeing with the claim of Trump being obnoxious because that's exactly what he is; an arrogant, obnoxious, clown. I just don't entirely understand how him being a bigot, going by your words, makes him an undesirable candidate when by definition just about any other politician can also be considered a bigot. He has made a ton of controversial statements though, I'm not denying that.

 

The definition by a simple Bing search is "a person who is intolerant to those holding different opinions". This brings more than just Donald Trump to mind.

Edited December 5, 20169 yr by TheDivineHustle

3 hours ago, TheDivineHustle said:

The definition by a simple Bing search is "a person who is intolerant to those holding different opinions".

 

 

Mike Hucabee comes to mind. Same goes for a lot of these rioters burning the American flag.

On 05/12/2016 at 0:21 AM, crkinnh said:

Genius- no, but his statement is partly correct at the very least. The fact that you don't acknowledge it is ridiculous. 

 

To boil it down, the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) limits the amount of CO2 a factory can output which has a detrimental effect to productivity in manufacturing due to the amount of CO2 output by production of an amount of products, and if they want to produce the same amount they would normally be able to- they'd have to either develop ways to lessen the output to legal limits or develop devices to lessen CO2 output unless they want to lessen production to keep the legal amount output. All this screws companies over of a lot of money, so much that it might not even pass the break even point financially.

 

All of this means that companies have a higher incentive to move to countries like China who have no CO2 limit on top of no minimum wage, and the more companies that moved to China, the more companies are forced to also move in order to compete with their competitors financially- unless they want to run their companies into the ground.

No, his statement is not even partly correct. Climatic change wasn't the work of China or anyone in particular, it was the work of the whole world. It wasn't made up to destroy american (or western) industrial competitivity, it happened because we were careless fools in what we were doing. China keeps being fool by refusing to control its CO2 output and just speeds up the process of our planet getting even more messed up. I don't know for you, but I don't want my children and grand-children to live in a world where climat is upside down, where oceaons have raised to the point millions of people die/immigrate for their lives, where the air would become toxic, and so on. Trump made a stupid statement that was nowhere near the truth, just like most of what he says really. Companies are forced to move to China in order to compete? They were the ones who were careless and fucked up by not controlling their CO2 output in the first place, they are responsible for what is happening, if they can't cope with it, they deserve to go bankrupt, period. :)

On 2-12-2016 at 11:41 AM, Constable Lego said:

 

Are we thinking of the same Trump? The one that said "The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive."?

 

Guy sure is a genius.

Puts a fucking oil sheik in charge of the EPA.. The dude definitly doesnt like cold weather. He is unfit for presidency, but Hillary had some strange warmongering ideas. I still think Trump is a little better than Hillary. Still both were horrible.

2 hours ago, S0berDrunk said:

Puts a fucking oil sheik in charge of the EPA.. The dude definitly doesnt like cold weather. He is unfit for presidency, but Hillary had some strange warmongering ideas. I still think Trump is a little better than Hillary. Still both were horrible.

 

It actually brought a tear to my eye earlier today, the fact that all we had were Trump and Hillary as options. Just shows how broken and screwed the system really is.