ALL HAIL PRESIDENT TRUMP

"

faerwin wrote:

"

DarthSki44 wrote:

"

Boem wrote:

Clearly one blob of red vs multiple blobs of blue.

/statistical representation in 2019

Peace,

-Boem-

It's not even difficult and has a title. How county results don't represent statistical measure blows my mind. Please do tell me how this is statistically inaccurate (or what you even mean)

If the county went for Trump, it's red. If it went for Hillary it was blue. Even my nephew who is fucking 4, could give me an accurate summary with this chart.

nope, he couldn't because the blue still represent the majority of the population!

The most terrifying way of thinking that will plunge this country into civil war if it ever came to that.

Having New York, Los Angeles, Houston and Chicago speaking for most of the country is not only absurd, but dangerous. The electoral college is keeping the US together by fucking threads.

The idea that somehow life in some urban shitshow is more important or better than basically the entire center of the country and most suburban areas is disastrous thinking.

It's one of the things I detest most about living in IL. Chicago speaks for the whole state, which is so fucked up I can't even express how frustrated most Illinoisans are.

"

The_Impeacher wrote:

"

Boem wrote:

It's fairly obvious a president elected by a majority of the people should be supported by both sides of the political spectrum to push america as a whole forward.

If you're talking about Trump, he's a minority installation

so you're saying minorities are bad?

Isn't it a bit xenophobic?

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

This is a technique of the Sith, to take dry humor + sarcasm literally and “fact check” it.

Like the “statistical representation in 2019” thing, you’d have to have the social intelligence of a sarlacc to think it’s literal.

Cheers i thought my sarcasm flew over everybody's head.

Peace,

-Boem-

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

This is a technique of the Sith, to take dry humor + sarcasm literally and “fact check” it.

Like the “statistical representation in 2019” thing, you’d have to have the social intelligence of a sarlacc to think it’s literal.

Whoops I missed it then. Or I didn't, and didn't want to miss an opportunity to inflame.

"

Boem wrote:

It's fairly obvious a president elected by a majority of the people should be supported by both sides of the political spectrum to push america as a whole forward.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

"

Turtledove wrote:

"

Boem wrote:

It's fairly obvious a president elected by a majority of the people should be supported by both sides of the political spectrum to push america as a whole forward.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Informative response, very high brow of you sir.

Rephrase it to "majority of states" or "elected by the same electoral process as all previous presidents" if it eases your mind.

I don't see how that's relevant to my point, but apparently to you it does.

Peace,

-Boem-

"

Boem wrote:

I don't see how that's relevant to my point, but apparently to you it does.

Peace,

-Boem-

Everything makes sense when you don’t think about it. Like the popular vote. Try this, don’t give it more than a passing thought, and the argument practically makes itself. Popular vote. Harumph. Harumph harumph harumph.

Disclaimer: not accusing anyone of absence of thought, referring to the idea within the cultural zeitgeist.

Edit: God damnit. I’ve been lurking a few days, been waiting to post for when I have time to be thoughtful, and in a moment of weakness I return a shit poster. Oh well <3

"

Boem wrote:

"

Turtledove wrote:

"

Boem wrote:

It's fairly obvious a president elected by a majority of the people should be supported by both sides of the political spectrum to push america as a whole forward.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Informative response, very high brow of you sir.

Rephrase it to "majority of states" or "elected by the same electoral process as all previous presidents" if it eases your mind.

I don't see how that's relevant to my point, but apparently to you it does.

Peace,

-Boem-

Your lack of knowledge in US politics is showing and I found it very humorous. It makes a huge difference. He was not elected by a majority of the people.

"

Donald J. Trump 62,980,160
Hillary R. Clinton 65,845,063

Clinton received almost 3 million more votes than Trump.

Using the argument that he was elected by the majority of people and so we should blah blah anything is just silly because it is false.

How about this? You should send me $10,000 dollars because you owe it to me. It doesn't work because you do not owe it to me.

"

Turtledove wrote:

Your lack of knowledge in US politics is showing and I found it very humorous. It makes a huge difference. He was not elected by a majority of the people.

"

Donald J. Trump 62,980,160
Hillary R. Clinton 65,845,063

Really though, that is a very peculiar statistic to cite, as opposed to the 120.7 million that voted third party or didn’t vote. What even is majority?

"

CanHasPants wrote:

"

Boem wrote:

I don't see how that's relevant to my point, but apparently to you it does.

Peace,

-Boem-

Everything makes sense when you don’t think about it. Like the popular vote. Try this, don’t give it more than a passing thought, and the argument practically makes itself. Popular vote. Harumph. Harumph harumph harumph.

Disclaimer: not accusing anyone of absence of thought, referring to the idea within the cultural zeitgeist.

Edit: God damnit. I’ve been lurking a few days, been waiting to post for when I have time to be thoughtful, and in a moment of weakness I return a shit poster. Oh well <3

Yes this insight impacts my assesment that trump won the elections following all the rules all preceding presidents followed.

And that, once the president is elected both party's should unite again to serve america.

glad you straightened that out and didn't got lost in a detail instead of the underlying principle i was advocating.

#shitposter

Peace,

-Boem-