Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
blotsfan

Trump Regime thread.

Recommended Posts

38 minutes ago, Thanatos said:

What is the practical difference between electoral college votes based on % of vote gotten, and just simply using the popular vote?

It subdivides the votes earned in a state but still keeps the number of votes per state consistent. It'd be less bad than what we have now but it still would mean that the value of a person's vote changes based on where they live. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you saying Winston Churchill wasnt a racist piece of shit? Because he absolutely was. Even by the standards of the day. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No that's not what I'm saying, I can recognize that Winston Churchill was probably not a guy you would invite over to a dinner party. That said even he possess qualities of note, I have always admired his Bulldogish resolve. that being said he did some things I can't really reconcile with if I'm calling him a good person. I was more of a Patton and Rommel fan honestly.

what I am saying though, is that we use quotes all the time from guys like Genghis Khan, Julius Caesar, and several other noted conquerors whoever less than pristine reputation. Veni vidi vici, that was Caesar.A leader can never be happy until his people are happy, that was Genghis Khan.

chastising a guy for using a quote from somebody who was less-than-reputable, when all of us use quotes and rarely taken to a counter origins, or the beliefs of people who are their Originators is absolutely stupid. this guy has done something so few people have ever done, and to express his Joy or satisfaction with his accomplishment he uses a quote that fits it perfectly. And all these little dumbasses can do is tear apart the guy who said it, and vicariously through that tear apart the guy who used the quote. When these little idiots do something of note feel free to quote whomever you like.

 

just because this guy uses quotes, does not mean he is in lockstep with the views of the man who said it. It is a quote that fits the feelings of the event. I didn't see anybody raising any fuss when Hillary Clinton did the same thing, when she quoted Cesar after Gaddafi was killed. And she didn't even quoted correctly she paraphrased it to suit her own narrative. now, I'm not blaming Hillary Clinton either, it's a quote that describe the feeling of the event she was witnessing, she can use it the phrase however she pleases. I just think it should be noted that she quoted Cesar, one of the greatest conquerors and enslavers in human history.

Some of these people just need to step back and stop trying to be the writer of wrongs, the White Knight for the underdog, or however they rationalize this kind of stupidity in their mind.

There quotes, leave it at that.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the issue was more about the "One of the greatest leaders of modern times" part of it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, blotsfan said:

I think the issue was more about the "One of the greatest leaders of modern times" part of it. 

 

He was a great leader. You don't have to be a great guy to be a leader. Fax bear that out. Winston Churchill was the Lone superpower who was fighting against Nazi Germany for a long time, and doing so successfully.

 

he raised an army, motivated it, created the infrastructure, the command structure, and gain civilian support for his cause. Was he a humanitarian, no not in the slightest. Could he lead people, absolutely.

 

That is another false notion that bothers me, some of the greatest leaders in history, we're terrible people Hitler, can you deny he was a great leader? He was beloved by his people, got all of his people to work towards a common goal even though that goal was horrific, made outstanding advances in The Sciences, educated and trained to military that was incredibly efficient, and for his time was an outstanding leader. Terrible human being, that's really not up for debate by any sane person. He could however direct and lead people towards a common goal. Genghis Khan was the same way, Julius Caesar was the same way, Pol Pot was the same way, Mao Zedong was the same way, Fidel Castro was the same way, all of these people were terrible human beings, but they were beloved by their country and could get their country to follow their directive without question and fiercely. How else would you define leadership? Being a humanitarian really has nothing to do with leadership, it helps, and it certainly a quality a lot of great leaders have, but it's not a prerequisite.

 

Hell look at Sun Tzu, his book has become the definitive guide on leadership. It is read by military's and CEOs across the spectrum, is widely regarded as one of the greatest books on leadership ever. And yet he was an absolutely ruthless and vindictive killer, but that doesn't mean he couldn't lead.

 

Now if you say none of these people can lead sustainably, that is true. None of these people could hold onto power long, because they did not know when to stop, that being said that doesn't make their leadership capabilities diminish.

Edited by Omerta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He was supposed to lead the entire empire. He lead 2-3 million people to their deaths just because he didn't think they were worth saving. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.engadget.com/2018/10/08/major-un-report-climate-change-worse/

Major report by the UN suggests climate change is far worse than we thought, and that instead of waiting until 2100 to see serious consequences, the more likely date is around 2040- and this even assuming we are able to limit the warming to 2 degrees C, which given Trump's utter idiocy about climate change, is highly unlikely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, blotsfan said:

He was supposed to lead the entire empire. He lead 2-3 million people to their deaths just because he didn't think they were worth saving. 

It's really not my point though. I mean it is, but not in the way you think it is.it proves my point in the sense that he was a bad guy, and yet still possessed a strong enough leadership capability that he could get people to follow his decisions.Being a terrible person doesn't preclude you from great leadership ability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the percentage of electoral votes by percentage in each state...I also love that that removes the possibility of each individual's vote not counting. If your candidate doesn't win your state...right now that's essentially your vote out the window.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The popular vote fixes that without making certain people's votes count more than others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not really considering half the population is contained within 5% of the counties nationwide. A problem (I think) Stevo brought up earlier was how candidates ignore certain areas.. You know how much worse that would be?

Probably better for low energy candidates like Hillary though... Instead of skipping 13 states, she could skip 40. Not exactly behavior to be encouraged.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The republican tax plan literally targeted blue states since they know those votes don't matter. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Popular vote would be terrible, period.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BwareDWare94 said:

Popular vote would be terrible, period.

Why does it work for state elections?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, blotsfan said:

Why does it work for state elections?

Why wouldn't it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because if cities within a state have a larger population it could skew the votes to candidates that are popular in the cities. 

Edited by blotsfan
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh btw the republican candidate for governor in Georgia, running against a black woman, purged 75k people from the voter rolls, 50k+ of them black people.

Edited by blotsfan
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Every indication says that Trump is going to be making a large push for medical marijuana after the midterms.  Who knows with this guy though. Don McGahn will probably get into his ear and reverse course on that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By "every indication" it looks like its Dana Roarbacher, one of the most blatantly compromised Republican congressmen, who is in a super-tight race. Looks like just trying to make some of the democrats in his district less passionate about getting rid of him by appealing to something popular.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh sure, that's why he's bringing it up right now. There's been talks of this for a long while though -- I posted a similar story a couple of months ago and it had nothing to do with that congressman. lol. 

 

Quote

President Trump said he likely will support a congressional effort to end the federal ban on marijuana, a major step that would reshape the pot industry and end the threat of a Justice Department crackdown.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Elizabeth Warren released a DNA test she took showing that she has a small amount off Native Ancestry, consistent with what she's been saying all along. Obviously the people that have been using it against her don't really care and are saying it means nothing but that's not surprising.

What I think is interesting is that after all these years she finally chose to do this. Given that the people of Massachusetts clearly couldn't care less about this stupidity, I have to think this is a sign that she's at least considering a run in 2020 and doesn't want this to be a talking point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The issue with Warren is that she allegedly used her native ancestry to actually check the box that said she was native american during her application to college.

I am 1/8 Cherokee, my great grandmother was a full blooded cherokee. I have never once checked the box that says I am a native american. Because I am not. Even though I could absolutely use it, (1/8 is the lowest allowed), I am very clearly a white guy and have no business trying to claim something for a minority. Same thing with Warren, who is absolutely not a Native American. The test says 6-10 generations ago, which means she is, at best, a great-great-great-great-grand-daughter of a native American, or 1/64 Native American, less than 1%.

But yes, Warren is absolutely going to run in 2020.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is fucking hilarious though:

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Chatbox

    TGP has moved to Discord (sorta) - https://discord.gg/JkWAfU3Phm

    Load More
    You don't have permission to chat.
×