Will Trump be re-elected?

[Consept]

Have you ever taken psychedelics bro? honest question 

[Preety_India]

 

@Dutch guy  no country becomes poor because of minorities. Are you kidding me? 

Rich countries go piggyback riding on the backs of the third world countries. The jeans that people in the United States wear is available to Americans at a lower price because some poor person in Bangladesh is working in horrible condition in a poor factory to produce it and gets peanuts in return to barely survive because these countries don't give a f about minimum wage or quality survival. So people get to save their money in rich countries because of cheap labor from poor countries. 

Corporations are hungry and salivating to get software engineers from China and India, they have special visa sponsorship programs in my country so that these big fat elite companies owned by the elite in the United States get to make billions of turnover profits by paying peanuts to Indians and Chinese and making them work like donkeys and horses with no benefits, also sending them back home when their job is done. Then Americans get to enjoy these software products at a low price by making them with cheap labor.. That's why people like Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg want immigration so badly and that's why all the elite support the Democrats because the Dems are lobbied to keep the immigration going on to impress the elite. 

All your rich handbags and jewelry and diamonds are created by poor hands. 

USA has a huge interest in the Middle East, not because they want peace, but they want Oil.... Haha big surprise. 

So be careful when you say that your countries become poor by minorities. No minorities don't get shit, maybe some government privilege like basic housing, they don't even get insurance. Maximum people without insurance in America are minorities. Minorities don't even get loans. They have to live in despicable conditions to send money back home to their families. 

Minorities live in ghettos not in rich neighborhoods in the middle of New York. 

Your countries majorly remain rich because of exploitation. Because if you exported stuff to other countries at the dollar rate in your country, with labor used by your countrymen who demand high wage and good benefits, then nobody gonna buy your product because no country can afford it at that rate 

 

Everything that a rich country does , it does to remain in the race, to keep other countries poor and keep itself rich. No country amasses wealth by honest means. Money doesn't work like that. Only few people become rich by honest means. Rest is filthy money. 

No country invites minorities to welcome economic trouble. There's always an agenda. The country also benefits. 

And if you hate minorities so much, tell your rich countries to stop bombing poor countries to steal their resources. That would be a good start. 

Also rich countries like the US send billion dollars to Israel in the name of military aid, who doesn't need  it and this doesn't go to poor country like Africa. So everything is politics. 

Be careful how you demonize minorities. 

 

Edited June 8, 2020 by Preety_India

[Preety_India]

@Dutch guy  your country becomes poor when your economy breaks down not because of minority protests. 

You don't have a single clue how politics works. You live in a theoretical right wing world 

 

[Preety_India]

@Dutch guy  these protests are not forever. You're making a moutain out of a molehill. You don't even care about the sufferings of minorities, only care about yourself. 

Minorities are fighting for their rights and nothing wrong with it. 

If your survival was at threat you would protest too. 

 

[Preety_India]

@Dutch guy  this is almost like saying slavery can never become zero. 

You don't understand the concept of civil rights movements. 

It's out of your scope. 

You think that society stays constant. No it doesn't. It's always changing 

 

[Preety_India]

@Dutch guy there is Institutional racism in case you didn't know it. 

 

[Bodigger]

Delaware, Vermont, and Washington D.C. have similar populations as Wyoming, always vote liberal, and have 3 electoral votes.  It is not true that Republicans have an advantage in the electoral college.  In Fact, if the electoral college was based on actual population, Trump wins by the same margin.  

One of the reasons for an electoral college is so the minority states with lower populations are heard at the Federal level.  If the electoral college was based on population alone, candidates would only campaign in California, New York, Illinois, Texas, and Florida.  If the election was based on popular vote, candidates would only campaign in the largest cities and pay no attention to the minority in rural areas.

The Democrat Party uses a similar electoral college to elect a candidate.  However, in my opinion seems corrupted.

[Forestluv]

@Bodigger Studies have shown that republicans have a statistically significant advantage in the electoral college system. This is why republicans defend the EV system. If it favored democrats, republicans would be against it. (The same can be said about democrats). 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vox.com/platform/amp/policy-and-politics/2019/9/17/20868790/republicans-lose-popular-vote-win-electoral-college

As well, the main point is not that the EC favors republicans. The main point is that the EC is fundamentally undemocratic because it gives more voting power to certain people. 

Regarding disproportionate campaigning: look at the current situation with the E.C. There are only a few swing states that candidates campaign in. 

In 2016, after clinching the nomination Clinton campaigned in 12 states and Trump campaigned in 13 states. Most if these were the same battleground states. The vast majority of the country was ignored on the campaign trail.

And your argument falls flat within states. Everyone within a state has 1 vote toward that states E.C. By your logic, people in densely populated areas of Wisconsin should get 1 vote and people in sparsely populated areas of Wisconsin should get  3 votes, so politicians don’t neglect them. 

[dkamenev]

31 minutes ago, Bodigger said:

Delaware, Vermont, and Washington D.C. have similar populations as Wyoming, always vote liberal, and have 3 electoral votes.  It is not true that Republicans have an advantage in the electoral college.  In Fact, if the electoral college was based on actual population, Trump wins by the same margin.  

One of the reasons for an electoral college is so the minority states with lower populations are heard at the Federal level.  If the electoral college was based on population alone, candidates would only campaign in California, New York, Illinois, Texas, and Florida.  If the election was based on popular vote, candidates would only campaign in the largest cities and pay no attention to the minority in rural areas.

The Democrat Party uses a similar electoral college to elect a candidate.  However, in my opinion seems corrupted.

Sorry, the Electoral Collage still makes no sense, instead of small low populated areas being ignored, it just makes the whole country outside few battleground states ignored, way to go.   

All the Electoral Collage does is shifting the importance to an arbitrary geographical area. 

Edited June 8, 2020 by dkamenev

[Raphael]

 

 

 

3 hours ago, Preety_India said:

No minorities don't get shit, maybe some government privilege like basic housing, they don't even get insurance. Maximum people without insurance in America are minorities. Minorities don't even get loans. They have to live in despicable conditions to send money back home to their families. 

Minorities live in ghettos not in rich neighborhoods in the middle of New York. 

There's also an interesting opposite dynamic present in some countries.

For example, in my country white people are a minority, but they live very well where the majority have lower living standards. That's because they came first on the territory and had a lot of slaves that worked for them several centuries ago. Because of this, they accumulated a lot of wealth and moved away from survival faster than other people.

Nowadays, some of the biggest companies in the country are the properties of white people, and the majority work for them in regular jobs and are underpaid.

The majority is therefore around stage blue, where the white minority is at stage orange with some of them moving towards green. What's sad is that their past and current exploitations are now allowing them to be more developed, happier, and more tolerant of other people where the rest of the population is more fearful, angry and racist towards them. Some of them who are around orange/green are very disconnected from the general reality. They don't understand the majority reactions because their western education now teaches about equality of all races, sustainable development, women's rights, LGBTQ+ rights, etc where the general population doesn't care and is more concerned about basics survival needs.

[Bodigger]

1 hour ago, Serotoninluv said:

@Bodigger Studies have shown that republicans have a statistically significant advantage in the electoral college system. This is why republicans defend the EV system. If it favored democrats, republicans would be against it. (The same can be said about democrats). 

The picture shows a population-weighted electoral vote distribution for the 2016 election, and it does not look favorable to either party.  What is the Democrat's defense of the EV system?

 

1 hour ago, Serotoninluv said:

@Bodigger 

In 2016, after clinching the nomination Clinton campaigned in 12 states and Trump campaigned in 13 states. Most if these were the same battleground states. The vast majority of the country was ignored on the campaign trail.

Clinton neglected and limited her campaign in Wisconsin and other states to her demise.  Trump was playing by the electoral college rules and Clinton was going for the popular vote in New York and California.  Give Trump some credit for good game playing.

It sounds like minorities only matter when it is in the Left's interest, LOL.

[Forestluv]

2 hours ago, Bodigger said:

The picture shows a population-weighted electoral vote distribution for the 2016 election, and it does not look favorable to either party.  What is the Democrat's defense of the EV system?

That map is not population neutral to the voting population. It still gives disproportionate weight to certain voters. If it was weighted population neutral to the voting population, Clinton would win by 2% EV votes (as she did with the popular vote).

Imagine that all 600,000 people in Wyoming vote and they get 1 vote each. Imagine only one person in Texas votes, yet because Texas has 29 million people, that person gets to vote 29 million times for their preferred candidate. That is biased. The actual voting population is also an important factor.

Plus the map doesn’t even equilibrate state populations correctly.  Montana does not have a 2 : 65 ratio with California. It has a 2 : 74 ratio. They are rounding off small numbers which creates significant rounding errors. 

 Democrats do not defend the EV system since it is currently favorable to republicans. I posted a link above to statistical studies showing the EV system is biased.

2 hours ago, Bodigger said:

Clinton neglected and limited her campaign in Wisconsin and other states to her demise.  Trump was playing by the electoral college rules and Clinton was going for the popular vote in New York and California.  Give Trump some credit for good game playing. 

I’m not talking about how best to play a game within a biased system. I am talking about the biased system itself. You will need to let go of one side and take a meta view to see this. If we were talking about a biased game between the drefto beings vs the saxtrop beings on the plant xescref, you would be able to see the bias because you would not be identified and attached to either side.

 

2 hours ago, Bodigger said:

It sounds like minorities only matter when it is in the Left's interest, LOL.

This is still within an “us vs them” mindset. One’s relationship to an inequality is irrelevant to the inequality itself. Two pounds of rice is heavier than one pound of beans. It’s irrelevant wether I love rice and hate beans. It’s  irrelevant if rice is more nutritious than beans. It’s irrelevant if I harvest rice. It’s irrelevant if I think bean lovers are a threat to the country. It’s irrelevant if an absurd “beanless only burrito” law was enacted. These are all distractions from seeing that two pounds of rice is heavier than a pound of beans. One would need to let go of their identification to rice and beans and take an objective, detached meta view. If you can’t see the bias in the EV system, you aren’t taking a detached meta view. 

The EV system is inherently biased and one party can benefit from that bias. In the current political environment, republicans are benefitting. There are also situations in which there is a net neutral benefit or that the Democratic Party benefits. Yet this isn’t the current political landscape. Whether one party plays the game better and benefits from the bias is irrelevant to the structural bias itself. Read some statistical studies, like the one I linked above, to learn more about EV bias.

[Consept]

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_6_murder_race_and_sex_of_vicitm_by_race_and_sex_of_offender_2013.xls

White people kill a lot of white people as well. You can also add to that white collar crime which is mostly done but white middle class makes and cost corporations 400 billion a year. Everyone does crime so it's not a good argument to claim one race is better than another which seems to be the modus operandi here 

[DivineSoda]

Yes, he's looking to be reelected (or just continue being President regardless of elections). 

Especially with yet another shitty alternative (Biden), I would've thought this was obvious. But I think people are in denial. 

[Bodigger]

3 hours ago, Serotoninluv said:

@Bodigger

1 hour ago, Serotoninluv said:

That map is not population neutral to the voting population. It still gives disproportionate weight to certain voters. If it was weighted population neutral to the voting population, Clinton would win by 2% EV votes (as she did with the popular vote).

Imagine that all 600,000 people in Wyoming vote and they get 1 vote each. Imagine only one person in Texas votes, yet because Texas has 29 million people, that person gets to vote 29 million times for their preferred candidate. That is biased. The actual voting population is also an important factor.

Plus the map doesn’t even equilibrate state populations correctly.  Montana does not have a 2 : 65 ratio with California. It has a 2 : 74 ratio. They are rounding off small numbers which creates significant rounding errors. 

 

I think you may be including undocumented immigrants in your population and they would be excluded in the electorate.  It is my understanding that California may have as many as 10 million undocumented.  I am not picking a side as much as giving my opinion here and there.  I am merely staying on topic so people have a better understanding (From others and a less biased POV) of the electoral college, mainly for the ones outside the U.S.

 

[Forestluv]

18 minutes ago, Bodigger said:

I think you may be including undocumented immigrants in your population and they would be excluded in the electorate.  It is my understanding that California may have as many as 10 million undocumented.  I am not picking a side as much as giving my opinion here and there.  I am merely staying on topic so people have a better understanding (From others and a less biased POV) of the electoral college, mainly for the ones outside the U.S.

You are missing the points:

1. The map above is inaccurate due to rounding errors and inaccuracies (not just with California). For example: the population ratio between S. Dakota and N. Dakota is not 2 : 1. The ratio is 1.16 : 1. The map is filled with errors and collectively, they make a big difference. Rounding off, the Dakotas should have the same number of EVs. One of the Dakota’s would need about 50% of their population to be undocumented immigrants and the other Dakota to be 0% of their population to be undocumented immigrants to push the ratio to 2 : 1, which is not feasible. There are major inaccuracies in the map. 

2. The map does not consider voting population. It only considers residential population. As I said, if only 1 person in Texas voted the map above would give that person the rough equivalent of 29 million votes for the candidate of there choice. 

3. If EV votes was proportional to relative state voting populations, Trump would have lost.

You are not seeing statistical inaccuracies and biases. You don’t seem to have an interest in seeing them. 

I would consider the map you linked above to be an improvement to the current EV map since it makes an attempt to better proportion EV votes based on state residential populations. Yet it is still filled with statistical inaccuracies and bias. This is a nuanced, multifactorial system. 

[Carl-Richard]

17 hours ago, Arcangelo said:

Me too. The world went to sh@t a long time ago. I want him to win so I can make me some easy weed money.

I am a selfish stage orange person.

Sounds more like a stage red person to me hahaha. I used to be like that a couple of years ago  (my weed > everything and everyone).

[Consept]

15 minutes ago, Dutch guy said:

Yes it is a lot about how not whites are better and whites are bad. It shouldn't be about that. We should get rid of identity politics. Another reason you should vote Trump, cause he doesnt exaggarate with this and sees both sides of the coin.@Consept

I would be more than happy not to mention identity politics, youre the one that brought up black on black crime as a way to say black people are criminals, if you dont know people usually commit crimes within their own race because they usually live close to each other. 

[Carl-Richard]

16 hours ago, Dutch guy said:

Yes I am very privileged. So privileged on a lot of forums if I say positive things about Trump I get removed or loads of aggressiveness. O man I am so privileged that I can speak about my preference and still be alive. I am also privileged I am a man, because when the shit hits the fan I will be the first one in line to be used as cannonfodder. And I am so privileged to be white that when a cop at the other side of the world kills a black guy I get accused for being of a discriminating sort and riots break out in the whole of the west. If a white guy gets killed nothing happens. When I meet a black person I have to be extra careful , because if I am honest and what I say can be seen negative I get risked being socially isolated. If I say I want to keep my culture and don't like infinite immigrants I get called a semi-racist. Just for liking my culture. On the other side the black culture gets celibrated on black friday also here. For them that is ok. O I am so privileged. So privileged. O lucky me.

So this is a picture of a controversial Facebook post from a Norwegian right-wing party that has been circling in the media (maybe you can understand bits and pieces of it). I just think it's funny to see the striking similarity in the structure of the writing haha:

"I'M RACIST
I'm racist, because I believe all lives matter, not just black lives.
I'm racist because I believe the fact that hundreds of thousands people being killed everyday is more important than a single poor criminal being killed while being arrested in the USA.
I'm racist because I believe it's wrong to protest by the means of looting, destruction, hurting and killing of people.
I'm racist because I believe it's wrong to attack police officers because you believe that a few people have done something wrong.
I'm racist because I believe it's wrong to ignore the societal health concerns of spreading the coronavirus because of protests.
because I love a country built upon freedom, dignity and democracy.
I'm racist because I believe it's important to provide equal oppurtunities to everybody in our country, not to provide special treatment for immigrants over retirees, people on welfare, the unemployed or poor people.
I'm a fucking racist."

 

Edited June 8, 2020 by Carl-Richard

[Bodigger]

@Serotoninluv  So, if I am to understand what you are saying, is that only voting members should be encompassed?