I think they're gonna do it

businessinsider.com/trump-electoral-college-popular-vote-2016-11

Seems like there is growing support for the electoral college to deny Trump the presidency.

It seems to me likely to happen because porky wants Hilary and liberals are pretty wealthy and I think will use that to get their way.

Other urls found in this thread:

nytimes.com/2016/11/23/us/politics/vote-count-hillary-clinton-trump.html
jillstein.nationbuilder.com/recount
dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3962052/Six-electors-signed-agreement-try-block-Donald-Trump-securing-270-Electoral-College-votes-needed-president.html
forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2015/01/04/solved-why-poor-states-are-red-and-rich-states-are-blue/#726eeb015967
youtube.com/watch?v=TWfqW_kVzqI

No way would the electoral college switch

No they won't. There also is not going to be a recount.

Yeah, wishful thinking, but not going to happen. Start campaigning to kick as many Republicans out of Congress in the mid-term elections as soon as possible to minimize the potential damage Trump could do.

It'll be hard, but you've got two years.

It would be pretty justified though don't you think. I mean she did win the popular vote closing in on 3 million votes now.


Nah, I think it super hypocritical to pick and choose which anti-democratic policies you want abolished just because it'll help your guy, but damn 3 million vote IS alot of votes.

That would cause a second civil war.
DO IT

Apparently 14 states have the ability to vote with the popular vote legally and if they did Trump would lose.

The electoral college WAS setup to stop someone unfit for the presidency. Why have it if it's not going to be used.

On the Ralph Nader Radio hour they had guy on last week that said reforming the electoral college wouldn't require a constitutional amendment like people thought, that the states govern the college and could write laws where they would just vote with who won the popular vote.

He said that was the most realistic way to reform the college. I trust Nader, he's never had a guest on that was full it shit.

You really think conservatives would go to war. I don't think they would, they are already acting all scared of liberals that post tweets about Trump not being their president.

Fair point, but every presidential candidate goes into an election knowing that it's all about winning the electoral college, and they build their campaign around that assumption.

Also

nytimes.com/2016/11/23/us/politics/vote-count-hillary-clinton-trump.html

I think that the idea that electors are just going to swing this to Hillary because FUCK DRUMPF is as delusional as the #NeverTrump Republicans hoping that the RNC would parachute someone else into the nomination at the convention

Already happening in 3 states.

jillstein.nationbuilder.com/recount

They could justify it by saying they are voting with the popular vote.

Idk I've never seen talk like this before and it's perfectly time, exactly at the time when people are over the shock but still enough time actually campaign for it.

On social media I get the vibe that there will be legitimate wholesale rejection of Trump.

This country isn't white anymore and porky knows that, fascism is bad for business, the southeast still is an economic basket case after they rejected the civil right act.

I don't think porky wants the whole country at each other's throats, if I'm getting this feeling no doubt the intelligence apparatus is too

Wrong.

What basis do you even have for believing this? In the unlikely scenario that EC doesn't elect Trump, it's not going to be Clinton either. It would be some popular and less controversial Republican candidate. The only way Hilary could win now is with a recount.

Your social media is totally controlled by algorithms that show you what it thinks you want to see, you know that right.

It's 90% that, and 10% what IT wants you to see.

Not that it changes anything, but it's important not to forget that part.

This has kind of a precedence too. I was listening to who makes sense a history of capitalism.

They're historian was saying the major impetus for the keysian economic reforms during the depression was the specter of fascism.

That was before fascism was discredited

Porkies have been donating to the Clinton campaign for close to 2 years, they didn't give Trump money until after he won the primary and even then I'm pretty sure it was far less

I think people were - and are - going to be at each other's throats no matter the outcome. I also think the social conflict aspect of these elections have been severely underplayed. Whatever happens, the "losing" side is going to be pissed.

Your point is well taken.

But it's not just social media but irl interactions with young people. Also while I'm sure that's true I can still read between the lines, even people that I followed before the election that never tweeted anything political are re tweeting pretty virulent anti trump stuff

But liberals are for more educated and younger than conservatives, and therefore have more surplus value to steal.

The GOP base is mostly retired boomers and poor whites.

I think porky will give it to Hillary

Hillary=WW3

they would just bitch on the internet and open carry in some shithole and take selfies. no civil war

I wonder if the Clinton campaign refuses to contest it because shining a light on the Republican party's election fraud and voter suppression might also mean admitting their own involvement in election fraud and voter suppression during the Democratic Primary.

That's gotta be it. Hillary would punt a baby if it meant getting the Oval Office.

But like I said chaos triggered by Trump fascism could cause real damage to porkies bottom line, and porky capitulated to workers needed during the depression when democracy was threatened by fascism

There is literally no way this would happen. Not only would it be a complete fucking disaster, but Porky has no reason to do so. If there was any chance Trump would actually shake up the establishment then maybe, but he's made it clear he has no plans to follow through on his populist campaign promises, so Porky has nothing to fear.

The only possible reason to do this would be some sort of Edrogan-tier revolution bait to purge the undesirables and provide justification for weapon confiscation, but I don't believe the US government is competent enough to pull off such a plot in a country this size.

Also the electors talking about being faithless electors are in states that Hillary had already won

dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3962052/Six-electors-signed-agreement-try-block-Donald-Trump-securing-270-Electoral-College-votes-needed-president.html

kek it's basically "How do you do, fellow Republican electors"

I'm not arguing porky fears Trump, but proles reaction to Trump. When the south rejected the civil rights act it sent that part of the country into a spiral that they still struggle to climb out of.

Liberals might legitimately start striking out against the system they see as fascist, along with years of programming that facicism is wrong, one of few things schools teach about politics correctly.

Liberals are more valuable to porky than conservatives because they're more educated and younger

The campaign to change the votes just started, but the MSM is picking up on. The MSM is owned by six porkies, such a fringe movement shouldn't be covered at all, they sure aren't covering the J20

Last I checked, they were welcoming the opportunity to finally do something about Marxist trash.

if they abolish eletorial college they should do so before elections/campaigning not post elections. If electorial college wasen't a thing the campaign would have been different.¨
so no it's not really justified at all

That strikes me as just talk though. I don't see many conservatives out in the streets, they seem way to concerned with liberals rejecting Trump, like that whole Hamilton thing, to make me believe they have any real confidence against going against liberals

I WISH A LIBERAL WOULD

I agree but the electoral college is just inherently undemocratic.

Also it's stated purpose is to stop someone like Trump.

Hilary would drag the US into a war Wall st didn't want, but Trump could

Why would they? They won. If Hillary had won most of the current protestors would be posting similar things on Twitter about how Trump supporters just need to put on their big boy pants and accept that their candidate lost, not protest in the streets and invent fanciful conspiracy theories about the companies behind voting machines colluding with the Clinton campaign.

*wouldn't

To counter all the anti Trump rallies. I'm old enough to remember the Bush II years and conservatives would shout down any liberal that even slightly protested the Iraq war.

I'm surprised with prez that ran on a strong man platform that kind of anti Trump sentiment wouldn't be significantly pushed back on

Except those saying so get the logic ass-backwards. The point of the electors was to stop a demagogue from winning the popular vote, and thus riding roughshod over the interests of the electorate.

And the poster you responded to is right, this all boils down to "The Electoral College didn't work in our favour, here's why that's a problem". If there was any sincerity to this talk it would've been discussed long before the actual elections, not after it

i agree but It's understandable. Otherwise only the coastal parts of america makes the decisions and the rest of the country won't really have a say in anything.
America should really just be balkanized.

But if barely anyone lives outside of the coasts they should have barely a say.

Btw I think any election should be void until 80 percent of the voters voted. So I'm not just saying that because I want cali to determine the discourse

Why? I assume Trump supporters would've wanted to quietly celebrate and then carry on with their lives, not engage in dying-days-of-Weimar-tier streetfights with pissed off anti-Trump activists

thats one of the reasons why USA should be balkanized.

Oh that's right.

But damn don't you think the minority political party is being over represented by the EC.

I think it's gonna happen, I think to many of you underestimate porky, this ain't the 50s, White hegomeny is over with.

You can't have white proles openly oppressing minorities cause those minorities ain't gonna be minorities soon and porky knows it

How would that Balkanize it. The Red States economically perform far worse than blue states. If anything have liberal policies forced down their throats would make those places more attractive and their pop would increase.

For all the REEEE at liberals they're policies are still more humane than conservatives.

Because it's treasonous to their minds isn't it? But they're not even gloating that much, if Bernie would have one I know i would be still singing from the roof tops

Yes, but the greater problem is the divergence in the interests of the "Coasts" versus the "Heartland"


Where do you think we are? I've been saying on Holla Forums for ages that this isn't the '30s 2: Electric Boogaloo, porkies don't want Trump trying to turn the clock back on "free trade" and immigration. He's not Hitler, there's no equivalent to the USSR to force porkies to rally around a "fascist".

Red state economies based on energy extraction, agriculture and suburban sprawl may have lower wages, higher poverty rates and lower levels of education on average than those of blue states — but their residents also benefit from much lower costs of living. For a middle-class person , the American dream of a big house with a backyard and a couple of cars is much more achievable in low-tax Arizona than in deep-blue Massachusetts. As Jed Kolko, chief economist of Trulia, recently noted, housing costs almost twice as much in deep-blue markets ($227 per square foot) than in red markets ($119).

forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2015/01/04/solved-why-poor-states-are-red-and-rich-states-are-blue/#726eeb015967

Also, no city is an island, it's delusional for either side to think that they'll survive Balkanisation relatively unscathed while the other is deprived of resources (Blue states) or trade/finance/"the knowledge economy" (Red states)

most of the weimar streetfights happened early on like the Spartacus uprising and somewhat later the ruhr and bavarian revolts

the nazi seizure of power was rather peaceful in practice, aside from its own purges

technically the weimar state didn't 'end' until 1945 because Hitler's government was ostensibly a continuation of the hindenburg era government using the Enabling Act and Article 48 of the Weimar Constitution itself for everything the nazis would go on to do

In addition to the Conservative media being a comparatively weaker and more decentralized now, mainstream conservatives still aren't really pro-Trump. They definitely weren't in the weeks directly preceding the election and the start of the protests. Actually, the conservative media, as far as I can tell, hasn't fully re-aligned itself to be behind the president-elect.

I live live in Arizona, believe me the low taxes doesn't make up for the fact that corps and even petite porky REGIN SUPREME here and pay you half what you would get on the coasts.

Had one company balk at 65k for a computer security position, a position that would get 75 k on the coasts easy, they only wanted to pay 50 k.

A decent house is still 250 k, well out of reach for a family with 50 -60 k income, and student and car notes.

The only people that I've seen easily buy houses are people from cali that sold their old home and canadians

It is but whenever I hear this it just means people think the mid-west and everyone in it should die and it's actually awesome that HRC literally never visited Wisconsin once during the campaign or even considered visiting it.

And correct me if I'm wrong here, but isn't the largest disparity in cost of living between red and blue states tied almost entirely to housing. It doesn't say anything about the costs of goods and services that would largely be the same.

So your full of shit on the whole it's easier to buy a house in red states. Arizona doesn't pay you shit for labor, and petite porkies can exploit you way harder here than on the coasts because the government here fucking hate poor people.

Foe example unemployment only lasts six months and Max's out at 1k a month. Had a guy from Washington state tell me his unemployment was more like 2k a month and lasted for 18 months

This is the only reason this website gives for asking for a recount. I guess form this single point it logically follows to recount Michigan, and Pennsylvania as well…?

Yes correct. A car, and food don't cost anymore than on the coasts.

Gas is super cheap at least relative to cali. That's about it

Oh boo boo LA and NYC wouldn't be the center of the universe anymore.

It would lead to more affordable housing and a more evenly spread out pop which is healthier than having everyone in an endless suburb like they are in cali or dense cities like in the northeast

then let them be shit. The left in those states would probably adapt so that they can compete with the right in those states anyways

No, it's stupid to let backward reactionaries control all the water and some of the most beautiful land while everyone else is crammed into the coasts

You could make the same argument for reoccupying africa again

I'm all for economic foreign policies that actually help.

Making Red states stop being the personal fiefdoms of the porkies that live isn't quite the same as recolonizing africa

my position is–what would a recount hurt? let's do it and see what shakes out

I do often wonder why I stay here with you lot of feeble sellouts. Let the witch disappear from prying eyes and die peacefully in Abedin's arms while sodding off in a lush Saudi Arabian harem. Better yet, pray every morning that she isn't revived come 2020 for another unwanted run. Someone needs to will her disapearance lest Goldman sachs starts publishing her autobiography. The devil doesn't give in as easily as one might expect, don't count on Bernie 2.0 saving the day in 2020.

The LAST thing I want is this cunt in office, especially after temporarily giving the white house to trump. It would set off a civil war that we are not prepared for. The left is a fucking mess right now and would get absolutely massacred. Besides other than rich old celebs, who the fuck wants to fight for Hillary Clinton? exactly.

I'm going to use these next 4 years to buy up all the fucking guns I can, at least that is one thing I agree with Trump on.

You mean they could go against the popular vote so they could go with the popular vote?

Your social media brain is totally controlled by algorithms that show you what it thinks you want to see, you know that right?

The status quo would have too much to lose, namely its legitimacy. Not gonna happen.

Pennsylvania is the worst of the three because they don't have a paper trail. A full audit there won't really be able to establish fraud. Not that a voter-verified paper trail is always trustworthy anyway.

Just look at this shitheap. They even still use those awful fucking Accuvote-TSx machines. We tried to do something about those in my county a month before the election with no results. At least we had a damn paper trail.

If Trump had failed to win a majority of delegates the convention would likely have nominated someone else, although presumably it would have been one of the other candidates rather than a complete 'parachute'. For a while back in March/April this looked like the most probable scenario..

The only answer is, next time there is a vote, to go into the precincts with large hammers and smash the machines.

How would they lose legitimacy? It's more democratic to elect Hillary.


Please explain how using the electoral college is better, or how having conservative states votes be worth 3 million more votes than blue states

you know what, let's just get rid of the silly elections altogether and make every Democratic candidate president by default

it's more ~democratic~, right?

two weeks on and Hillshills still asshurt as FUCK lmao

I voted for Jill.

It's not ass hurt, this 3 million vote thing is pretty untenable. The fact that only half the people voted, voter suppression targeted minorities, and gerrymandering keep your vote from counting anyway is untenable too.

Sheesh pointing this out doesn't make me a Hilary supporter

ONLY if it causes civil war.

t. not burger

it is asshurt, because what you stated has applied to every election since 1832 in US history and you have chosen this specific instance where the candidate you liked lost to bitch about it

kill yourself shillary

There will be a civil war if this happens.

You don't have to like Hillary to want a clean, representative election. This shit is half the reason 45% of the country didn't vote.

Hillary cheated in the Primary and now Trump was a better cheater in the General. Both candidates being corrupt thugs doesn't mean you should just ignore the fraud and voter suppression going on around you. Neither does it invalidate criticism of our bullshit electoral college system.


The election of governments people feel are illegitimate for reasons such as voter suppression, fraud, and an electoral college system that disenfranchises millions of voters are exactly what foment political instability.

Cry harder Shillary. You had every chance to help stop this before. Now you lay in the bed you've made.

Fuck off Holla Forums we are not Hillary supporters. She is in no way a leftist or even a "social democrat". She actually would stifle potential revolution more if she was president.

Never said it wasn't hypocritical for liberals to concern themselves with it now.

You don't address my main point though, is it or is it not more democratic to elect Hillary.

I'm not a democrat, but if there's a possibility to dismantle a anti democratic institution I'm all for it

if this happens maybe people will recognize liberals for the scum that they are and move left. more than likely people will just move right tho.

Anyone here who wants Hillary to win, hang yourself.

Noooooooooo.
i don't want Shillary, i want Trump to fuck up in screw over every person who voted for him

The more Hillary supporters make it clear that they think it's totally okay to literally completely ignore the center of country as they fuck them to death the more I come around to understand the importance of the EC.

if it happens we'll never see the end of idpol.
i hope she doesn't do it.
let him fuck it up, its the best thing that could happen to us.

...

No way, they're not that stupid. If the electoral college change he vote and elects Hillary, USA would go full on civil war.

Not that i care tbh, but they're not that stupid.

It's the constitutional right of the electoral college to vote however the fuck they want, retard

As opposed to the republicans, who they fervently vote for and who buttfuck them even harder.
After the revolution, they'll be lucky just to be stripped of their voting advantages and not to all be gulag'd.

$2,000 a month barely pays rent for a 1-bedroom flat in Seattle. A guy would have to live in Section 8 to survive on that.

I think he lived in Tacoma, rent there is more like 900 1000

See that's what I thought but actually the states control how the votes are cast, it wouldn't require a constitutional amendment. Makes perfect sense to be the EC was obviously put the to subvert the popular will if porky needed it to

Also this was like 8 years ago

I did too for awhile but I really think Trump will take us to full blown fascism.

I know Hillary is bad but she'll install neoliberalism in slow motion which could buy us time

Do go on, I've never known about this. I vaguely remember some sort of fraud in a state I think between Romney and Obama at least.

the butts of neo-liberals and porky when it turns out even less people voted for clinton than what was reported

He going to screw over Muslims, Mexicans and whomever else he decides to scapegoat for neoliberalism harder than his voters

Guise I'm not asking for your opinion on if Hillary would be better.

I'm asking if you think the EC taking away the presidency from Trump is likely.

The arguments I've heard so far are pretty weak

Come on, there'd be some blood shed but the GOP is mostly old people and poor whites too poorly educated to make even effective cannon fodder.

This one is demonstrably false. 14 states could vote with the popular vote legally now. Also what happened to all the democracy is bullshit bravado. If democracy is just an illusion in the US anyway why would rules or laws stop them even if they did prohibit a change.

I disagree, but even if that were true the liberals are porkys most valuable proles, and they hate Trump.

Porky may want to placate them with a switch to Hill to keep them from forming a real movement againTrump. Porky doesn't like white supremacy, it gives white workers stronger leverage, the more diverse people that can effectively join the work force the better

And I'm not against idpol, there's zero justification to persecute someone cause of their identity, just saying that's where the idpol diversity push has been coming from, at least the idpol that doesn't include class

One last thing, almost nothing about this election has followed any precedents, EC rejecting Trump would just be following that pattern

AND CENTRALIZED DEMOCRACY FUCKING SUCKS REEEE

WHY SHOULD HIBERNIANS AND CALI NUMALES POLITICALLY DOMINATE THE TRUE AND VIRTUOUS AGRARIAN FOLK?

You should care about the abstract principles in politics, not semantic buzzwording. The electoral college helps diffuse political agency throughout a country of disparate and dissimilar territories. Like, the whole package of how this country purportedly ought to work is centred around representation and republicanism. The fed was never meant to be the first level of political deference and civic embodiment.

Plus "more democratic" is certainly not more fair, more leftist, more whatever the fuck. It boils down the manifest character of that system, and "more democracy" would just centralize election outcomes to several urban hotspots.

You need to explain why having urban hotspots deciding the course of the country is inherently unfair or bad, or even bad for people in the heartland.

The majority of people live in those areas because letting republicans run red states have turned those places into economic black holes.

If red states were forced to adopt cali like welfare state more people would move there and the pop would be more spread out, I speak as someone living in Arizona, liberal welfare state is still better than lazie faire Repub policies

is there any significant difference in an urban/city economy and a rural/agricultural economy

answer yes or no

Not important, the consequential side isnt at least. It is about representation, the idea that if you are a citizen of this country, no matter where you live, you ought to have political representation.

Yes
Agriculture and red states overall are heavily subsidized by blue states regardless.

Why does progress have to be held up because of red states, also all the campaigning and attention is paid to a handful of battleground states which are far less representative than high pop blue states

They do have representation, they still get to vote.

If liberal reforms were forced on blue states more people would live there and dilute the political power of blue states over time

*forced on red states

How are blue state voters represented under a system where their votes are worth less

They get more representation, corresponding to their population.

That representation inheres to territory (i.e. counties, districts, states) because states are semi-autonomous jurisdictions and voter input is taken to be a congress of civic communities across the nation. You have to think about historical systems of political representation with representatives, as opposed to simple legal status or rights

This is actually quite true.

Now, I am all for (direct) democracy, especially on the local level.

In fact, I think the Presidency and the entire executive branch should be abolished and instead we have a Committee of States. Administration should be done by confederal syndicates in a syndicalist-like set-up.

They get more absolute votes, but relative to red state voters blue state voters votes are worth less.

You can't reconcile this no matter how hard you try. Also you speak like counties are people, ther arent they're just chunks of land, and if there's no body living in them they shouldn't get representation.

That history you speak of was salve and land owning white men who couldn't get slaves counted in the census so neede another way to be over represented in the gov

Give me an example of right wing media criticising Trump recently. Besides info wars

The planters actually did get them counted. As 2/3rds people.

Ironically, the antifederalists were actually more scared of the SOUTH out-populating the North, due to the fact that the slave trade was still around and the Southern population was growing faster than the Northern population.

Of course, urbanization and industrialization as well as mass immigration didn't happen yet, so they ended up being wrong. (With the South ironically using the same argument as those rural New English/Pennsylvanian antifederalists.)

The United States is supposed to be a federation of states, not individuals.

The irony of individualism is that it creates a massive centralized government due to destroying all other entities besides the abstract individual. And yes, liberal individualism belongs in the trash.

Now, I agree with democracy, but not with the concept of abstract individuals participating in a centralized "representative democracy". It leads to oligarchy and bureaucracy inevitably.

Instead, we need a confederation of direct democracies, both by territorial states/counties/towns and by industrial syndicates.

Also, minorities aren't real Americans and are an attempt by liberal porky faggots to undermine the political system by having servile lumpens, scabs, and managerial-professionals vote against the working-class. All minorities have to either assimilate or leave.

Also, some blue states get over-representation. Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, Connecticut, and Rhode Island come into mind. Texas is under-represented actually. It is just that rural states have more votes per person.

I'm ready

...

I think it's the accelerationist meme; not people actually wanting Hillary to rule.

I want trump to be sworn in so i can stop reading fan fictions about clinton doing a triple lindy hail mary and the coming civil war that wont happen because everyone is fat and watching the walking dead

The electors are party loyalists. In order to stop Trump you would need 37 Republican electors to flip. At the moment the GOP and Trump are on great terms so the chances of that happening are approximately nil.

bourgeois scum

If the tables were turned I guarantee the entire liberal media would be crying about how those calling for a recount were undermining the perceived legitimacy of our democracy.

I think you're getting causation and correlation confused. Blue states like California, New York, etc can afford to be generous because they already possess developed, diverse, prosperous economies. Now compare those to Red Plains states like Wyoming etc that are basically extraction economies (i.e. agriculture and mining). The welfare policies you advocate would probably end up as ultimately just another federal transfer from Blue states to Red states for what, exactly? To pay Californian urbanites to count cattle?

I mean there's heaps of factors at work, and obviously the situation facing SE Red states like Alabama, the Carolinas, etc is different to that facing Plains states (given military spending in the SE), not to mention that populations in the Plains states are already in decline (see pic related), mostly due to a lack of economic opportunity

Wyomingite here, Wyoming is actually one of the bigger welfare states in the country even though most Republicunts in office would never acknowledge it. Our mineral trust fund that we get in exchange for letting porkies extract massive amounts of wealth from the earth funds a significant chunk of the government and is one of the excuses used for us not having any sort of income tax (thus making us one of the top for tax haven states). Only problem is that sets the stage for fiscal crises when boom and bust cycles in the industry come and go. We're currently experiencing one of those again now. Massive austerity programs across the state.

Then it sounds like you have a welfare state with no gov services.

Cali has signified more taxes, services and a robust welfare state relative to red states. That's the kind of place people want to live.

You can't develop into a good economy without people, if the material conditions in red states were similar to Cali people would move there

It's missing anfem and antran.

And to get people you almost always need some sort of underlying material basis for them to be there. California had agriculture, mining, logging, fishing, international trade in the earliest days of settlement, followed by massive expansion in manufacturing, aerospace, and the technology industries, all of which served to increase the population significantly.

What did - and does - Wyoming have? Livestock agriculture and mining? I mean sure as I said if you really wanted to you could pay millions of Californians to move to Wyoming, and you'd get an economic boom purely from construction, services etc to meet the needs of the Californian transplants, but the cost of such a venture would probably end up as just another federal transfer.

Of course I'm simplifying things greatly, and this isn't intended as an attack on Wyoming, but the idea that California has the population it does due mostly or even in part due to its welfare policies is misguided, and reeks of a lazy attempt at turning the results of economic fate into political virtue

Wyoming has a lot of open space and a relatively low cost of living. That's probably changing quickly now as mineral funbucks are drying up however.

Oh yeah and cheap education due to said funbucks. Again the attacks on our only four-year university are approaching critical levels however as our fiscal crisis deepens.

youtube.com/watch?v=TWfqW_kVzqI

I know Idaho isn't Wyoming, but still

The welfare state is just indicative of the more liberal and humane policies cali has versus red states.

I'm working class in Arizona, I got an education entirely free, so I'm ok finance wide since I'm not weighed down by debt.

But Arizona and red states in general have crappy schools and welfare services. In other words if your poor in red states you stay poor.

If red states became more liberal they'd be more successful almost certainly.

The only reason why any porky moves companies to red states is because of tax cuts that are paid for by they're already impoverish pop.

I've been involved with these moves, we wind up endlessly struggling to find people because Cali people don't want to move to a red states and the shitty schools don't produce enough educated proles

You pretty much just find different ways to get drunk or submerge yourself in internet and vidya activities like myself.

Again, you seem hellbent on ignoring the position the comparative economic prosperity that California has enjoyed relative to 'traditional' Red states (Plains or Southern)

I'm not though. It's just that those things are secondary to economic policies. Also the majority of red states especially the Midwest have more natural resources than Cali

If red states have underdeveloped economic bases it due to their austerity and weak gov due to low taxes.

What do blues states have that could be developed in red states.

They're also (generally) landlocked which puts them at a considerable economic disadvantage already. Also Arizona and Wyomingy can invest as much as they want in their education systems, it's probably not going to make their universities as or even more attractive than the Ivies or California's ones

If you ever wanted to know if the BDS Movement was classist and anti-worker, this is it.

But are the parties ultimately loyal to porky. Porky obviously wanted Hillary.

Regan was crazy too the the msm never openly questioned his fitness for office like they did with Trump.

The new deal was accepted by porky out of fear of fascism in the US.

I think you underestimate how bad for business fascism is.

Twitter is kicking out the alt right for that very reason

On a side note, I think it's funny how Holla Forums is acting smug that Trump won even though he's only the victor because of the electoral college which is bullshit. They said he'd win because he was more popular but he's behind like 3 million votes. What sort of horse shit is that? I don't like Hillary, but that's just fucked up.

I know all that flavor and nutrition all those boycotters are missing out on! And think of all the layoffs that will happen at McDonalds if a few people who weren't going to eat there in the first place refuse to purchase?

Won't someone think of the workers!

It's mainly to protect the other states from the tyranny of a few states deciding the elections.

...

4 or 5 swings states deciding the election and presidential candidates putting all their time in them is the exact result of the electoral college system.

Why is that so bad though? Non-swing states have already decided, but you still gotta actually convince some undecided voters. Otherwise you can just rely on those dominant few state voting the way they do.

Yeah but if the majority of people wanted Clinton isn't it a tyranny of the minority?

Millions of illegals voted multiple times so it cancels that idea out.

...

wew

Only sane guy in this entire thread. The amount of reformist bootlicking on display here is just disgusting.

You're thinking on individual basis. Think of it on regional basis, each region having an equal say in the matter. USA is a big fucking country with important differences between regions.

Stop repeating yourself. Yes, they wanted Hillary, but all the evidence suggests they would rather accept Trump than cause a huge political crisis by overturning the election, which is what an Electoral College upset would amount to. Even the Dems say they are open to working with Trump on issues like trade and infrastructure.

The working poor can't afford to eat at Zio-free restaurants, idiot. That's my point. Expecting working class people to give up on food for the sake of some Pali intellectuals' narc supply is classist as fuck.

i don't want Hillary to be prez.
i want Trump to stay, and either fuck up real bad or back pedal on everything.

either way, he's going to disappoint the retards who voted for him.
and hopefully drive them to commit mass suicide

...

I keep repeating myself because my point keeping getting ignored.

I am not arguing if porky will accept Trump, it's clear that porky is.

I'm arguing that they could take it away from Trump not because Porky finds Trump unacceptable but because

THE PROLES DO

Hilary Clinton got 3 million more votes, Trump has a disapproval rating of 58 %

Porky made concessions during the Depression because of the specter of fascism. So this isn't without precedent.

Either counter these points or STFU.

Then show me the evidence. As far as I can see everything the establishment is doing is based on the assumption that Trump will be the President come January 20th. The idea of ousting him just because he has low approval ratings is not being seriously considered. And as I've said, the electors are loyal to the parties so they will not do anything without elite approval.

Yeah, out of over 130 million. Less than a 2 point margin. They're more or less neck and neck, it's not like Hillary won a clear majority and the whole country is up in arms. The anger over Trump's election has been easily contained and would be nothing compared to what his supporters would do if the election were overturned.

Winning an election on a platform of reform, then going through with that reform, is absolutely nothing like overturning an election. This is indeed totally without precedent.

more proles voted for neither than voted for either

no one cares about this horse and pony show

Hahaha, good, fuck him.

Looks like they're not even going to get the recounts done (the recounts will come back saying Trump won) because Pennsylvania has very complex, over strict law about recounts that practically makes them impossible even in the best conditions.

I don't have any evidence, it's all conjecture. Why do you keep going on about procedure and laws, porky sure as fuck didn't care about that when they cheated Bernie.

Don't tell me that's different cause it's inter party, all the same state gov institutions are used to hold the primary as the election.

And porky cheated Bernie because he knew he would have won.

Also liberals are porkies most valuable proles, they seem to seriously have it out for trump. What difference would it make to porky if poor whites were pissed off, they're not that valuable to porky anyway, they can only do unskilled labor and that's all done by illegal

2 points is way outside of what people would call close.

Bush lost by what 250k votes. That's a close race. Also he beat her really bad in the EC but lost by 2 points, if that's not a rigged election I don't know what is

A rigged election is like gerrymandered one where you take people who are already democrats or republicans, and then redraft the lines of a district so that the rules benefit you. Did Trump redraw the state of Michigan? Of Pennsylvania.

The issue might actually be that the electoral college is finally serving it's originally intended purpose. To prevent big states from rendering the issues that smaller states face but they do not irrelevant on a federal level. At best, coastal people are indifferent to the rust belt, at worst, they actively benefit from gutting it.

Well a lot of people don't vote. Doesn't change the fact that swing occurred among those without college degrees. They voted for dems and then they changed their mind.

This is a distinction without a difference, you're talking about the presidency not some fucking pie eating contest. It still cheating even if Trump had nothing to do with it, and proles ain't gonna parse that stupid circumstance either

No, the electoral college has a clear reason to exist. It has a firm philosophical basis in fairness and republicanism. It is specifically intended to but a limit on the power of states with large populations with respect to their representation in the common, federal government.

proles aren't incapable of understanding slightly complex ideas you stupid bitch.

It's very origins are rooted in slavery, slave states needed that protection because their slaves only counted as 3/5ths a person in the census.

A we have a bill of rights to keep the tyranny of the majority at bay, forcing your petty politics on 300 million people isn't a fucking right

Is Trump who lost by 3 million fucking votes an expression of the will of the people.

No one gives a fuck about your special definition of democracy where democracy is undermined little by little until we get a Trump but no one can reject him cause it's too late lol

This is ahistorical and is putting the cart before the horse w/r/t the 3/5ths compromise. It is ignoring the fundamental reason it exists, which I laid out: Protecting *the representation in the federal government* of states with smaller populations from larger states.

Both candidates of the major parties are equally illegitimate

It's certainly an expression of the will of California's and New Yorkers, who wanted to tell the Rust Belt to go fuck themselves and die, because they're all hicks without college degrees and we're moving all the wealth to us.

Its anti democratic to its core. And those slaves shouldn't have been counted at all since they couldn't vote.

States don't get rights, people do. Just because you happen to live in an arbitrary chunk of land with a low pop entitles you to jack shit.

What if we just re drew the states so all the states have an even pop.

People could easily have rejected Trump. Are you seriously suggesting that Trump was going to win no matter what the democrats did? The dems could have won handily if they just addressed the concerns of the states that they lost – Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin– instead of totally ignoring them.

...

Right conservatives had nothing to do with the last 30 years of neoliberalism. None of those Trump voting backwards hicks voted for Reagan, or Bush II huh.

And this is fundamentally naive and suggests a border-less world is both possible and desirable.. There are major economic differences between mid-western states and coastal cities, the democratic elite decided to nurse the coast while they forsake the midwest, and proved int he process why the electoral college is so vital.

Those states I listed voted for Obama twice, at the least, and actually– believe it or not– the democratic party was the party of the working class for decades. That's where the "blue wall comes from", the Rust Belt was considered safe democrat due to the democrat parties historically close association with Unions.

Trump spoke directly to their issues regarding trade and manufacturing that actually offered them the possibility of a solution. It was certainly better than HRC's offer of a big ass donkey dick they could suck on.

Keep in mind enthusiasm and turnout for both major candidates was extremely low this election.

The rust belt sates went to Trump because his racism electrified the GOP base and Dems didn't vote for Hillary.

Those voters would have and have always have voted GOP.

Trump got less votes than Romeny, got less votes than Hillary. This is too much even for lumpen proles something has to give.

A borderless world is both possible and desirable.

Where the fuck do you think you are?


Not as big a difference as CLASS INTEREST. Federalism just divides the proles and makes it profitable for porky to astroturf right-wing ideas in low-population areas with funds extracted from population centers.


The coasts pay more to the fed than they take back out retard.


Yeah mane. So vital we got George fucking Bush and Donald fucking Trump. Fuck your electoral college. It's probably already doomed the planet.

It's not fundamental naive. You're just trying to make this gross injustice seem like it has all this tortured nuance.

So what if they're politics is different. In a republic you have to make sacrifices to serve the republics welfare. Like how blue states subsidize red states with taxes.

Then come up with better conjecture. What exactly are you basing all this on, beyond 'Porky wanted Hillary' and 'the proles are angry'? Porky has clearly admitted defeat and the proles plainly aren't angry enough to do anything about it.

Some breaches of procedure are more serious than others. Subtly rigging a private intra-party election (yes it does matter) is different from brazenly overturning a general election several weeks after it had been called and conceded. It's the difference between shoplifting and armed robbery.