By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics - The Next President Of The United States Is Donald J Trump

 

Trump is the president. What do you think?

I hate myself and want to die. 232 25.38%
 
I am so happy and want to... 238 26.04%
 
Eh. I honestly don't care 204 22.32%
 
How the hell did 11,000 U... 240 26.26%
 
Total:914
Barkley on 10 November 2016
S.T.A.G.E. said:

No one can argue against kanye running in 2020 as he said he would.

And he could WIN!!! It's a new world, anyone can win an election now!!!



Around the Network
S.T.A.G.E. on 10 November 2016
Barkley said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:

No one can argue against kanye running in 2020 as he said he would.

And he could WIN!!! It's a new world, anyone can win an election now!!!

Mrs Trump is paving the way for women like her to take the mantle of first lady. Could you imagine a first lady kim kardashian? LOL Good lord, this country. Hahah



Michelasso on 10 November 2016

Oh well.. At least the Americans will stop making fun of the Italians because of Berlusconi. Although I must say Trump has much better babes!!!



Zkuq on 10 November 2016
Nuvendil said:

The United States was designed with a pseudo-federation concept of State and Federal power balance.  As the founding fathers put it, the country was intended as a "sovreign nation of many sovreign states."  The Electoral system is there to make sure the interests of the States are represented in the Presidential elections, not just the interests of the masses.  If the popular vote was all that mattered, the interests of the top 10 states would be hugely disproportionately represented in Presidential elections.  And the size of our country, the diversity of demographics in each State, the variation in economic strength and resources, etc etc. means those interests can be very different.  With a straight popular vote, if a candidate won the top 7 or so states by a land slide, it's entirely possible they could lose in every other state but win regardless.  That means 43 states' interests are completely dumped in the bin. 

Also, not only can 3rd parties and new parties win, in the past it has happened numerous times.  The 20th century was really the time of the rise and fortification of strict bipartisanism.  Before then, there had been 3rd parties and new parties to win.  There is reform that needs doing, but the big issue is not the EC, it's the regulation of funding.  The fact is that as it stands, the two major parties just have so much more money than third parties do.  The spending just needs to be more tightly regulated so that more parties can be competitive. 

A good start would be to get rid of the whole 'the winner takes it all' thing. If the winner of one state gets, say, 51 % of the votes, and the loser gets 49 %, why should all the electors go to the winner? Even the loser should get something because it's a close call. It would also make every single vote count. If no one gets the majority of electors in the first round, have a second round with only the top two candidates.



Snoopy on 10 November 2016
Zkuq said:
Nuvendil said:

The United States was designed with a pseudo-federation concept of State and Federal power balance.  As the founding fathers put it, the country was intended as a "sovreign nation of many sovreign states."  The Electoral system is there to make sure the interests of the States are represented in the Presidential elections, not just the interests of the masses.  If the popular vote was all that mattered, the interests of the top 10 states would be hugely disproportionately represented in Presidential elections.  And the size of our country, the diversity of demographics in each State, the variation in economic strength and resources, etc etc. means those interests can be very different.  With a straight popular vote, if a candidate won the top 7 or so states by a land slide, it's entirely possible they could lose in every other state but win regardless.  That means 43 states' interests are completely dumped in the bin. 

Also, not only can 3rd parties and new parties win, in the past it has happened numerous times.  The 20th century was really the time of the rise and fortification of strict bipartisanism.  Before then, there had been 3rd parties and new parties to win.  There is reform that needs doing, but the big issue is not the EC, it's the regulation of funding.  The fact is that as it stands, the two major parties just have so much more money than third parties do.  The spending just needs to be more tightly regulated so that more parties can be competitive. 

A good start would be to get rid of the whole 'the winner takes it all' thing. If the winner of one state gets, say, 51 % of the votes, and the loser gets 49 %, why should all the electors go to the winner? Even the loser should get something because it's a close call. It would also make every single vote count. If no one gets the majority of electors in the first round, have a second round with only the top two candidates.

No, in life its either you win or you lose. Do or don't there is no try.



Around the Network
Tootylicious on 10 November 2016

You had it coming when you democratically voted for Hillary instead of Sanders.
Feel the bern!



Zkuq on 10 November 2016
Snoopy said:
Zkuq said:

A good start would be to get rid of the whole 'the winner takes it all' thing. If the winner of one state gets, say, 51 % of the votes, and the loser gets 49 %, why should all the electors go to the winner? Even the loser should get something because it's a close call. It would also make every single vote count. If no one gets the majority of electors in the first round, have a second round with only the top two candidates.

No, in life its either you win or you lose. Do or don't there is no try.

That's a pretty arbitrary stance with no basis in reality. The votes could easily be split justly. There's no need to declare one winner per state and declare everyone else a loser. There can be only one president at a time, but there can definitely be electors with different candidates.



fatslob-:O on 10 November 2016
Snoopy said:

No, in life its either you win or you lose. Do or don't there is no try.

This, in the vast majority of the cases there can only be FPTP per state otherwise the elections would risk often falling on the house of representatives which could give them too much power ... 



CaptainExplosion2 on 10 November 2016
HollyGamer said:
CaptainExplosion2 said:

Because he's a fascist and Trump is also a fascist.

Nah, because both of them cannot wait to play Nuclear war , and their war games. I bet they have a lot of account on civilization games and doing some online match LOL 

Then they both need to die before they can start World War III.



Alby_da_Wolf on 10 November 2016
Azuren said:
FunFan said:

^.^ I like the Ouya.

Ouya is teh hidden leader and Lord that comes like a thief in teh night, when its lordship will be revealed, teh evil ones that denied its glory and might, teh angels will throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth! And all those buried and rotting Nintendo Virtual Boys tormenting them for teh eternity! Teh horror! Teh horror!

FunFan said:
Azuren said:

Why boo Pro? Can't we boo something that no one likes? Like Ouya?

^.^ I like the Ouya.

Here is a righteous one that will be saved and will shine like teh sun in teh Kingdom of teh Almighty Ouya! Hallelujah Brother!



Stwike him, Centuwion. Stwike him vewy wuffly! (Pontius Pilate, "Life of Brian")
A fart without stink is like a sky without stars.
TGS, Third Grade Shooter: brand new genre invented by Kevin Butler exclusively for Natal WiiToo Kinect. PEW! PEW-PEW-PEW!