Since Trump was elected:

Wasn't assuming anything pal, don't think I actually called your personal voting preferences into play at all. I was comparing two candidates against each other, pretty strange during a political discussion I know, but it supported the rest of my post.

You're right, Mexico is fucked regardless and will have to agree with whatever Trump wants. He's renegotiating NAFTA or he's pulling the fuck out, consumer prices go up for Americans but the Middle Class gets completely rebuilt with hundreds of thousands of jobs coming back home and US-Made goods. It can be a smoother ride for Americans or it can be a rough one, but it's gonna be done how he wants it. Hillary would never consider helping out the working class like this because the multinational corporations profits will get fucked when Trump ends NAFTA and they would crucify her. Economist preaching the doomsday shit about NAFTA also invested in the Peso on November 7th and didn't expect the UK to leave the EU, nobody knows exactly whats going to happen to an economy during/after world events, even the 'experts' that spend their lives studying this shit. Trumps holding all the aces, he's just got to use them properly.

Ramos: 40% of undocumented immigrants come by air

41%-50% MAX, I hate quoting statistics like this because they can be manipulated and exclude shit but there it is anyway, half of them are coming in by plane and half are crossing the border by foot? Fuck yeah, make Mexico pay for that wall and sort out 50-60% of illegals, the US can focus on the 40-50% coming in by air.

I think "Social Justice Warrior" speaks for itself mate, and from experience the only type of person that asks you to define a SJW is a SJW.

one eg:

 

@OSRSJeremy we accepted 25k Syrians during the initial surge? That's 0.0007% of Canada's population. If that's getting cucked then fuck me man cause the rest of the world is getting bent over in that case.

As far as me asking what your def of an sjw is, I was asking because in a lot of people's eyes him being sexist and racist = "not giving a shit about sjws". Being sexist and racist is obviously wrong so the connection baffles me. Seeing which side you're on.

On my phone atm I'll check out the stats link tomo

 

@Blupig the rest of the world is literally getting bent over, Canada and Australia are actually both getting fucken smashed by lefties about immigration and aboriginals. We've just got a "right-wing" government, you've got a leftie catholic "because it's 2016". Any frustration I directed at Canada can equally be directed back to Australia.

SJW's class nearly anything as sexism and racism, that's my definition. If Trumps making a joke about grabbing some pussy with the boys in private locker room talk, who gives a shit? If Trump got off the bus and actually sexually assaulted a woman and grabbed her pussy, that's fucked and he needs a good punch in the head. SJW's take extreme offense to everything that could be remotely discriminatory, unless it regards white people.

Another example of cucked Canada:

Yelling ‘I hate white people’ and punching one isn’t a hate crime, Canadian judge rules

If the shoe was on the other foot and a white Canadian knocked a random Aboriginal they'd be destroying their lives and any chance at a career. Not sure how it is in Canada, but in Australia when you apply for ANY job there is a box asking to tick if you are an Aboriginal or Torres Straight Islander, because if you are there's a 90% chance you'll get that job regardless of your skillset. That's every non-Aboriginal or Islander Australian getting fucked over, but no SJW would cry discrimination.


EDIT: Thread has been completely derailed, my apologies. Trumps going to MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN. It's time to DRAIN THE SWAMP.

 

I just hope they all leave like they said they would. Get the fuck out and stay out. Drop your citizenship and leave.

 

You forget Obama promised another 100k syrian refugee's. Trump immediately said he'd derail that.

 

I was referring to Canada, Jeremy was saying that Trudeau cucked the country by letting in 25k.

 

Merkel cucked the world, let's not forget it.

 

I mean yeah, accepting that many people all at once when your infrastructure can't support the influx was uh...Unwise

 

Protesting Trump is protesting Democracy, every time the left has something that doesn't go their way they get angry, I don't think this was the first time this has happened (Bush vs. Gore)

I hope so too, but getting a canadian citizenship and moving their legally would take around 2 years, so essentially they're only going to be away from Donald Trump's "bigoted agenda" for only half of his first term.

 

Oh please.. is that a joke? You obviously haven't turned the other way, because the right the exact same thing.

 

stop quoting all my posts everywhere relaaaax

 

If you're going to argue that protesting Trump is equivocated to protesting democracy, I suggest you look a little bit closer at the American political system + you may want to define what a democracy is; furthermore, you can recognize the results of the election and still protest the individual.

A few quick points worth noting in the U.S. electoral system:
- Many states are heavily gerrymandered
- both prison and normal gerrymandering, skewing populations, and as of 2010 in overwhelmingly republican manner
- Voting is not a national holiday
- People work and only 23 states mandate time off for voting
- Early and absentee voting have been under attack
- Efforts at state levels have been made to curb voter turnout, i.e. voter id laws
- You do not need to win a popular vote to win the election
- Election turn out runs between 40-60% depending on the year
- Closed primaries, lack of run-off elections
- Inability of third parties to be competitive

I don't understand what you're referring to with Bush vs Gore, but that decision has been heavily critiqued at nearly all levels and many point to the partisanship playing a role.

Edit @Felix

This statement alludes to Obama accepting at least (if not in excess) of 100,000 Syrian refugees and that is not the case; in fact, I believe it was around 10,000 in August with 100,000 being the goal in the next few years.

 

Something a lot of people are missing because they're so invested in hearing of the foreign relations or domestic social "uprisings" is who this man has picked in his cabinet. All of them being primarily elitest conservative republicans..

Judging by his cabinet moves, he's setting up the lower/middle class for total decimation. People are so focused on the social aspects rather than the economic turmoil he's going to bring with his debunked mega-trickle down economics.

Time will tell.

 

Exactly, he want's to cut taxes dramatically and all economic research shows that it does more harm than good and doesn't promote economic prosperity. It promotes only concentration of wealth and inefficient economics. The worse part I believe is his cabinets idea's on regulation and totally against it. Regulatory bodies were put in place to protect markets and have not been deterring business to the extent which they say it is.

 

I'll tell you this much; the ignorant blue collar workers living in the middle of nowhere and working in shitty jobs, not going to school, having 3-5 kids on a minimum wage budget; they're not the people driving the economy. And yet, under the current system- they're the ones who get to choose the president. Makes no sense at all. Every other major democracy on earth is looking at the electoral like "wtf...?"

Don't sit here and praise Trump for the job he hasn't done yet.

The guy has put more millionaires and billionaires into his cabinet than any other president.

You think those people give a shit about "working class Americans"?

We survived 8 years of Bush and it resulted in the near-collapse of our entire economic system.

Maybe it's time to switch to a popular vote system.

 

I'm going to give you one chance and once chance only to prove a pure democracy is better than a constitutional republic before I completely and utterly destroy you with the reason as to why our ingenious founders decried a pure democracy, because it's pretty clear you don't have a clue.

E: Oh, and yes, I will treat you like a petulant 'tard due to the fact you're actually trying to argue the "i-i-it wus dem darn old white blue collar red necks rooinin our cuntray!" meme, while ignoring you still have a hefty chunk of non-blue-collar workers who did vote for Trump.

I'm also going to assume you want to argue "b-b-b-but c-c-college e-e-e-educated v-voters!" literally I thought people only actually used these propaganda-tier arguments on Twitter or something.

But I digress, if you can tell me why we operate under a republic and not a direct democracy i'll personally hand you $100 IRL.

Hint: I've actually made a very detailed thread on this.

 

So what? Why is that such a bad thing? Those millionaires and billionaires are clearly doing something right if they're so wealthy.

Considering their money depends on the working class, I'd say so. It's the billionaires that are the ones employing people and allowing for the expansion of the working class. How many people do you think Target, Walmart, Costco, etc. employ? You should really look into how much we rely on those kinds of companies to keep our economy healthy.

 

This honestly made me laugh so hard I had side pains.

I'm not arguing against a constitutional republic, nor do I believe that everything Trump is arguing for are negative things; however I do firmly believe in reforming the electoral college. When you shave away the complexity of the electoral college system you get to a core framework devoid of logic.

If 53% of the country votes for X to be president, and 47% of the country votes for Y to be president: X becomes president in a fair constitutional republic, not Y.

The founding fathers couldn't have laid out a voting system to take into account the hundreds of districts that exist today, much less the 300 million person population.

What's comedic is that you really do believe that the founding fathers had some kind of future-sight to know what the US population would look like 300 years in the future. It's the same argument we see time and time again about the second amendment. No, I'm sorry you little Trump Youth member- they did not.

Every other advanced nation on Earth uses a system that ENSURES the candidate who is supported by the majority of the population wins.

I will counter your pathetic argument with this: please explain to me the logic of a candidate assuming the highest office in the land without the support of the MAJORITY of the population.

P.S. I love when people start name calling on the internet because it lets me know they're under 16 years old; although your profile name pretty much gives that away immediately. Good game

 

Ad-hominem attacks 10/10

What are you talking about? The founding fathers new a lot of shit would happen that has happened today.
George Washington - "do not get involved in foreign affairs" -> we get involved -> WWI, WWII, etc.
"Do not put us in a national debt" - currently 15 trillion in debt (I think)
They're not fortune tellers no shit, but saying that the founding fathers would have made a different system of voting if they had foreseen the current population is a poor argument.
You need to keep in mind that only about half of the people in the US actually vote, the rest of the people are either underage or just choose not to.

Okay, let me explain to you why the electoral college exists.The purpose of the electoral college is to be a compromise between election of the president by the vote of Congress and the popular vote of the people. The founding fathers established the electoral college in the United States Constitution, believing that it would be both a buffer and provide fair power to all states regardless of size.
Reference - What is the purpose of the electoral college?

More ad-hominem attacks.
Faces of Sythe
"Ugly bastards" --> "Name calling lets me know they're under 16 years old"
Nice.

 

LOL. You're really going to quote me from "Faces of Sythe" :') That's classic bro. That must have really upset you because it was a joke man.

Just because 1/2 of the population votes doesn't make the sample inaccurate. If that 1/2 proportionally votes a certain way, statistically speaking we would call that a very sound sample. Really, a representative sample is usually WAY smaller than that.

I really can't believe you're saying that George Washington predicted every major global conflict because he said, "Don't get involved in foreign affairs."

The simple truth about WWI and WWII: We stayed out for as long as possible. If we followed that line of thinking we would all be subjects to the German's 1000 year reich right now. How can you sit there and say that seriously? That really proves my point: George Washington couldn't predict the circumstances leading to WWI or WWII. The US literally saved the world from tearing itself apart- TWICE.

What American has ever said, "We should have stayed out of WWI and WWII"....?

That's just baffling to me