The Ameяican Government Thread

24567608

Comments

  • PerthoPertho The Runed One Joined: Posts: 22,007 mod
    Which side is more obnoxious:



    whoever wins, we keep paying taxes.
    Ronin Chaos on Pertho:

    "Oh, Pertho. You complete me."
    jimmy1200 wrote: »
    pertho attacked me first, saying i get all my life tips from 106th and park.
  • FreezingCicadaFreezingCicada Joined: Posts: 626

    http://www.blogtalkradio.com/ghost

    Ghost radio is back, Endorses Trump.
    WTF are you retards doing not voting for Trump? HE IS THE BEST CASE SCENARIO!

    Fucking Bernie Sanders cant do shit and will trash your economy with socialist BS. Hillary will be your Merkel/ Notley, expect suicide rates raise cause she wants to accelerate industry destruction.
    Fucking why?
    I havent heard anyone say anything negative about Trump other then passive/neutral complaints and muh racists/white people.
  • PerthoPertho The Runed One Joined: Posts: 22,007 mod
    hahaha holy shit. Things are gonna get hella real right now:

    Ronin Chaos on Pertho:

    "Oh, Pertho. You complete me."
    jimmy1200 wrote: »
    pertho attacked me first, saying i get all my life tips from 106th and park.
  • UglylittlebirdyUglylittlebirdy idiot. Joined: Posts: 441
    Young Bernie Sanders supporters on facebook have been annoying as shit.
    I like Bernie and wouldn't mind him as president, but they dont even seem to realize that writing him in helps the #1 person he doesn't want as president.
    SFV: M. Bison/Alex/Necalli
    SF4: Akuma/M. Bison/Fei Long
    3S: Oro/Akuma/Alex
  • just5moreminutesjust5moreminutes Eagle will return Joined: Posts: 7,897
    Young Bernie Sanders supporters on facebook have been annoying as shit.
    I like Bernie and wouldn't mind him as president, but they dont even seem to realize that writing him in helps the #1 person he doesn't want as president.

    True, but if you take that fatalistic of an approach then voting is ultimately meaningless. If the Democratic Party wants to throw people under the bus and push an unpopular candidate into office, then they better prepare to hold that L when her lack of support outside of Democrat voters becomes obvious. Trump/Cruz vs Hillary is probably the best chance for a third party upset we could ever ask for. You're going to have a sizable section of Republican Primary voters angry with the party either way, and a group of young liberals who aren't going to settle for Hillary's bullshit. If this base rallies behind a third party, we may see the first non-Democrat/Republican president in over 160 years.
  • pheraipherai LIVE FOREVER Joined: Posts: 11,885 mod
    im sure its annoying to supporters of less moderate candidates when they get scolded for not falling in line with the party establishment. particularly young voters who are least likely to have any sort of party allegiance.
    pherai gouki dated gwen stefani in HighSchool. Thats why today she likes all things Japan. smokin.gif
  • UglylittlebirdyUglylittlebirdy idiot. Joined: Posts: 441
    How does what I say make voting meaningless?
    The fact that people dont get the importance in it is what bugs the shit outta me. You vote for whoever you want in the primary, hope they get the nomination (helped by your vote), and if they don't, you compromise for one of the nominees that share most of your values.

    Like if some of my concerns were making sure women retain the right to choose and equal marriage rights, then why would i not defensively vote for the person whos NOT going to completely destroy those things, opposed to sending good vibes via vote to someone i know already has been knocked out of the race?

    A 3rd party canidate is not winning this election. Lets stay in reality.

    I should've separated my last post though, my main annoyance with the youth is how theyre taking memes for fact and spamming everywhere -__- Some are saying Clinton is the same as Trump which is just ridiculous.
    SFV: M. Bison/Alex/Necalli
    SF4: Akuma/M. Bison/Fei Long
    3S: Oro/Akuma/Alex
  • pedoviejopedoviejo Thuggin in da Kitchen Joined: Posts: 13,848
    By that logic I'm going to vote trump.

    Pro American policies, policies that could potentially ask Europe to stop being snivelling cowards and invest in therir own defense, rather than leech of America through NATO.

    Scale back free trade and demand countries like China to stop engaging in acts, of what should be borderline war, with the hacking of defense industry. Demand better trade deals with countries that engage in f"free" trade, etc. Control immigration and still the influx of unskilled labor, high the country can no longer suistain due to the shift in the economy towards low tier jobs that aren't worth 15$ an hour and end up on subsidies.

    It's not like sanders is gonna get the nomination, and it's not like I want to vote a president, where if he had his policies, would result in tax rates as high as 50-60% for everybody.
    ______________________________________________________________________________

    Complete my life Capcom, and make a Megaman Legends 3 exclusive for PS4. Do it, do it for the glory that should be and would be.
  • pedoviejopedoviejo Thuggin in da Kitchen Joined: Posts: 13,848
    So tell me, why would I want to go ven bite this election cycle. The notion that I should "compromise" is one of the reasons why we choose terrible presidents that aren't moderate.
    ______________________________________________________________________________

    Complete my life Capcom, and make a Megaman Legends 3 exclusive for PS4. Do it, do it for the glory that should be and would be.
  • pheraipherai LIVE FOREVER Joined: Posts: 11,885 mod
    I think this notion that people will fall in line with the moderate choices without much courting involved is what has the republican party in its current situation, as well as why so little of hildawgs margin over sanders is made up of regular delegates.

    i dont think you necessarily can take for granted that a sanders voter is that motivated so strongly by womens reproductive rights. and even if you could, some people will vote idealistically, and some more pragmatically. I doubt arguments that start with "anyone but..." are very persuasive to idealistic voters.
    pherai gouki dated gwen stefani in HighSchool. Thats why today she likes all things Japan. smokin.gif
  • UglylittlebirdyUglylittlebirdy idiot. Joined: Posts: 441
    Compromise is better than saying "my guy didnt win so I just dont care anymore".
    Again, write ins help nobody but the party opposing the one youd otherwise vote for. Why not do something that counts and get some of what you want over doing something that accomplishes nothing.

    Like I said I have no problem whatsoever with Sanders, (I actually like him a lot.) but I know hes not winning unless he gets the nomination. Id rather put in a vote that actually might get some of his policies that I agree with in place than emotional support via vote.

    Us getting terrible presidents is more of an opinion. I think Donald Trump would be terrible. Split votes get him in office. So yeah, I like compromise.
    SFV: M. Bison/Alex/Necalli
    SF4: Akuma/M. Bison/Fei Long
    3S: Oro/Akuma/Alex
  • Raz0rRaz0r Did you really just write that? Joined: Posts: 25,726 ✭✭✭✭✭ OG
    Raz0r wrote: »
    Pertho wrote: »
    Also what the hell is up with the right's female pundits all being banging? You put on fox and its popping, you watch msnbc and its rachel maddow.

    The situation with the supreme court nominee is going to be interesting leading to the election. Hillary opposing the republicans in the matter would mean throwing a party member in the administration under the bus. PACs are gonna go ham on that point.

    It would be pretty unprecedented for Obama to try and ram a nomination through during such a lame duck session...

    This is so wrong I wish you were banned for it.

    http://www.ibtimes.com/can-obama-nominate-another-supreme-court-justice-history-presidents-making-election-2338280

    How does making 6 appointments set a precedent? That means that less than half the time there is no appointment made. Given the political climate in the US right now (a Democrat elected president but a Republican Senate elected more recently) it would be pretty absurd to try and nominate, just let the people decide in November

    The people decided, in 2012

    They decided again, more recently, in 2014

    Congress's job isn't to determine who is up for a SCOTUS nomination, that part is the leader of the executive branch, which is Obama. Their job is to vet him to see if he can do the job, not if he falls into their ideology. That's nonsense.
    This is offensive.
  • Raz0rRaz0r Did you really just write that? Joined: Posts: 25,726 ✭✭✭✭✭ OG
    Raz0r wrote: »
    Pertho wrote: »
    Also what the hell is up with the right's female pundits all being banging? You put on fox and its popping, you watch msnbc and its rachel maddow.

    The situation with the supreme court nominee is going to be interesting leading to the election. Hillary opposing the republicans in the matter would mean throwing a party member in the administration under the bus. PACs are gonna go ham on that point.

    It would be pretty unprecedented for Obama to try and ram a nomination through during such a lame duck session...

    This is so wrong I wish you were banned for it.

    http://www.ibtimes.com/can-obama-nominate-another-supreme-court-justice-history-presidents-making-election-2338280

    How does making 6 appointments set a precedent? That means that less than half the time there is no appointment made. Given the political climate in the US right now (a Democrat elected president but a Republican Senate elected more recently) it would be pretty absurd to try and nominate, just let the people decide in November

    The people decided, in 2012

    They decided again, more recently, in 2014

    Ok, that has nothing to do with Obama making a nomination though. If the senate decides not to act, that is entirely up to them. However they should also face any blowback by not doing their job (which some Repubs are seemingly facing in battleground states, threatening their job).

    First your issue was with how unprecedented this was, now its because there is a poisonous political climate in America? What happens if Hillary wins but the Repubs still control the Senate? How long should we wait because Republicans are in the majority? Not even being an asshole with that statement but I truly want to know. If Scalia died last November would Obama still need to agree to some bullshit gentlemen s agreement?

    The situation in general is pretty unprecedented to be completely honest (President on his way out the door faced with a nomination), and the fact that someone has made a nomination 6 times ever certainly doesn't say otherwise (if anything it just says how rare the situation is). The bottom line is that more times than not, no nomination was made during a lame duck session. Furthermore, the divisive political climate should definitely play a role in the decision if you ask me: the people elected a Democrat for president in, but then in 2014 they rejected said president's policies by electing a Republican senate, meaning 2016 seems a pretty good opportunity to cast the deciding vote so to speak. As to your other questions I really don't have an answer. All I can say is that the Republicans aren't stupid, there are a couple cases right now that they deem pretty important (I'm looking at you United States v Texas), and if they end up 4-4 with no precedent, the lower court decision is upheld. That is just one of the perks of holding the Senate I suppose

    You are one of those guys at the bar who found himself in an indefensible side of an argument and decided to just hoot and holler hoping the facts go away.

    I'm gonna go ahead and assume your age is 19.
    This is offensive.
  • Raz0rRaz0r Did you really just write that? Joined: Posts: 25,726 ✭✭✭✭✭ OG
    The two party system was NEVER the intention of the founding fathers. In fact, one of them wrote and spoke scathingly about it!
    This is offensive.
  • pedoviejopedoviejo Thuggin in da Kitchen Joined: Posts: 13,848
    The founding fathers didn't even like the idea of factions.
    ______________________________________________________________________________

    Complete my life Capcom, and make a Megaman Legends 3 exclusive for PS4. Do it, do it for the glory that should be and would be.
  • drunkards_walkdrunkards_walk Joined: Posts: 3,431
    Raz0r wrote: »
    Raz0r wrote: »
    Pertho wrote: »
    Also what the hell is up with the right's female pundits all being banging? You put on fox and its popping, you watch msnbc and its rachel maddow.

    The situation with the supreme court nominee is going to be interesting leading to the election. Hillary opposing the republicans in the matter would mean throwing a party member in the administration under the bus. PACs are gonna go ham on that point.

    It would be pretty unprecedented for Obama to try and ram a nomination through during such a lame duck session...

    This is so wrong I wish you were banned for it.

    http://www.ibtimes.com/can-obama-nominate-another-supreme-court-justice-history-presidents-making-election-2338280

    How does making 6 appointments set a precedent? That means that less than half the time there is no appointment made. Given the political climate in the US right now (a Democrat elected president but a Republican Senate elected more recently) it would be pretty absurd to try and nominate, just let the people decide in November

    The people decided, in 2012

    They decided again, more recently, in 2014

    Ok, that has nothing to do with Obama making a nomination though. If the senate decides not to act, that is entirely up to them. However they should also face any blowback by not doing their job (which some Repubs are seemingly facing in battleground states, threatening their job).

    First your issue was with how unprecedented this was, now its because there is a poisonous political climate in America? What happens if Hillary wins but the Repubs still control the Senate? How long should we wait because Republicans are in the majority? Not even being an asshole with that statement but I truly want to know. If Scalia died last November would Obama still need to agree to some bullshit gentlemen s agreement?

    The situation in general is pretty unprecedented to be completely honest (President on his way out the door faced with a nomination), and the fact that someone has made a nomination 6 times ever certainly doesn't say otherwise (if anything it just says how rare the situation is). The bottom line is that more times than not, no nomination was made during a lame duck session. Furthermore, the divisive political climate should definitely play a role in the decision if you ask me: the people elected a Democrat for president in, but then in 2014 they rejected said president's policies by electing a Republican senate, meaning 2016 seems a pretty good opportunity to cast the deciding vote so to speak. As to your other questions I really don't have an answer. All I can say is that the Republicans aren't stupid, there are a couple cases right now that they deem pretty important (I'm looking at you United States v Texas), and if they end up 4-4 with no precedent, the lower court decision is upheld. That is just one of the perks of holding the Senate I suppose

    You are one of those guys at the bar who found himself in an indefensible side of an argument and decided to just hoot and holler hoping the facts go away.

    I'm gonna go ahead and assume your age is 19.

    What facts are you even talking about? The link you posted that showed that more often than not, a supreme court justice was not nominated? And where did I ever say we should let Congress decide who the Supreme Court nominee is? You like to make some wild leaps of logic, but I'll humor you and respond anyway. As far as holding up the nomination, that is there prerogative, it is one of the perks of holding the senate. Anyway, this is my last post on the topic because I really don't care about it much, but I actually think the current nominee seems pretty solid. Seems to me like maybe they should cut their loses, because when Hilary whens, someone less moderate might be elected...
  • Raz0rRaz0r Did you really just write that? Joined: Posts: 25,726 ✭✭✭✭✭ OG
    Gonna go ahead and break up this post to reply to it.
    What facts are you even talking about? The link you posted that showed that more often than not, a supreme court justice was not nominated?

    The point of that link was to show you that there is precedent for it happening, not that one has happened more than the other. Just because one happened less doesn't mean that it's wrong to do.
    And where did I ever say we should let Congress decide who the Supreme Court nominee is? You like to make some wild leaps of logic, but I'll humor you and respond anyway.

    Don't play coy. You yourself brought this into play. Your response to the people's choice in 2012 was the 2014 elections, which put in a lot of Republican politicians into the House and Senate, as to why we should wait for the next president to choose the Supreme Court nomination. But it's not Congress's job to elect someone, it's the currently sitting president. The way I see it, he still has 9 months left in office. He was elected for four years, not 3 and some change. So he's well within his Constitutional power to give a nominee.
    As far as holding up the nomination, that is there prerogative, it is one of the perks of holding the senate.

    Not it isn't. That was never, EVER, the intention of electing Supreme Court justices. The Republicans are just using their majority share to strangle a working democracy to death. They themselves have admitted that all they want to do is stall the President's will. They are being childish and intransigent at the cost of a functioning country.

    What the Republicans are showing is a weakness in how the Constitution was drafted. Nothing more. If it plunges the government into utter chaos because they have a take-it-all-or-no-one-goes-home-happy attitude, fuck it. Even moderate Republicans have gone on record during that whole Tea Party rising fiasco to say that this is not the party that they had envisioned nor is it one they care to work for!

    But go ahead and believe what you will.
    Anyway, this is my last post on the topic because I really don't care about it much, but I actually think the current nominee seems pretty solid. Seems to me like maybe they should cut their loses, because when Hilary whens, someone less moderate might be elected...

    You care about it enough to partake but not enough to educate yourself on the facts of the matter.

    Got it. Go back to the SFV section. You're a better poster there, anyway.
    This is offensive.
  • drunkards_walkdrunkards_walk Joined: Posts: 3,431
    Raz0r wrote: »
    Gonna go ahead and break up this post to reply to it.
    What facts are you even talking about? The link you posted that showed that more often than not, a supreme court justice was not nominated?

    The point of that link was to show you that there is precedent for it happening, not that one has happened more than the other. Just because one happened less doesn't mean that it's wrong to do.
    And where did I ever say we should let Congress decide who the Supreme Court nominee is? You like to make some wild leaps of logic, but I'll humor you and respond anyway.

    Don't play coy. You yourself brought this into play. Your response to the people's choice in 2012 was the 2014 elections, which put in a lot of Republican politicians into the House and Senate, as to why we should wait for the next president to choose the Supreme Court nomination. But it's not Congress's job to elect someone, it's the currently sitting president. The way I see it, he still has 9 months left in office. He was elected for four years, not 3 and some change. So he's well within his Constitutional power to give a nominee.
    As far as holding up the nomination, that is there prerogative, it is one of the perks of holding the senate.

    Not it isn't. That was never, EVER, the intention of electing Supreme Court justices. The Republicans are just using their majority share to strangle a working democracy to death. They themselves have admitted that all they want to do is stall the President's will. They are being childish and intransigent at the cost of a functioning country.

    What the Republicans are showing is a weakness in how the Constitution was drafted. Nothing more. If it plunges the government into utter chaos because they have a take-it-all-or-no-one-goes-home-happy attitude, fuck it. Even moderate Republicans have gone on record during that whole Tea Party rising fiasco to say that this is not the party that they had envisioned nor is it one they care to work for!

    But go ahead and believe what you will.
    Anyway, this is my last post on the topic because I really don't care about it much, but I actually think the current nominee seems pretty solid. Seems to me like maybe they should cut their loses, because when Hilary whens, someone less moderate might be elected...

    You care about it enough to partake but not enough to educate yourself on the facts of the matter.

    Got it. Go back to the SFV section. You're a better poster there, anyway.

    I still think you are misunderstanding my point about the 2014 election. I'm not saying it is the job of Congress to elected a SC nominee. However, because during the 2014 election so many Republicans were elected into Congress, this could be seen as a sweeping rejection of Obama's policies and ideals. So I don't think it is that unreasonable to say wait until 2016 when it can be decided once and for all. Though, like I said before, I think that may be a tactical mistake by Republicans and I don't necessarily agree or disagree with the decision.

    Also, at one time it may have been unsual for Congress to try and ascertain the political leanings of a nominee, but it is something that has become increasingly common over the years. Not saying it is right or wrong, but it was a reality long before this nomination.

    I think you are going a bit overboard with the hyperbole about a "functioning country" and "plunging the government into utter chaos". It isn't ideal, but there are rules in place so that the Court can function without a full bench. It certainly isn't enough to make the country fall into disarray.
  • Raz0rRaz0r Did you really just write that? Joined: Posts: 25,726 ✭✭✭✭✭ OG
    I thought you were done?

    Well, while I have your attention something has been bugging me since your post a while back.

    Unprecedented means never known or done before. It doesn't mean rarely used or done.

    I just wanted to clear that up.
    This is offensive.
  • UglylittlebirdyUglylittlebirdy idiot. Joined: Posts: 441
    I cant believe y'all brought up the founding fathers when like 90% of the people on heres ancestors were slaved tf up back then including mine. Fuck those mfs.
    SFV: M. Bison/Alex/Necalli
    SF4: Akuma/M. Bison/Fei Long
    3S: Oro/Akuma/Alex
  • pedoviejopedoviejo Thuggin in da Kitchen Joined: Posts: 13,848
    I cant believe y'all brought up the founding fathers when like 90% of the people on heres ancestors were slaved tf up back then including mine. Fuck those mfs.

    Because they knew their shit.
    ______________________________________________________________________________

    Complete my life Capcom, and make a Megaman Legends 3 exclusive for PS4. Do it, do it for the glory that should be and would be.
  • FreezingCicadaFreezingCicada Joined: Posts: 626
    I cant believe y'all brought up the founding fathers when like 90% of the people on heres ancestors were slaved tf up back then including mine. Fuck those mfs.
    Kek. Blacks built America amiright.

    Also forgetting the Amerindians, though I suppose it wouldnt matter taking note of a dead race.
  • UglylittlebirdyUglylittlebirdy idiot. Joined: Posts: 441
    Okay, I miiiiiiiightve been a little drunk when I made that last post lol
    SFV: M. Bison/Alex/Necalli
    SF4: Akuma/M. Bison/Fei Long
    3S: Oro/Akuma/Alex
  • Negative-Zer0Negative-Zer0 Joined: Posts: 9,701
    Pretty sure that the Supreme Court nominee requires nominations to be confirmed by the Senate. I am not aware of anything that says that the president MUST appoint the nominee and it must be accepted by the Senate, only that it has to be confirmed by the senate.
    “I was trying to take the easy way out by running away from everything. No matter the pain, I will keep living. So when I die, I'll feel I did the best I could.” - Koala
  • UglylittlebirdyUglylittlebirdy idiot. Joined: Posts: 441
    Next animosity-proof thread cumming soon: "Best and Worst Religions of the World -The Poll"
    SFV: M. Bison/Alex/Necalli
    SF4: Akuma/M. Bison/Fei Long
    3S: Oro/Akuma/Alex
  • pedoviejopedoviejo Thuggin in da Kitchen Joined: Posts: 13,848
    edited April 2016
    Next animosity-proof thread cumming soon: "Best and Worst Religions of the World -The Poll"

    give me historical time periods.

    1300-1700, Christianity
    1950-2016, Islam
    1929-1945, Atheism
    Time after jews left Egypt and around before and after the time of david, Jews
    700-900, Islam
    ______________________________________________________________________________

    Complete my life Capcom, and make a Megaman Legends 3 exclusive for PS4. Do it, do it for the glory that should be and would be.
  • truendymiontruendymion Beer Me! Joined: Posts: 2,226
    edited April 2016
    CfifC8yUkAA_H7P.jpg:large
    Fucking Bernie Sanders cant do shit

    While the media hyped a false narrative about Bernie Sanders’ competence and policies, three of Sanders’ policy proposals were implemented this week.
    http://usuncut.com/politics/bernie-wins-policy-victories/
  • pedoviejopedoviejo Thuggin in da Kitchen Joined: Posts: 13,848
    Xvideos wrote: »
    Some black guy attacks Bernie Sanders for being a Zionist Jew, simply because he's a Jew.

    http://observer.com/2016/04/bernie-sanders-berated-with-questions-about-zionist-jews-at-harlem-forum/


    That conspiracy theory.

    Bwahahahahahahah
    ______________________________________________________________________________

    Complete my life Capcom, and make a Megaman Legends 3 exclusive for PS4. Do it, do it for the glory that should be and would be.
  • truendymiontruendymion Beer Me! Joined: Posts: 2,226
    edited April 2016
    Wyoming makes 8 wins in a row for Sanders...

    Wait a minute, Sanders won Wyoming but they both get 7 delegates each? Rigged?
  • InfernomanInfernoman Bro as Hell Joined: Posts: 9,418
    Raz0r wrote: »
    The two party system was NEVER the intention of the founding fathers. In fact, one of them wrote and spoke scathingly about it!
    pedoviejo wrote: »
    The founding fathers didn't even like the idea of factions.

    The reason it works so well now is the average American is too stupid to look beyond anything else. Hence they pour everything into a system that favors one or the other while berating anything else. American won't wake up from this so long as they get their fix of social media BS/Starbucks/etc.
    Who else in a movie wrestled an evil lesbian and by forcefully kissing her, turned her not only heterosexual but good as well? Exactly. That, my friend, is the power of Sean motherfucking Connery - Valaris
  • KorbidonKorbidon Who can stand against such abominations? Joined: Posts: 4,534
    For a country that prides itself on its democracy, America has such a weird fucking system.

    You have a lunatic like Trump appearing simply because people feel so disconnected from their party, and a lady with a massive unfavourability rating is probably going win the Democratic nod because, hey, fuck you.
  • just5moreminutesjust5moreminutes Eagle will return Joined: Posts: 7,897
    Korbidon wrote: »
    For a country that prides itself on its democracy, America has such a weird fucking system.

    You have a lunatic like Trump appearing simply because people feel so disconnected from their party, and a lady with a massive unfavourability rating is probably going win the Democratic nod because, hey, fuck you.

    The problem is, that lunatic is saying things confidently and definitively, which is what his supporters like. It's not about truth or reality; they want a man to yell words on a stage and sound angry like they are.
    And the lady has basically married and bought her way into the upper echelon of the Democratic party. Sanders was an independent before now; the rest of the actual Democratic party has been intimidated and paid off to not run this election cycle as to unify everyone behind Hillary. Say what you want about her record and questionable morality, she's definitely done her homework as to how the election system works and is going for every advantage she can get by any means necessary. The fact that an Independent socialist from Vermont is still giving her this much of a problem should be telling of how weak she is as a genuine candidate.
    Sanders will beat Trump and Cruz if he wins the nomination. Hillary, I'm not so sure.
  • Negative-Zer0Negative-Zer0 Joined: Posts: 9,701
    Korbidon wrote: »
    For a country that prides itself on its democracy, America has such a weird fucking system.

    You have a lunatic like Trump appearing simply because people feel so disconnected from their party, and a lady with a massive unfavourability rating is probably going win the Democratic nod because, hey, fuck you.
    Korbidon wrote: »
    For a country that prides itself on its democracy, America has such a weird fucking system.

    You have a lunatic like Trump appearing simply because people feel so disconnected from their party, and a lady with a massive unfavourability rating is probably going win the Democratic nod because, hey, fuck you.

    We don't pride ourselves on democracy.

    We are a Constitutional Representative Republic. We pride ourselves on freedom.
    “I was trying to take the easy way out by running away from everything. No matter the pain, I will keep living. So when I die, I'll feel I did the best I could.” - Koala