Tero wrote:Trump: I'll take your healthcare away!
Trump hasn't suggested he is taking anyone's healthcare away. quite the opposite - he has said that everyone needs to be covered, and that he means to repeal and replace Obamacare with something that works without, to paraphrase, fucking everyone up the ass with ridiculous premium increases.
Remember, Obama sold us his bill of goods by claiming that we needed to pass the ACA, or we'd have our premiums continue to increase. The ACA was supposed to stop that. Also, the ACA was to allow us to keep our plans and our doctors, which was, of course, total bullshit.
Tero wrote:
Hillary: You can keep it. You can keep some of your guns too.
Hillary has suggested taking away some guns? Which ones?
Tero wrote:
Result: Trump.
Indeed, because large swaths of the population didn't want Obamacare, and now see it for the horsehit that it is. That's why the thing had to be forced through like a bowling ball through a straw, because people really weren't all that enthused about it in the first place. Only dipshits who didn't care what it actually required or said wanted it. Dipshits who just figure, and to this day still say, that the intent was to get more people covered, so that means it's a good thing. Dumbasses like that supported it.
Tero wrote:
It's been an extremely divisive election and a lot of people this year are having trouble accepting the outcome.
They were horrified about the possibility that others might have trouble accepting the outcome, if it went the other way.
Tero wrote:
Some — like California Sen. Barbara Boxer — have argued in the wake of the results that it's time to get rid of the current system altogether.
Fair enough. Make the argument and let's amend the constitution, if it's what is desired. But, remember, the rules aren't amended ex post facto. If there was no electoral college, the campaigns would have been run differently and the outcome would not necessarily have been exactly the same. for example, Trump would have had to pile a lot of resources into California and New York. Under the EC system, he could give those states up for dead, and concentrate on the rest of the country. If it was a pure popular vote, he would have been going after every last vote he could garner in California and New York. So, we can't know for certain that just because Hillary won the "votes counted" in this election, that if the rules were different in advance, those same results would have happened.
Tero wrote:
(Boxer) The Democrat introduced legislation Tuesday that would abolish the Electoral College and use the popular vote instead to determine the presidency. She's got public opinion behind her. According to a 2013 Gallup poll, 63 percent of Americans would get rid of the electoral college.
What percentage of the population even know what the Electoral College is, specifically, and how it works?
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar
