Trump Supporters are Imbeciles

[pErvinalia]

This is brilliant! Sorry for facebook link, couldn't be bothered trying to find it on youtube.

https://www.facebook.com/thedailyshow/v ... __tn__=H-R

[Brian Peacock]

Those who voted Trump in 2016 also scored high with Bernie Sanders, but the Right's identity politics agenda is a distraction we can all but into eh?

[pErvinalia]

I don't know what that means. But the video is fucking hilarious and the people in it are thick as shit.

[Seabass]

This is brilliant! Sorry for facebook link, couldn't be bothered trying to find it on youtube.

https://www.facebook.com/thedailyshow/v ... __tn__=H-R

viewtopic.php?p=1857173#p1857173

[Brian Peacock]

It means that while we're focusing on voters who voted the other way we're not looking at the systemic, structural, and institutional conditions which make Trump possible - and to a great extent, inevitable.

[pErvinalia]

Ok, you do that, the rest of us will laugh at imbeciles.

[Brian Peacock]

Imbecility is ubiquitous.

[Seabass]

It means that while we're focusing on voters who voted the other way we're not looking at the systemic, structural, and institutional conditions which make Trump possible - and to a great extent, inevitable.

We can multitask.

[Brian Peacock]

Not if you're into blaming Trump voters for Trump.

[Svartalf]

What disappoints me most is the demonstration of the obsolescence and perversion of the electoral college system.
If the election had worked on a popular suffrage principle, hillary would have won, instead, frump sailed in on the system that the Founding Fathers had established precisely to prevent such demagogues and clowns as himself from being elected, but which had been debased and perverted to fit the requirements of the two party political system.

[laklak]

I think it functioned exactly as intended. It kept the urban idiots from overwhelming the rest of us.

We really need to split this country up.

[Brian Peacock]

Urban vs rural, North vs South, East Coast vs West Coast, Black vs White, Christian vs Muslim, Alt-Right vs Antifa, Trumpistas vs Bernie's Bros, Boomer vs Millenial, Pro-life vs Abortion, NRA vs gun-control, Public Services vs Small State, Coke vs Pepsi, blah blah blah... It all boils down to the same thing in the end: Rich vs the rest.

[Svartalf]

and the rich have all the trump cards in their hand

[Faithfree]

I don't know what that means. But the video is fucking hilarious and the people in it are thick as shit.

Maybe some sort of basic intelligence test should by required before one can enter a polling booth?

[Seabass]

I think it functioned exactly as intended. It kept the urban idiots from overwhelming the rest of us.

We really need to split this country up.

That was never part of the original intent behind the creation of the EC. It's just a post hoc justification that conservatives came up with later.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_St ... Background

However, once the Electoral College had been decided on, several delegates (Mason, Butler, Morris, Wilson, and Madison) openly recognized its ability to protect the election process from cabal, corruption, intrigue, and faction. Some delegates, including James Wilson and James Madison, preferred popular election of the executive.[19][20] Madison acknowledged that while a popular vote would be ideal, it would be difficult to get consensus on the proposal given the prevalence of slavery in the South:

There was one difficulty however of a serious nature attending an immediate choice by the people. The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of Negroes. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to the fewest objections.[21]

The Convention approved the Committee's Electoral College proposal, with minor modifications, on September 6, 1787.[22] Delegates from states with smaller populations or limited land area such as Connecticut, New Jersey, and Maryland generally favored the Electoral College with some consideration for states.[23] At the compromise providing for a runoff among the top five candidates, the small states supposed that the House of Representatives with each state delegation casting one vote would decide most elections.[24]

In The Federalist Papers, James Madison explained his views on the selection of the president and the Constitution. In Federalist No. 39, Madison argued the Constitution was designed to be a mixture of state-based and population-based government. Congress would have two houses: the state-based Senate and the population-based House of Representatives. Meanwhile, the president would be elected by a mixture of the two modes.[25]

Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 68 laid out what he believed were the key advantages to the Electoral College. The electors come directly from the people and them alone for that purpose only, and for that time only. This avoided a party-run legislature, or a permanent body that could be influenced by foreign interests before each election.[26] Hamilton explained the election was to take place among all the states, so no corruption in any state could taint "the great body of the people" in their selection. The choice was to be made by a majority of the Electoral College, as majority rule is critical to the principles of republican government. Hamilton argued that electors meeting in the state capitals were able to have information unavailable to the general public. Hamilton also argued that since no federal officeholder could be an elector, none of the electors would be beholden to any presidential candidate.[26]

Another consideration was the decision would be made without "tumult and disorder" as it would be a broad-based one made simultaneously in various locales where the decision-makers could deliberate reasonably, not in one place where decision-makers could be threatened or intimidated. If the Electoral College did not achieve a decisive majority, then the House of Representatives was to choose the president from among the top five candidates,[27] ensuring selection of a presiding officer administering the laws would have both ability and good character. Hamilton was also concerned about somebody unqualified, but with a talent for "low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity" attaining high office.[26]

Additionally, in the Federalist No. 10, James Madison argued against "an interested and overbearing majority" and the "mischiefs of faction" in an electoral system. He defined a faction as "a number of citizens whether amounting to a majority or minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community." What was then called republican government (i.e., representative democracy, as opposed to direct democracy) combined with the principles of federalism (with distribution of voter rights and separation of government powers) would countervail against factions. Madison further postulated in the Federalist No. 10 that the greater the population and expanse of the Republic, the more difficulty factions would face in organizing due to such issues as sectionalism.[28]