Did SJWs help create Trump?

[Neo Deist]

The country voted, and the country wanted Hillary, not Trump, and by a much larger margin than it wanted Gore over Bush.

Negative. 20 of the states wanted Hillary. 30 wanted Trump.

The Founding Fathers set it up this way so that a handful of states would not decide every election based on population density. Sometimes the EC works for you, sometimes against you. It swings back and forth.

The states make up the Union and they are all equal. If you think California is more important than say Alabama, then you are a bigot.

 

[Revoltingest]

The country voted, and the country wanted Hillary, not Trump, and by a much larger margin than it wanted Gore over Bush.

A small margin which doesn't rise to the level of a majority of votes, & is a fraction of
eligible voters (many of whom were uninspired to vote) is hardly a mandate to elect Hillary.
We have a system under which Trump won by a landslide.
To wish for a different system after the fact is too little too late.

 

[ShivaFan]

SJWs on the MSM are total dumb ideologues and seen as such. But they can have an impact via the digital world which now is where the real campaigns are fought, won, or lost.

But the right and the Nationalists are already on the upper curve of this new world, more so than SJWs. Why? Because to first impact the audience you must attract the audience first to see your message. Sure, SJWs get some audience, but typically they put a bad "taste in the mouth" of anyone even before someone "turns them on".

But the right and the Nationalists are very clever about getting the audience to watch and hear the message. Once they have the audience, their way of "messaging the message" is so effective, they are already half way there in another card carrying member.

Back to the MSM. They were the biggest losers. First of all, the biggest mistake is the phony "prediction three card monte". Frankly, after this election the MSM has probably permanently damaged themselves and yes that is a bit of prediction of my own if I may endulge in the same "don't go there". Besides being caught multiple times giving the questions ahead of time to Hillary before the questions are asked, the MSM is now seen as nothing but ideologues, and dumb one's at that.

Such dumb ideologues who think they can influence anything but even their own dog doesn't obey their wishfull stupidity and who said, "This is my well trained dog named Peanut, he will not eat this bacon if I place it right under his nose unless I say so".

Now here is real news from the dog who didn't obey the master...

... and no one - no one - is going to stop the dog ever again in this digital world. If the MSM doesn't think campaigns are won on a PC or smartphone and only they command when to bite, huh, good luck suckers.

Even SJWs have a better shot at things than the MSM.

However their only problem is, the first thing that comes to mind in most when they think of the SJW is that video of that girl screaming she is going to "f******* kill myself right now and I'm not kidding" yadda because Trump won and demanding to "fix it right now or else" which I won't embed here as it is F like too many times to be allowed to post and not get in trouble. Or they see that BLM nut with a baseball bat. So good luck SJWs, unlike the MSM you haven't totally lost it yet, but getting closer.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

A small margin which doesn't rise to the level of a majority of votes, & is a fraction of
eligible voters (many of whom were uninspired to vote) is hardly a mandate to elect Hillary.

Last I knew, she was leading by about a million votes, and that was after the margin kept on growing, and consistently growing.
And since when have we cried a river over those who don't vote? We've never really cared about them before, or what they may have thought or wanted.

We have a system under which Trump won by a landslide.

That wasn't a landslide. If that was a landslide, then pretty much every election is a landslide.

To wish for a different system after the fact is too little too late.

Encase you haven't noticed, I've never been a fan of the EC, and one position I've held that remained consistent over my years of membership here is my disdain for it.

 

[Quetzal]

There is no perfect system, but the people don't elect the President, the states do. Hillary won CA and NY. They represented her in the EC. However, Trump won 30 of the 50 states, which is a majority. So with Trump winning 60% of the states, it is a solid victory for him, and the EC reflects that. The election should not be based on "because CA said so."

I agree, but I am of the opinion that the election should be based on "because the people said so." With the current system, the majority of people can pick the loser.

 

[Revoltingest]

Last I knew, she was leading by about a million votes, and that was after the margin kept on growing, and consistently growing.

Have something later than this....
http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/09/politics/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-popular-vote/
It's far less than a million.

And since when have we cried a river over those who don't vote? We've never really cared about them before, or what they may have thought or wanted.
That wasn't a landslide. If that was a landslide, then pretty much every election is a landslide.
Encase you haven't noticed, I've never been a fan of the EC, and one position I've held that remained consistent over my years of membership here is my disdain for it.

290 to 228 is a landslide, although there have been bigger ones.

I'm no big fan of the EC either, but rules is rules.
Trump campaigned to win the votes which mattered,
& he did the better job. If we had a different system,
I'm sure he'd have tailored his campaigning to that.[/QUOTE]

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I agree, but I am of the opinion that the election should be based on "because the people said so." With the current system, the majority of people can pick the loser.

Correction: We don't pick the winner or looser.

 

[Neo Deist]

I agree, but I am of the opinion that the election should be based on "because the people said so." With the current system, the majority of people can pick the loser.

Then you effectively eliminate multiple states. Fortunately the Founders had the foresight to see through this.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Have something later than this....
http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/09/politics/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-popular-vote/
It's far less than a million.

290 to 228 is a landslide, although there have been bigger ones.

I'm no big fan of the EC either, but rules is rules.
Trump campaigned to win the votes which mattered,
& he did the better job. If we had a different system,
I'm sure he'd have tailored his campaigning to that.

[/QUOTE]
A landslide looks more like '80/'84.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Then you effectively eliminate multiple states. Fortunately the Founders had the foresight to see through this.

Under our current system most states are "out of play." They don't matter or really count because they don't change. Reps in Washington and Dems in Texas, their votes may as well be burned and tossed into the wind.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Have something later than this....
http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/09/politics/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-popular-vote/
It's far less than a million.

That is very outdated. She's actually now leading by 1.3 million votes.
http://www.cnn.com/election/results/president

 

[Quetzal]

Then you effectively eliminate multiple states. Fortunately the Founders had the foresight to see through this.

Many of those same states have little to no impact anyway. With the current winner-take-all system, a majority of voters feel their vote doesn't amount to anything. They would be right. Imagine being a republican in CA or a democrat in TX. You might as well stay home on election day. Some of the states in the midwest could effectively drop off the map and no one would really notice.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Sometimes the EC works for you, sometimes against you. It swings back and forth.

In what reality does it swing back and forth? The EC favors the Republican vote, and has longer than you or I have been alive. Making them more representative of the nation's vote then they should be

 

[Monk Of Reason]

SJW are part of a dynamic political state where we have unlikeable people on the extreme ends of both sides of the argument who both claim to be "right" and "normal". On the far far right we have the distasteful bile of people like Rush Liimbaugh. We have the average vocal MRA member here. We have religious nutjobs like Kent Ham, Mike Pence and Westboro baptist church.

For the longest time the "basket of deplorables" were mainly on the right. Lets be real we haven't had something that bad on the left in a long time. But now we have something that is just as unpopular. We have people who whine. People who take victories for real inequalities and attempt to right minute wrongs or even imagined wrongs. We have people now who are JUST as unscientific as creationist when throwing around "opinion/"facts" ". You have people who are angry and isolating based on their own sense of victimhood rather than the rational plights of high number of peoples.

I'm never gonna tell you that a woman who identifies as a non-binary with a half shaved/half neon yellow hair with dark purple lipstick and piercings on places never meant to be pierced, yelling at men about how their dicks make them rapists and who wants to smash the "patriarchy" without actually having a slight understanding of what it is or how to define it but still doesn't let that stop them from shouting nonsense is worse than a neo nazi. Because lets be honest. They are not equal. One is an over-emotional childlike individual who doesn't have coping mechanism sufficent to deal with whatever emotional truama they endured during their life while the other thinks that we should start a race war and kill black children. They aren't equal.

But there are people who say they would take the mild version of a neo-nazi than the regressive left. They would rather takl about the center right or even the pretty far right than be associated with the left. And then even further the people who talk about human rights have become demeaning and holy-er than thou. The left has resorted to name calling and defeatest positions that begin with an assumed moral high ground that requires the opponent to either give up their argument or be labled a racist.

I"m not saying its wrong to say a racist is a racist but when talking about the more grey areas surrounding the middle they have isolated voters by simply dismissing them and their opinions as bigoted. It may be true but people didn't shame America into accepting homosexuals. You need to talk with these deplorables so to speak. The regressive left has also gotta get behind evidences rather than feelings. The jury isn't even out on Transgenderism and how it works in the brain. Hell we aren't even sure why gay people are gay yet.

Safe spaces are bull****. I think that there is a clear and defined difference between hatespeech and differing opinions. If someone said that they disliked Islam because of "X" and "Y" but was willing to accepet Muslims as an equal then that is a difference of opinion. To throw out the idea we should kill jews is hate speech. Determine if the idea is attacking people or beliefs. Beliefs are fair game. People are not.

The regressive left, frindge feminism, SJW are all bits and pieces of good ideas taken too far without a self pruning system. It does little to no good for someone outside of the these extremes to point out the fallacies or misgivings of such content. Just the same as any critique coming from the left doesn't affect the far right nutjobs. It has to come from within. Another prominent feminist needs to turn and respond to something a fringe feminist stated and disavow it. They need to have that conversation. Someone who is within the social justice and equality "trenches" so to speak needs to speak out against safe spaces. They need to say to people who share their own vision that they are not above debating. They are not above being questioned. They are not automatically right. IF you believe so strongly that you are right then defend it with the power of your arguments. If you fail to do that then one of two things is true. Either you don't know enough about your position to propperly defend it or your position isn't as iron clad as you though.


That is my piece on that. But the vast majority of people voted for Trump because of jobs. They believed strongly that Trump was the better job maker and that his other comments were rationalizable. It wasn't for any social reason what so ever. They didn't pay mind to it. So it wasn't the SJW fault The biggest reason that Trump won is Hillary Clinton. Why? Despite having a higher population than in 2012 Donald Trump got LESS total votes than Mitt Romney. The main issue was that not enough voter turnout for the left showed up to vote for Hillary. The total number of people who voted in this election is significantly smaller than in 2012. People who would have voted for Hillary didn't feel the need to go vote for her. They didnt' want to support her. Many people disliked her so much they didn't vote. I wish they had gone and voted and voted 3rd party to push them to a 5% presence but it didn't happen.

Hillary was just a bad candidate for the election. Donald Trump didn't win votes. Hillary just lost them.

 

[fantome profane]

That is very outdated. She's actually now leading by 1.3 million votes.
http://www.cnn.com/election/results/president

CNN has still not called Michigan?

 

[Quetzal]

CNN has still not called Michigan?

@Revoltingest refuses to cast his ballot.

 

[Quetzal]

That is very outdated. She's actually now leading by 1.3 million votes.
http://www.cnn.com/election/results/president

Ouch.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The jury isn't even out on Transgenderism and how it works in the brain.

Actually a ton of research has proven that the brain of someone who is transgender looks way more like the sex they identify as than they were born as. It's not known exactly why this happens (though it seems this must be going on during fetal development), but that it happens is irrefutable.
But, the real question is, why does it even matter (the same goes for homosexuals)? We've been around since at least our specie's earliest days, probably even longer. It's a naturally occurring expression of gender, with gender, of course, being one of the many ways we communicate, express, and identify ourselves to others. Most of the time, it's not even a special category because it's seen as a normal part of life.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Have something later than this....
http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/09/politics/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-popular-vote/
It's far less than a million.

290 to 228 is a landslide, although there have been bigger ones.

I'm no big fan of the EC either, but rules is rules.
Trump campaigned to win the votes which mattered,
& he did the better job. If we had a different system,
I'm sure he'd have tailored his campaigning to that.

[/QUOTE]
Reminds me of '12. A margin of 5 million popular votes and over 100 Electoral votes was, according to the Righ, "no mandate," and they certainly did not accept it as a landslide. But now they want to call a candidate loosing the popular vote by 1.4 million and winning the EC by 62 votes as a "landslide?"
If this was a landslide, then pretty much damn near every election has been a landslide, essentially making the term worthless and so redundant that we should just dismiss it from our vocabulary.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Actually a ton of research has proven that the brain of someone who is transgender looks way more like the sex they identify as than they were born as. It's not known exactly why this happens (though it seems this must be going on during fetal development), but that it happens is irrefutable.
But, the real question is, why does it even matter (the same goes for homosexuals)? We've been around since at least our specie's earliest days, probably even longer. It's a naturally occurring expression of gender, with gender, of course, being one of the many ways we communicate, express, and identify ourselves to others. Most of the time, it's not even a special category because it's seen as a normal part of life.

There has been a tremedous amount of research concluding that there is no actual difference between men and women's brains and that our gender identity is simply a social construct generated by gender rolls. Other such studies have found that perhaps different levels of different hormones may cause differences.

What is the main difference between a transgender individual and someone with BBD?

There are real issues with claims being made within the groups. I think we should personally let people be how they want. It doesn't matter to me. What does matter to be is truth and validity behind arguments made. You don't need to convince me through MRI scans of the brain that someone should be treated a their preffered gender. But I at the same time don't think that they should be given the SJW power to silence oppositions and questions to their arguments about why its valid. Even if it was totally a choice or sickness I wouldn't change my opinion of them as people. I think America is far to caught up in what people have as privates and why they do with their privates. I'm not claiming any kind of moral ground.