And people ask me why I mine liberal salt

really? I don't like to elaborate this issue and will rather stick with the bible; Mathew 7:6 ... At least murica got the president it deserves.

Ranek, you're not a Christian if you support Hillary, FFS.

Edited 11/12/2016 01:07:39

This is the New Conservatism. It's oranger, more sexual, plus less political. And, if it's even more freaking possible, louder.

and folk ask me why I mine anarchist almaz

Edited 11/12/2016 02:16:18

and folk ask me why I mine centrist libertarian topaz

Ranek, you're not a Christian if you support Hillary, FFS.

Tsh, you think it's "Christian" to uphold any candidate at all?

Name me one candidate that does not kill (except death sentence for gays, folk working on Sunday and a few other exceptions), and not to be greedy (to spread wealth and to not want more when you've got it so good already). Capitalism is, especially in the last sense, very un-Christian.

Edited 11/12/2016 02:27:39

Did jesus say to take from others and give it to poor?

I don't believe so, but he did touch on the importance of charity, and paying taxes.

Also he said Render Unto Caesar, I'll only pay taxes to a roman emperor





















Nah I'm joking, he did say pay taxes, I'm not going to argue that Christianity was against that.

Edited 11/12/2016 04:25:24

Charity =/= Welfare

well it sure as hell doesn't = warfare.

Who said charity equals war?

We democratically elected our leader for the next four years. Thank you.

We democratically elected our leader for the next four years.

err...no.

the popular vote for Hillary was actually higher, even if it's a small amount.

What actually elected Trump is your dumb "winner takes all" voting system, not the vote of the common people.

Electoral votes are proportionate to the population of a state, the folk voting vote for that state and it's folk. This is still democratic.

Though something better would be for folk to vote no if the candidates are so bad, and for a state's votes not to go anywhere if it does say no. If no candidate wins because of no, election starts over and goes to hopefully new candidates.

Hello I'm Smedley and I'm going to explain the electoral college is democratic by explaining it's not democratic

"Hello I'm a liberal so I think we should control the entire country no matter what because we control the major population centers"

Sorry but in a union of states, this makes much more sense than a straight popular vote. Population is accounted for more in this system than in popular vote, and allows rural states to have somewhat of a voice while keeping it tied to how many folk are in that state.

Besides, neither won the popular vote, 48% of folk who could vote didn't.

Though.. In Belgium we have a similar system where the Brussels and Wallonian vote count significantly more than the Flemish vote. Using approximate numbers Flanders is underrepresented by more than 60% in the chamber of representatives which causes many outrage by Flemish seperatist parties because most Wallonians and Brussels citizens vote overwhelmingly socialist!

Electoral votes are proportionate to the population of a state

true.

the folk voting vote for that state and it's folk

false.

in Florida for example, Hillary had gained 47.8% of the votes which is about ~4.5M in number while Trump only managed to get ahead by a slight 2% difference.

~4.5M votes. Down the drain. Worth nothing.

That's not what I really call "democracy".

if it was actually proportionate to the voting folk then they would simply divide the electoral votes according to the difference gap and give Democrats 14 of the EVs while giving Republicans 15 of the EVs.

this is almost like a cheap version of gerrymandering.

in Turkey we use(at least how it suppose to be on paper) the D'Hondt method which basically allocates seats in parliament according to the popular votes, so even if one party gets the majority of the votes the opposition have a say on bills.

Edited 11/12/2016 16:56:25

Or genocide some ethnic minorities to gain popularity.