1. Post #161
    Person
    geel9's Avatar
    June 2008
    9,136 Posts
    That's what the fbi uses to define mass shootings so if it works for them it works for me.
    Well, then you're being ridiculous and pedantic.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 10 Chrome United States Show Events Starred Starred x 1 (list)

  2. Post #162
    Gold Member
    FreakyMe's Avatar
    December 2005
    5,321 Posts
    It's semantics because the conversation obviously isn't about domestic violence, yet you insist on using the definition of a word that includes something like domestic violence. I'm not disagreeing with that data. I'm disagreeing with it's relevance to the conversation.
    The reason many mass shootings happen in places which are no-gun zones is because most places where tons of people gather prohibit them. It's confusion of correlation and causation. The shooter is after a lot of people (or assisted suicide). The places that have a lot of people tend to ban guns - therefore, most places likely to be selected by a potential shooter are likely to have banned guns.

    I don't think many people who are already planning to die would be stopped by the notion of somebody shooting back. If anything, they would welcome it because it would present something to combat rather than something to slaughter, vindicating them in their violence.

    The "good guy with a gun" narrative also only works until you realize that every "good guy with a gun" has to be able to tell one another from the threat, which only works when there is some visible indicator of being an active shooter, which there isn't (aside from holding and firing a gun).

    The instant 'good guys' draw their guns, they become indiscernible from the attacker both to other 'good guys' and law enforcement either on the scene or arriving late to the party. To outside observers, both (or all) parties participating in the gunfight are unknowns and strangers, which means that they are seen as equal and indiscernible threats.

    Who do you shoot when you run out of the store and see one person shoot another person who was firing a gun? Was the person who was shot a 'good guy' drawing in self defense or the neutralized attacker? Was it friendly fire, because two armed good guys suddenly saw each other and both went for their firearms? Are you going to ask and announce your presence, or shoot? Will others know that you are innocent, or will you be shot as you are rushing to defend others? What stops the attacker from identifying himself as a 'good guy' during a shooting's chaos to gain a crucial moment or after fleeing the immediate area and using that to gain entry or access to barricaded innocents, when the majority of armed people actually are innocent, but are openly carrying due to the situation?

    It's not like they are going to come in dressed in a specific way to identify themselves, or as if mass shootings will simply stop. If anything, some would attack open-carry places while wearing clothing that indicated support of the second amendment and which was draped in American flags, in an attempt to gain an edge and be mistaken for a friendly during the chaos that would ensue.

    And aside from that, for every simultaneous shooter you have added to the scene, there is now a new position from which bullets are traveling, capable of missing and hitting bystanders with out a care as to whether they were fired by a good guy or a bad one.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 10 Firefox United States Show Events Starred Starred x 2 (list)

  3. Post #163
    Person
    geel9's Avatar
    June 2008
    9,136 Posts
    The "good guy with a gun" narrative only works until you realize that every "good guy with a gun" has to be able to tell one another from the threat, which only works when there is some visible indicator of being an active shooter, which there isn't (aside from holding and firing a gun).

    The instant 'good guys' draw their guns, they become indiscernible from the attacker both to other 'good guys' and law enforcement either on the scene or arriving late to the party. To outside observers, both (or all) parties participating in the gunfight are unknowns and strangers, which means that they are seen as equal and indiscernible threats.

    Who do you shoot when you run out of the store and see one person shoot another person who was firing a gun? Was the person who was shot a 'good guy' drawing in self defense or the neutralized attacker? Was it friendly fire, because two armed good guys suddenly saw each other and both went for their firearms? Are you going to ask and announce your presence, or shoot? Will others know that you are innocent, or will you be shot as you are rushing to defend others? What stops the attacker from identifying himself as a 'good guy' during a shooting's chaos to gain a crucial moment or after fleeing the immediate area and using that to gain entry or access to barricaded innocents, when the majority of armed people actually are innocent, but are openly carrying due to the situation?

    It's not like they are going to come in dressed in a specific way to identify themselves, or as if mass shootings will simply stop. If anything, some would attack open-carry places while wearing clothing that indicated support of the second amendment and which was draped in American flags, in an attempt to gain an edge and be mistaken for a friendly during the chaos that would ensue.

    And aside from that, for every simultaneous shooter you have added to the scene, there is now a new position from which bullets are traveling, capable of missing and hitting bystanders with out a care as to whether they were fired by a good guy or a bad one.
    Yeah all those mass shootings that happened in non-gun-controlled areas were a real bloodbath

    Oh wait they didn't happen at all
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 10 Chrome United States Show Events Starred Starred x 10 (list)

  4. Post #164
    Gold Member
    FreakyMe's Avatar
    December 2005
    5,321 Posts
    Yeah all those mass shootings that happened in non-gun-controlled areas were a real bloodbath

    Oh wait they didn't happen at all
    Do some research?

    Roughly half of all active shooter events Blair studied ended before law enforcement officers arrived. The most common occurrence was that the shooter stopped the attack spontaneously on their own. The decision was often made after an initial burst of violence, in which the shooter attacked everyone who was in the immediate area, Blair said.

    When those who remained either ran away or barricaded themselves in secure areas, shooters often made the decision to leave the attack site or commit suicide, he said.

    Blair said he also documented cases in which civilians took direct action. Civilians stopped about one out of every six active shooter events, but their actions rarely involved the use of firearms, he said.

    The most common method was tackling the attacker, as was the case during a campus shooting in Seattle this week.

    Blair said he found only three cases in which an armed civilian shot the attacker, and in two of those incidents, the civilian who took action was an off-duty police officer.

    Blair said it would be difficult to draw any conclusions about the effectiveness of armed civilians in stopping active shooter events based on the limited data that exists. In general though, Blair said, fewer people were killed or injured in the events that ended before police showed up at the scene -- either because civilians took action, or because the shooter spontaneously stopped or committed suicide.

    Data suggests the best course of action for civilians is first to avoid the attacker, and if thatís not possible, to deny access by barricading themselves in locked rooms or other secure areas.

    [. . .]

    Blair said he encourages civilians to take physical action to defend themselves only when itís impossible to escape.

    "We see the firearm as being an adjunct to that part," he said.

    Blair said there are pros and cons to having armed civilians at the scene of a shooting. Confronting the shooter with a gun would likely provide the fastest resolution, he said. But if multiple civilians are wielding guns at the scene, it could also create confusion about who the shooter is -- particularly for police who are arriving to render aid.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 10 Firefox United States Show Events Starred Starred x 10 (list)

  5. Post #165
    Svinnik's Avatar
    June 2013
    6,449 Posts
    One of the officals in the OSU diversity department wrote this on facebook



    10/10 injecting blacklivesmatter into it
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 10 Chrome United States Show Events Starred Starred x 6 (list)

  6. Post #166
    Gold Member
    thelurker1234's Avatar
    June 2011
    10,887 Posts
    One of the officals in the OSU diversity department wrote this on facebook



    10/10 injecting blacklivesmatter into it
    No you see this really has to do with police brutality and not geopolitics and a mentally disturbed person!

    Although I will be fair, if she knew this person closely then this sort of irrational response is very typical and understandable. It's a lesser version of like when a parent continually denies that their kid is a rapist/murderer, it's just best to leave them alone while they sort it out with a counselor or something.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 10 Firefox Show Events Starred Starred x 14 (list)

  7. Post #167
    Gold Member
    Zombinie's Avatar
    June 2013
    926 Posts
    whaaaaaaaaat tf

    yeah we should stop hating people like Adam Lanza, the Unibomber, and that Asian man who killed 22 with a knife, after all they are the real victims, they must've been through so much to get to that point!
    As far as we know Abdul was sober. No mental illnesses, no crazy drugs. He made the conscious decision to brutally assault those random people, how in the heck can you defend that?

  8. Post #168
    Svinnik's Avatar
    June 2013
    6,449 Posts
    This is his manifesto:



    Ummah: The Islamic community

    dawla in al sham: ISIS

    Interesting how he calls every muslim a sleeper agent, he's provoking the right wing anti-muslim people
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 10 Chrome United States Show Events Starred Starred x 13 (list)

  9. Post #169
    Gold Member
    thelurker1234's Avatar
    June 2011
    10,887 Posts
    Oh man. A certain somebody who's currently in flames about the corrupt media and voter fraud on twitter is going to have a field day when he reads that.


    I wonder what "We are not weak. We are weak" means, it's probably deliberate.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 10 Firefox Show Events Starred Starred x 1 (list)

  10. Post #170
    Dennab
    August 2010
    2,817 Posts


    I don't even have a face that could go more :| than mine already is.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 10 Chrome Canada Show Events Starred Starred x 8 (list)

  11. Post #171

    July 2014
    2,712 Posts
    whaaaaaaaaat tf

    yeah we should stop hating people like Adam Lanza, the Unibomber, and that Asian man who killed 22 with a knife, after all they are the real victims, they must've been through so much to get to that point!
    As far as we know Abdul was sober. No mental illnesses, no crazy drugs. He made the conscious decision to brutally assault those random people, how in the heck can you defend that?
    She's just being emotional. Sorry Steph, but Abdul was a shitbag who flat-out admitted he sympathized with ISIS and who clearly had religious delusions. Whatever caused those delusions, who can say at this point in time.

    And to be fair, Ted Kaczynski (the Unabomber) actually made a lot of valid points in his manifesto about technology, human over-dependence on technology and our disrespect for nature, societal superficiality and shallowness, etc. He wasn't a deranged religious killer the way this guy in Ohio was, nor was he a lunatic like Adam Lanza. He was a child prodigy and a genius mathematician who didn't fit in with other people (he was literally too smart for his own good), and then that psychologist from Harvard got a hold of him and really screwed him up with one of his stress experiments. He had clear goals and issues outlined in his manifesto. It's important to make distinctions here-- not all these guys are the same.

  12. Post #172

    April 2011
    1,546 Posts
    I wonder what "We are not weak. We are weak" means, it's probably deliberate.
    i bet that's actually a typo
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 Chrome United States Show Events Starred Starred x 2 (list)

  13. Post #173

    January 2008
    445 Posts
    One of the officals in the OSU diversity department wrote this on facebook



    10/10 injecting blacklivesmatter into it
    DO NOT SHARE THIS POST
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 10 Chrome United States Show Events Starred Starred x 2 (list)

  14. Post #174
    Joshii's Avatar
    September 2014
    669 Posts


    I don't even have a face that could go more :| than mine already is.
    I like how he says the name of the officer but not the shooter, it almost makes me wonder what he really intends to cause with this tweet.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Android Chrome United Kingdom Show Events Starred Starred x 3 (list)

  15. Post #175
    Gold Member
    Thlis's Avatar
    January 2007
    4,724 Posts


    I don't even have a face that could go more :| than mine already is.
    Society is pretty fucked up when people celebrate a guy stopping a homicidal maniac.

       /s   

  16. Post #176
    Gold Member
    LtKyle2's Avatar
    March 2011
    7,518 Posts


    I don't even have a face that could go more :| than mine already is.
    He's been retweeting a lot of shit that goes against what he said there, I guess he is trying to provoke something so he can say 'look at the racism against me!! I did nothing wrong!!'

    He even goes after Alex Jones(LOL) when the guy made a piece on him being outraged with that tweet:
    https://twitter.com/tariqnasheed/sta...11913765814272

    Look at what he said about Fidel Castro:
    https://twitter.com/tariqnasheed/sta...77311170056192
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 10 Chrome United States Show Events Starred Starred x 2 (list)

  17. Post #177
    No such thing as overkill.
    catbarf's Avatar
    January 2007
    10,996 Posts
    This isn't a response to his claim and your big wall of text with bolded snippets adds nothing to the conversation. He claimed that mass shootings don't occur in non-gun-controlled areas, making your claim about friendly fire irrelevant. You cited an article arguing that when mass shootings occur, they're typically not stopped by civilians.

    You're not contradicting him at all. If anything, you're confirming his claim- the article makes no mention of the incidents stopped by armed civilians involving wild shootouts between concealed carriers unable to distinguish between one another.

  18. Post #178
    Komodoh's Avatar
    February 2016
    174 Posts
    This is his manifesto:



    Ummah: The Islamic community

    dawla in al sham: ISIS

    Interesting how he calls every muslim a sleeper agent, he's provoking the right wing anti-muslim people
    He lost me at "Stop the killing of muslims in Burma." Cause it's totally the muslims who are the victims of that war.

    This is the prime example of a "vetted" Muslim refugee in America. These people are a fucking joke.

  19. Post #179
    Dennab
    March 2007
    1,908 Posts
    This is his manifesto:



    Ummah: The Islamic community

    dawla in al sham: ISIS

    Interesting how he calls every muslim a sleeper agent, he's provoking the right wing anti-muslim people
    So glad this piece of trash is dead, wish it could've happened sooner if he had that mindset.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 Opera United States Show Events Starred Starred x 6 (list)

  20. Post #180
    I'M A SHAAARK!
    Lambeth's Avatar
    October 2009
    16,907 Posts
    He lost me at "Stop the killing of muslims in Burma." Cause it's totally the muslims who are the victims of that war.

    This is the prime example of a "vetted" Muslim refugee in America. These people are a fucking joke.
    Hey man most muslims don't randomly stab people. I feel like I shouldn't have to say that but you had to go and say "these people" so I assume you're saying muslims are all stab happy.

  21. Post #181
    Gold Member
    jimbobjoe1234's Avatar
    August 2012
    4,785 Posts
    This is his manifesto:



    Ummah: The Islamic community

    dawla in al sham: ISIS

    Interesting how he calls every muslim a sleeper agent, he's provoking the right wing anti-muslim people
    You call this shit a manifesto? I've taken craps that look more threatening. This dude also needed some proper lessons in grammar. Shame that freaks like this give Muslims a bad name.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 8.1 Firefox United States Show Events Starred Starred x 2 (list)

  22. Post #182

    You may have to
    repeat yourself
    several times
    with me
    because

    at
    understanding
    things!

    May 2010
    1,586 Posts
    He lost me at "Stop the killing of muslims in Burma." Cause it's totally the muslims who are the victims of that war.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rohingya_people
    International media and human rights organizations have often described Rohingyas as one of the most persecuted minorities in the world.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 8.1 Internet Explorer 11 Sweden Show Events Starred Starred x 12 (list)

  23. Post #183
    Fudders
    MAKING FACEPUNCH GREAT AGAIN
    Tudd's Avatar
    September 2010
    8,859 Posts
    This is his manifesto:



    Ummah: The Islamic community

    dawla in al sham: ISIS

    Interesting how he calls every muslim a sleeper agent, he's provoking the right wing anti-muslim people
    Any chance you could link where you got this from?

  24. Post #184
    Gold Member
    Dennab
    June 2008
    2,174 Posts
    Look at this shit:
    TYT logic. A Muslim stabs people and they immediately blame Trump, white people, and guns.

    Have you guys figured out why Trump won yet?
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 10 Chrome United States Show Events Starred Starred x 10 (list)

  25. Post #185

    July 2014
    2,712 Posts
    Have you guys figured out why Trump won yet?
    Because of an archaic institution that has the ability to override the national popular vote (which expresses the actual will of the people) and hand elections over to whomever it thinks deserves it (for the fifth time in our nation's history now). Clinton defeated Trump by more than 2 million votes; she was preferred over him and had the majority of support.

    This has been thoroughly established already.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 8.1 Firefox United States Show Events Starred Starred x 4 (list)

  26. Post #186
    Svinnik's Avatar
    June 2013
    6,449 Posts
    Any chance you could link where you got this from?

  27. Post #187
    Dennab
    March 2007
    1,908 Posts
    Because of an archaic institution that has the ability to override the national popular vote (which expresses the actual will of the people) and hand elections over to whomever it thinks deserves it (for the fifth time in our nation's history now). Clinton defeated Trump by more than 2 million votes; she was preferred over him and had the majority of support.

    This has been thoroughly established already.
    Sounds like someone is a sore loser. The rules of the game haven't changed, they played by the rules, she lost by the rules. Just because you have more chess pieces at the end of a match doesn't mean you win.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 Opera United States Show Events Starred Starred x 2 (list)

  28. Post #188
    Gold Member
    Mr.Brown's Avatar
    September 2010
    2,376 Posts
    why shoot up a school? I would never understand what they want to achieve

  29. Post #189

    July 2014
    2,712 Posts
    Sounds like someone is a sore loser. The rules of the game haven't changed, they played by the rules, she lost by the rules. Just because you have more chess pieces at the end of a match doesn't mean you win.
    Sounds like someone doesn't know a fucking thing about me. I voted third-party, not for Clinton or Trump. That way if Clinton won, I could criticize her without being accused of being a Trump supporter; if Trump won, I could criticize him without being accused of being a Clinton supporter. I voted for my beliefs, not along party lines nor for either candidate whom I both threw plenty of criticisms at.

    Having said that, the electoral college system argument has been going for years now. It's agreed upon that it's an outdated, worthless institution that is as undemocratic as it is ineffectual at creating "equality" as proponents claim it does between states. I remember as a kid when this exact same conversation was being held when Gore defeated Bush by more than 543,000 votes, but the election was handed over to Bush anyway. Your own fuckwit candidate called the electoral college system in 2012 when Obama won "a disaster for a democracy" lol. That makes this conversation a thousand times more ironic, especially since now he's come out calling it a "genius idea" and a bunch of other bullshit.

    She won the election. She had more support than Trump did. More than 2 million people favored her over him. That's how simple it is, like it or not, and this conversation is not going to just disappear because people like you who supported Trump from the beginning want it to. The anger and the resentment at the system is very much alive, and it's just as strong against Trump himself as it is his ridiculous supporters who just wanted to throw a molotov cocktail into things to see what would happen.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 8.1 Firefox United States Show Events Starred Starred x 3 (list)

  30. Post #190
    Gold Member
    Zombinie's Avatar
    June 2013
    926 Posts
    why shoot up a school? I would never understand what they want to achieve
    usually pent up anger, or wanting to become famous
    petty things, usually
    rather depressing
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 10 Chrome United States Show Events Starred Starred x 3 (list)

  31. Post #191
    Gold Member
    Dennab
    June 2008
    2,174 Posts
    why shoot up a school? I would never understand what they want to achieve
    Mental problems/ideology.

    But there was no school shooting here, it was a vehicle ramming and stabbing.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 10 Chrome United States Show Events Starred Starred x 1 (list)

  32. Post #192
    Dennab
    November 2016
    36 Posts
    Because of an archaic institution that has the ability to override the national popular vote (which expresses the actual will of the people) and hand elections over to whomever it thinks deserves it (for the fifth time in our nation's history now). Clinton defeated Trump by more than 2 million votes; she was preferred over him and had the majority of support.

    This has been thoroughly established already.
    The presidency of the United States was fucking made BY THE FOUNDING FATHERS to be decided by electoral vote and not popular vote. It has been this way for over 200 years and it will continue to be this way, no matter how much you liberals cry about it.

  33. Post #193
    Fudders
    MAKING FACEPUNCH GREAT AGAIN
    Tudd's Avatar
    September 2010
    8,859 Posts
    Look at this shit:
    TYT logic. A Muslim stabs people and they immediately blame Trump, white people, and guns.

    Have you guys figured out why Trump won yet?
    I was wondering who would be the first to blame Trump.

    Not surprised at all who did it.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Mac Chrome United States Show Events Starred Starred x 1 (list)

  34. Post #194
    Dennab
    November 2016
    36 Posts
    Sounds like someone doesn't know a fucking thing about me. I voted third-party, not for Clinton or Trump. That way if Clinton won, I could criticize her without being accused of being a Trump supporter; if Trump won, I could criticize him without being accused of being a Clinton supporter. I voted for my beliefs, not along party lines nor for either candidate whom I both threw plenty of criticisms at.

    Having said that, the electoral college system argument has been going for years now. It's agreed upon that it's an outdated, worthless institution that is as undemocratic as it is ineffectual at creating "equality" as proponents claim it does between states. I remember as a kid when this exact same conversation was being held when Gore defeated Bush by more than 543,000 votes, but the election was handed over to Bush anyway. Your own fuckwit candidate called the electoral college system in 2012 when Obama won "a disaster for a democracy" lol. That makes this conversation a thousand times more ironic, especially since now he's come out calling it a "genius idea" and a bunch of other bullshit.

    She won the election. She had more support than Trump did. More than 2 million people favored her over him. That's how simple it is, like it or not, and this conversation is not going to just disappear because people like you who supported Trump from the beginning want it to. The anger and the resentment at the system is very much alive, and it's just as strong against Trump himself as it is his ridiculous supporters who just wanted to throw a molotov cocktail into things to see what would happen.
    You're right, california and new york should decide the election, not the other 48 states.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 10 Chrome United States Show Events Starred Starred x 5 (list)

  35. Post #195
    Dennab
    March 2007
    1,908 Posts
    Sounds like someone doesn't know a fucking thing about me. I voted third-party, not for Clinton or Trump. That way if Clinton won, I could criticize her without being accused of being a Trump supporter; if Trump won, I could criticize him without being accused of being a Clinton supporter. I voted for my beliefs, not along party lines nor for either candidate whom I both threw plenty of criticisms at.

    Having said that, the electoral college system argument has been going for years now. It's agreed upon that it's an outdated, worthless institution that is as undemocratic as it is ineffectual at creating "equality" as proponents claim it does between states. I remember as a kid when this exact same conversation was being held when Gore defeated Bush by more than 543,000 votes, but the election was handed over to Bush anyway. Your own fuckwit candidate called the electoral college system in 2012 when Obama won "a disaster for a democracy" lol. That makes this conversation a thousand times more ironic, especially since now he's come out calling it a "genius idea" and a bunch of other bullshit.

    She won the election. She had more support than Trump did. More than 2 million people favored her over him. That's how simple it is, like it or not, and this conversation is not going to just disappear because people like you who supported Trump from the beginning want it to. The anger and the resentment at the system is very much alive, and it's just as strong against Trump himself as it is his ridiculous supporters who just wanted to throw a molotov cocktail into things to see what would happen.
    No she didn't lmao, is Hillary the President-Elect? She lost.

    Also you voted just so you could trash talk whoever won? How petty.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 Opera United States Show Events Starred Starred x 2 (list)

  36. Post #196
    Fudders
    MAKING FACEPUNCH GREAT AGAIN
    Tudd's Avatar
    September 2010
    8,859 Posts
    Because of an archaic institution that has the ability to override the national popular vote (which expresses the actual will of the people) and hand elections over to whomever it thinks deserves it (for the fifth time in our nation's history now). Clinton defeated Trump by more than 2 million votes; she was preferred over him and had the majority of support.

    This has been thoroughly established already.
    Hey man, when the meta has been defined for more than 200+ years and Clinton loses by getting complacent and thinking states like Michigan, Wisconsin, and PA were in the bag and somehow she lost them to Trump, I only got one thing to say:

    Hate the player, not the game.

    But I am all for the EC getting eliminated, but this issue had so many times to be addressed and people just don't care until they are butt hurt and their side lost.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Mac Chrome United States Show Events Starred Starred x 4 (list)

  37. Post #197
    Komodoh's Avatar
    February 2016
    174 Posts
    She won the election.
    Actually Trump won the election. He has more electors voting for him. Here's the results in case you're curious: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...election,_2016
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 Chrome Canada Show Events Starred Starred x 2 (list)

  38. Post #198
    Gold Member
    Mr.Brown's Avatar
    September 2010
    2,376 Posts
    Mental problems/ideology.

    But there was no school shooting here, it was a vehicle ramming and stabbing.
    still though, if the guy had a gun he'd probably use it

  39. Post #199
    Gold Member
    Silly Sil's Avatar
    March 2006
    6,192 Posts
    Sounds like someone doesn't know a fucking thing about me. I voted third-party, not for Clinton or Trump. That way if Clinton won, I could criticize her without being accused of being a Trump supporter; if Trump won, I could criticize him without being accused of being a Clinton supporter. I voted for my beliefs, not along party lines nor for either candidate whom I both threw plenty of criticisms at.

    Having said that, the electoral college system argument has been going for years now. It's agreed upon that it's an outdated, worthless institution that is as undemocratic as it is ineffectual at creating "equality" as proponents claim it does between states. I remember as a kid when this exact same conversation was being held when Gore defeated Bush by more than 543,000 votes, but the election was handed over to Bush anyway. Your own fuckwit candidate called the electoral college system in 2012 when Obama won "a disaster for a democracy" lol. That makes this conversation a thousand times more ironic, especially since now he's come out calling it a "genius idea" and a bunch of other bullshit.

    She won the election. She had more support than Trump did. More than 2 million people favored her over him. That's how simple it is, like it or not, and this conversation is not going to just disappear because people like you who supported Trump from the beginning want it to. The anger and the resentment at the system is very much alive, and it's just as strong against Trump himself as it is his ridiculous supporters who just wanted to throw a molotov cocktail into things to see what would happen.
    Your argument is invalid because they were both playing by the same rules. She could have won in the same way Trump did. It wasn't favoring Trump. That doesn't mean the system shouldn't be changed tho.
    And what Pantz Master meant was that why Trump got as much support as he did. Even if the popular vote would be the only thing that mattered, half of the country voted Trump.

  40. Post #200
    Fudders
    MAKING FACEPUNCH GREAT AGAIN
    Tudd's Avatar
    September 2010
    8,859 Posts
    Look at this shit:
    TYT logic. A Muslim stabs people and they immediately blame Trump, white people, and guns.

    Have you guys figured out why Trump won yet?
    TYT logic has quite the past.

    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Mac Chrome United States Show Events Starred Starred x 1 (list)