The best way to defeat Trump in this election: China cancels all trade war tariffs on American exports

[epchkm + 6]

Trump inherited a good economy from Obama, after Obama had a good 8 continuous years of steady growth.   A guy who declared bankruptcy many times and stiffed his vendors, can succeed sometimes with the economy by cutting taxes for the super rich and raising the deficit sky high, why not Biden who will be much more steady than the buffoon we have in Trump.   For Republicans, deficits matter only when Democrat is the President.  

Come Nov, the voters in MI, PA, WI, FL and AZ have had enough of this president and will vote for the Democrat, even though Biden does not excite anyone either.  The vote will be anti-Trump more than pro-Biden.   If the african american voters had not stayed home in MI, PA and WI, Hillary would have won.

[Uvuvwevwevwe Onyetenyevwe Ugwemuhwem Osas + 96]

The Chinese communist party does not care what the world wants them to do.
They don't care if all their foreign customers die from covid.  Maybe they would welcome
that because then China would control all of earth.
There is no "solution" that involves China doing something because the Chinese
Communist party only does what it wants to do, not what you think it should do.
Totalitarian governments only respect force, not reason.
The best way to defeat China is with a nuke.
Nothing less than mass destruction will persuade the Chinese Communist party.
Totalitarian countries are masters of propaganda.
They will say anything to placate you, and then do whatever they want.

Edited May 5, 2020 by Uvuvwevwevwe Onyetenyevwe Ugwemuhwem Osas

[Uvuvwevwevwe Onyetenyevwe Ugwemuhwem Osas + 96]

14 hours ago, Sebastian White said:

At this point Hillary was 6% ahead in the polls, and then lost that lead to Trump. 

Hillary was behind Trump almost the whole time.
Most polls were biased in favor of Hillary.
The big mistake the left makes is to believe their own propaganda.  Something you lefties never learn.
Even if you can fool or indoctrinate everyone to believe false information, that still does not change reality.
Hillary had no idea that she would lose.
Hillary did not appear on election night because her loss was a devastating shock to her.
It was too much for her to handle.

[Sebastian White + 3]

13 hours ago, 0R0 said:

@Sebastian WhiteYou do realize that a left wing rant does not make Trump any less attractive to his voters?

You raise all the issues that are NOT important to his voters. Do you think there is anyone who cares that he is an A hole and womanizer and intellectually lazy? If his evangelical voters can forgive him for his soft porn video, then they generally have it for the guy as their leader, good or bad. 

He stands against "the swamp" and practically all your bullets are about swamp policy. 

This is absolutely "illogical" thinking of many Trump voters. 

Trump "is" the 'swamp,' the "establishment!"

Trump's words when he started his business: "My father gave me a small loan of a $1 million dollar."

I cannot fathom on what level, Trump supporters think he's one of them? Meanwhile Obama and Bill Clinton raised themselves to great heights from near poverty. 

If you don't think that's true. Then I'd suggest you check your sources as I state below using these independent sites: MediaBiasFactCheck, Politifact or Snopes?

Then he and his family sit on gold thrones in Trump tower... we've all seen the pictures!

Yep, a real man of the people. 

Ahem. 

Seriously 'please' get a grip of the reality for your own sakes? You deserve better than to be lied and deceived... we all do!

And seems didn't use any of those links, which shows demonstrate Trump cut taxes for wealthiest in your country, while America, the only developed country in the world, which allows 56 000 of its own citizens to die every year, because they can't afford health care! Something Obama tried to do something about, but Trump and GOP rolled that back. 

America has 'the' worst CoronaVirus deaths in the world. And 'whatever' Trump says, and this is 'always' his trick, when he fails, he points the blame at someone else. However, that doesn't get away from the fact that America has the worst death rate in the world. 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/04/coronavirus-covid-19-world-map-which-countries-have-the-most-cases-and-deaths

We in the UK, didn't fair much better, & it is no coincidence that this is because 'both countries have right wing governments.

Sorry, but it is a "fool" who believes the word of a person over their actions, and someone who fails 'repeatedly' to take responsibility for someone else's failings! 

Anyone with any sense judges a person by their actions... not by their words. 

I've supplied all the links to check out the truth for yourselves. It's up to "you" whether you wish to continue to be mindless puppets of Trump and Putin, after all it was Putin who got Trump elected or you wish to be intelligent human beings who think for themselves?

Check these independent Fact Checking Sites, ensure you're not being fed empty words of those who wish to manipulate your thinking:

Politifact is probably 'the' best for an overview of to the degree a statement or story is true of false. 

 

Also MediaBiasFactCheck very good to rate your sources.

 

& Snopes can also be useful. 

Turkish proverb: "The forest was shrinking, but the trees kept on voting for the Axe, for the Axe was clever and convinced the Trees... that because its handle was made of wood it was one of them."

Edited May 5, 2020 by Sebastian White

[Uvuvwevwevwe Onyetenyevwe Ugwemuhwem Osas + 96]

7 minutes ago, Sebastian White said:

Then he and his family sit on gold thrones in Trump tower... we've all seen the pictures!

In marxist and former marxist countries, "hating the rich" is popular.
In the US, "hating the rich" is not popular.
Americans do not like/dislike politicians based on their wealth.
But marxist and former marxist countries do.
Marxists think a poor person makes a better leader than a rich person.
Most Americans are not marxist. They don't think this way.
Americans think being rich is a sign of success and being poor is a sign of failure.
But in the mind of a marxist, being rich indicates theft and being poor indicates virtue.

[Alfredo + 3]

The American people have seen how populist governments end in dictatorships.

What a difference there is between the Chinese Communist Party that forces the Chinese people to consume what China produces and its "Made in USA" proposal.

The world says the United States is a democracy and it has credibility, and it uses the dollar not the yuan.

You want the American people to be polarized, God bless you and all of us who have seen you as an example to follow.

[0R0 + 6,251]

41 minutes ago, Sebastian White said:

This is absolutely "illogical" thinking of many Trump voters. 

Trump "is" the 'swamp,' the "establishment!"

Trump's words when he started his business: "My father gave me a small loan of a $1 million dollar."

I cannot fathom on what level, Trump supporters think he's one of them? Meanwhile Obama and Bill Clinton raised themselves to great heights from near poverty. 

If you don't think that's true. Then I'd suggest you check your sources as I state below using these independent sites: MediaBiasFactCheck, Politifact or Snopes?

Then he and his family sit on gold thrones in Trump tower... we've all seen the pictures!

Yep, a real man of the people. 

Ahem. 

Seriously 'please' get a grip of the reality for your own sakes? You deserve better than to be lied and deceived... we all do!

And seems didn't use any of those links, which shows demonstrate Trump cut taxes for wealthiest in your country, while America, the only developed country in the world, which allows 56 000 of its own citizens to die every year, because they can't afford health care! Something Obama tried to do something about, but Trump and GOP rolled that back. 

America has 'the' worst CoronaVirus deaths in the world. And 'whatever' Trump says, and this is 'always' his trick, when he fails, he points the blame at someone else. However, that doesn't get away from the fact that America has the worst death rate in the world. 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/04/coronavirus-covid-19-world-map-which-countries-have-the-most-cases-and-deaths

We in the UK, didn't fair much better, & it is no coincidence that this is because 'both countries have right wing governments.

Sorry, but it is a "fool" who believes the word of a person over their actions, and someone who fails 'repeatedly' to take responsibility for someone else's failings! 

Anyone with any sense judges a person by their actions... not by their words. 

I've supplied all the links to check out the truth for yourselves. It's up to "you" whether you wish to continue to be mindless puppets of Trump and Putin, after all it was Putin who got Trump elected or you wish to be intelligent human beings who think for themselves?

Check these independent Fact Checking Sites, ensure you're not being fed empty words of those who wish to manipulate your thinking:

Politifact is probably 'the' best for an overview of to the degree a statement or story is true of false. 

 

Also MediaBiasFactCheck very good to rate your sources.

 

& Snopes can also be useful. 

Turkish proverb: "The forest was shrinking, but the trees kept on voting for the Axe, for the Axe was clever and convinced the Trees... that because its handle was made of wood it was one of them."

Yes, you are right that Trump is one of the elitist swamp. He grew in that. He was obviously the blusterous self aggrandizing bully that was always laughed off by the elite for his cheap glitz. That makes him precisely the political persona his people had been looking for, a supposedly "turned" insider working against "his upbringing". 

The excessive self promotion and glitz, flaunting it in the face of media, his looseness with facts, this is all a positive for his voters. He does not virtue signal to the elite. He presses their buttons and calls their bluff of "expertise" and "policy wonk", expressing his disdain for the pretentious power hungry socialist failures that they had always been. 

Nobody looks at the public statements any more than they do a used car salesman's pitch. You look at actual policy and statements about it, who his advisers are. 

Your view is deranged, as you take a reality show act like a WWE star presentation as if it is an actual person. 

There is Trump the show, and there is Trump the politician and president with his constant cloud of advisers. If you keep focusing on the show, you will never understand any of it.

Think of it as Liberace  as president, maybe that will help.

 

As to Mr. Hillary Rodham. he came from her old money, her old money contacts, and lived his adult life charming her political and crony capitalist old money friends into feeding their ambition and avarice. 

Edited May 5, 2020 by 0R0

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

1 hour ago, Uvuvwevwevwe Onyetenyevwe Ugwemuhwem Osas said:

In marxist and former marxist countries, "hating the rich" is popular.
In the US, "hating the rich" is not popular.
Americans do not like/dislike politicians based on their wealth.
But marxist and former marxist countries do.
Marxists think a poor person makes a better leader than a rich person.
Most Americans are not marxist. They don't think this way.
Americans think being rich is a sign of success and being poor is a sign of failure.
But in the mind of a marxist, being rich indicates theft and being poor indicates virtue.

Think of Marxists like cheating husbands: they know what they do or would do, and therefore project control measures on others.  "They" are not to be trusted!  Ha-ha!  Wait a minute, maybe I am talking about the Left!  That's right, I don't know any Marxists, unless that is what the Left really is.  Oh, I'm so confused.  Can't someone in the government just tell me what to do?

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

11 hours ago, SUZNV said:

Sounds great! Doesn't that mean all of the revolutions and independent wars, civil wars, for better or worse, came from populism? Populism on a democracy political system seems much better than wars. We cannot assume politicians will never be corrupted or there will never be any established elite groups, no matter how many parties a political system has. US did have a Electoral College system with is a some fuse mechanism for extreme populism mob rule (it only wasn't tested yet).

I do not think that you understand the Electoral College system and why it is utilized. A similar system needs to be implemented in state elections where counties would have electoral votes.

This mitigates the high density population states/counties forcing their will on less populated states/counties.

For example, all the rurall counties in Colorado are at the mercy of the counties along the Front Range. How is that fair or equitable?

Edited May 5, 2020 by Douglas Buckland
Typo

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

3 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

I do not think that you understand the Electoral College system and why it is utilized. A similar system needs to be implemented in state elections where counties would have electoral votes.

This mitigates the high density population states/counties forcing their will on less populated states/counties.

For example, all the riral counties in Colorado are at the mercy of the counties along the Front Range. How is that fair or equitable?

The Electoral College is the playing field.  It is the playing field for all candidates.  The playing field has been in place since the early days of our founding.  By design, one candidate cannot claim the playing field is skewed for the other player.  The Electoral College is typically a close reflection of the voters of each given state in that the Electoral College voting members are usually appointed by elected officials, usually the Governor but in some states it varies.  You will find that in most elections the popular vote and the Electoral vote come to about the same result.

To @Douglas Buckland's point, a state like Wyoming with a population of @ 600,000 would be completely overlooked during elections while states like California with a population of some 39,000,000 would get all the attention.  There are some good resources online, but here is just one for a quick understanding:

Presidential Election Process

Electoral College

In other U.S. elections, candidates are elected directly by popular vote. But the president and vice president are not elected directly by citizens. Instead, they’re chosen by “electors” through a process called the Electoral College.

The process of using electors comes from the Constitution. It was a compromise between a popular vote by citizens and a vote in Congress.

• How Does the Electoral College Process Work?

  After you cast your ballot for president, your vote goes to a statewide tally. In 48 states and Washington, D.C., the winner gets all the electoral votes for that state. Maine and Nebraska assign their electors using a proportional system.

  A candidate needs the vote of at least 270 electors—more than half of all electors—to win the presidential election.

  In most cases, a projected winner is announced on election night in November after you vote. But the actual Electoral College vote takes place in mid-December when the electors meet in their states.

  The Constitution doesn’t require electors to follow their state's popular vote, but it’s rare for one not to.

[SUZNV + 1,197]

1 hour ago, Douglas Buckland said:

I do not think that you understand the Electoral College system and why it is utilized. A similar system needs to be implemented in state elections where counties would have electoral votes.

This mitigates the high density population states/counties forcing their will on less populated states/counties.

For example, all the rurall counties in Colorado are at the mercy of the counties along the Front Range. How is that fair or equitable?

I understand that. I mean there is a hidden mechanism that allow the electors to be the faithless electors. In a scenario that one president candidate of a party promised socialism equality (for example: take all of the land/money from land owners/money and redistribute them among citizens, land or assets reform) and the most of the voters of each state naively vote for that candidate, out of "super stupid populism", then theoretically the electors can be faithless electors and cast to different candidates and turn the tide. It has never successfully happened in the past but the mechanism is still there until now. I do realize there will be a decision from supreme court to keep that mechanism or not this summer. I am curious if there is another reason for its existence? The only next reason I can think off if the president candidate dies and the vice is horrible but I don't think it is a good reason to have this as the electors have to cast one vote for president and another vote for vice president in the twelve amendment.  I am new to US politics for sure.

Edited May 5, 2020 by SUZNV

[Hotone + 412]

'The Pandemic and the President' was on CNN just now.  I think it is quite informative

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

3 minutes ago, Hotone said:

'The Pandemic and the President' was on CNN just now.  I think it is quite informative

Let me guess:  President Bad.  Must remove.

[Hotone + 412]

54 minutes ago, Dan Warnick said:

Let me guess:  President Bad.  Must remove.

I guess you are right.  But this is only one set of facts.  You can watch it and then balance your views with  alternative facts from Fox News.  Here is the trailer:

 

Edited May 5, 2020 by Hotone

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

5 hours ago, Sebastian White said:

This is absolutely "illogical" thinking of many Trump voters. 

Trump "is" the 'swamp,' the "establishment!"

Trump's words when he started his business: "My father gave me a small loan of a $1 million dollar."

I cannot fathom on what level, Trump supporters think he's one of them? Meanwhile Obama and Bill Clinton raised themselves to great heights from near poverty. 

If you don't think that's true. Then I'd suggest you check your sources as I state below using these independent sites: MediaBiasFactCheck, Politifact or Snopes?

Then he and his family sit on gold thrones in Trump tower... we've all seen the pictures!

Yep, a real man of the people. 

Ahem. 

Seriously 'please' get a grip of the reality for your own sakes? You deserve better than to be lied and deceived... we all do!

And seems didn't use any of those links, which shows demonstrate Trump cut taxes for wealthiest in your country, while America, the only developed country in the world, which allows 56 000 of its own citizens to die every year, because they can't afford health care! Something Obama tried to do something about, but Trump and GOP rolled that back. 

America has 'the' worst CoronaVirus deaths in the world. And 'whatever' Trump says, and this is 'always' his trick, when he fails, he points the blame at someone else. However, that doesn't get away from the fact that America has the worst death rate in the world. 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/04/coronavirus-covid-19-world-map-which-countries-have-the-most-cases-and-deaths

We in the UK, didn't fair much better, & it is no coincidence that this is because 'both countries have right wing governments.

Sorry, but it is a "fool" who believes the word of a person over their actions, and someone who fails 'repeatedly' to take responsibility for someone else's failings! 

Anyone with any sense judges a person by their actions... not by their words. 

I've supplied all the links to check out the truth for yourselves. It's up to "you" whether you wish to continue to be mindless puppets of Trump and Putin, after all it was Putin who got Trump elected or you wish to be intelligent human beings who think for themselves?

Check these independent Fact Checking Sites, ensure you're not being fed empty words of those who wish to manipulate your thinking:

Politifact is probably 'the' best for an overview of to the degree a statement or story is true of false. 

 

Also MediaBiasFactCheck very good to rate your sources.

 

& Snopes can also be useful. 

Turkish proverb: "The forest was shrinking, but the trees kept on voting for the Axe, for the Axe was clever and convinced the Trees... that because its handle was made of wood it was one of them."

And how did the Obama’s and the Clinton’s enrich themselves so quickly?🤔

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

2 hours ago, SUZNV said:

I understand that. I mean there is a hidden mechanism that allow the electors to be the faithless electors. In a scenario that one president candidate of a party promised socialism equality (for example: take all of the land/money from land owners/money and redistribute them among citizens, land or assets reform) and the most of the voters of each state naively vote for that candidate, out of "super stupid populism", then theoretically the electors can be faithless electors and cast to different candidates and turn the tide. It has never successfully happened in the past but the mechanism is still there until now. I do realize there will be a decision from supreme court to keep that mechanism or not this summer. I am curious if there is another reason for its existence? The only next reason I can think off if the president candidate dies and the vice is horrible but I don't think it is a good reason to have this as the electors have to cast one vote for president and another vote for vice president in the twelve amendment.  I am new to US politics for sure.

As I explained earlier, the main reason for the electoral college is to give states with lower populations a better chance to represent themselves so as not to be at the mercy of the heavily populated states on the coasts.

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

4 hours ago, SUZNV said:

I understand that. I mean there is a hidden mechanism that allow the electors to be the faithless electors. In a scenario that one president candidate of a party promised socialism equality (for example: take all of the land/money from land owners/money and redistribute them among citizens, land or assets reform) and the most of the voters of each state naively vote for that candidate, out of "super stupid populism", then theoretically the electors can be faithless electors and cast to different candidates and turn the tide. It has never successfully happened in the past but the mechanism is still there until now. I do realize there will be a decision from supreme court to keep that mechanism or not this summer. I am curious if there is another reason for its existence? The only next reason I can think off if the president candidate dies and the vice is horrible but I don't think it is a good reason to have this as the electors have to cast one vote for president and another vote for vice president in the twelve amendment.  I am new to US politics for sure.

What are you talking about?  The only way to change the Electoral College process is by Constitutional Amendment and the Supreme Court has nothing to do with it.

"Many different proposals to alter the Presidential election process have been offered over the years, such as direct nation-wide election by the eligible voters, but none has been passed by Congress and sent to the States for ratification as a Constitutional amendment. Under the most common method for amending the Constitution, an amendment must be proposed by a two-thirds majority in both houses of Congress and ratified by three-fourths of the States."

https://www.archives.gov/electoral-college/history

Edited May 5, 2020 by Dan Warnick

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

4 hours ago, SUZNV said:

I understand that. I mean there is a hidden mechanism that allow the electors to be the faithless electors. In a scenario that one president candidate of a party promised socialism equality (for example: take all of the land/money from land owners/money and redistribute them among citizens, land or assets reform) and the most of the voters of each state naively vote for that candidate, out of "super stupid populism", then theoretically the electors can be faithless electors and cast to different candidates and turn the tide. It has never successfully happened in the past but the mechanism is still there until now. I do realize there will be a decision from supreme court to keep that mechanism or not this summer. I am curious if there is another reason for its existence? The only next reason I can think off if the president candidate dies and the vice is horrible but I don't think it is a good reason to have this as the electors have to cast one vote for president and another vote for vice president in the twelve amendment.  I am new to US politics for sure.

Prior to the 12th Amendment, the candidate with the most votes won the Presidency, while the candidate with the second-most votes won the Vice-Presidency.

IN 1800, there was a tie between two candidates, Jefferson and Burr, demonstrating to Congress that an Amendment needed to be made.  The 12th Amendment requires that Electoral votes for President and Vice-President be separate, thereby eliminating the possibility of such a tie.  In order to avoid a situation where a President leaves office for whatever reason and then being replaced by a Vice-President not in alignment with the voter's choice when electing the President, the parties have since put the President and Vice-President on the same "ticket"; meaning they are elected as a package.

Here is an article, written in American Heritage back in the year 2001, that provides an interesting read and a fair, I think, history of the entire Electoral Process:

The Electoral College: How It Got That Way and Why We're Stuck With It

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

9 hours ago, Uvuvwevwevwe Onyetenyevwe Ugwemuhwem Osas said:

The best way to defeat China is with a nuke.

Nope and I really dont think anybody in their right mind would advocate that.

The best way to defeat the CCP is by allowing those millions of Chinese to experience the freedoms the West offers its peoples. This is already being done by allowing hundreds of thousands of Chinese students to study abroad and experience these different cultures. There will come a time when the Chinese people overthrow this oppressive vile regime and embrace the freedoms that they know other nations take for granted.

The Chinese people are not the enemy so no nuking them is most definitely not the answer.

i am sure you don't want to start a nuclear war with China as obviously there are no winners in that.

[Marcin2 + 725]

1 hour ago, Rob Plant said:

Nope and I really dont think anybody in their right mind would advocate that.

The best way to defeat the CCP is by allowing those millions of Chinese to experience the freedoms the West offers its peoples. This is already being done by allowing hundreds of thousands of Chinese students to study abroad and experience these different cultures. There will come a time when the Chinese people overthrow this oppressive vile regime and embrace the freedoms that they know other nations take for granted.

The Chinese people are not the enemy so no nuking them is most definitely not the answer.

i am sure you don't want to start a nuclear war with China as obviously there are no winners in that.

Cynism of politicians has no limits.

US people are radicalized, politicians brainwash them so they hate other people. I see a lot of parallels with Weimar Republic in early 1930s. Chinese are new Jews.

@uw has even not noticed that he became genocide nazi like monster, Adolf Hitler would ne proud of him.

Bipartisan hate offensive towards foreigners mainly Chinese is used by politicians ti win next election .

But NAZIFICATION of US society is the trainthat already  left the station, and would be difficult to stop.

[Hotone + 412]

2 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

Nope and I really dont think anybody in their right mind would advocate that.

The best way to defeat the CCP is by allowing those millions of Chinese to experience the freedoms the West offers its peoples. This is already being done by allowing hundreds of thousands of Chinese students to study abroad and experience these different cultures. There will come a time when the Chinese people overthrow this oppressive vile regime and embrace the freedoms that they know other nations take for granted.

The Chinese people are not the enemy so no nuking them is most definitely not the answer.

i am sure you don't want to start a nuclear war with China as obviously there are no winners in that.

Please have an open mind and listen to the observations of this guy.  He is not a paid hack, but rather an ex teacher who has moved back to Canada.

This was recorded on July 2019

Edited May 5, 2020 by Hotone

[Marcin2 + 725]

And the same as in 3rd Reich society is not informed about catastrophic consequences of this radicalization.

@ew and people like him do not know

that nuclear war means that

20% of Americans die out of explosion and later radiation

at least 30% die due to later hunger because of nuclear winter

So every warmonger at this forum should turn on sick creativity for a moment, think about their family and friends. Select 50% of them

and try to visualize how your life would look like when they die in terrible way.

Nobody would tell you this at US media war is just computer game with a lot of collateral damage and luckily low toll of US boys that volunteered to die.

Edited May 5, 2020 by Marcin2
Typo

[SUZNV + 1,197]

3 hours ago, Dan Warnick said:

What are you talking about?  The only way to change the Electoral College process is by Constitutional Amendment and the Supreme Court has nothing to do with it.

"Many different proposals to alter the Presidential election process have been offered over the years, such as direct nation-wide election by the eligible voters, but none has been passed by Congress and sent to the States for ratification as a Constitutional amendment. Under the most common method for amending the Constitution, an amendment must be proposed by a two-thirds majority in both houses of Congress and ratified by three-fourths of the States."

https://www.archives.gov/electoral-college/history

The general rules for electing the president have been established for centuries: The candidate who receives the most votes in each state wins that state’s electoral votes, and the candidate who wins the most electoral votes becomes president.

But these rules could go out the window when the Supreme Court issues a decision, anticipated by June of this year, on lawsuits out of Colorado and Washington. These cases challenge the constitutionality of legal requirements that presidential electors—the people who physically cast their state’s electoral votes—must vote for the candidate who won the popular vote in their state. The electors bringing these lawsuits argue that the Constitution gives them the right to vote for anyone for president, regardless of the will of the voters in the state they represent.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/03/faithless-electors/607831/

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

49 minutes ago, Marcin2 said:

Cynism of politicians has no limits.

US people are radicalized, politicians brainwash them so they hate other people. I see a lot of parallels with Weimar Republic in early 1930s. Chinese are new Jews.

@uw has even not noticed that he became genocide nazi like monster, Adolf Hitler would ne proud of him.

Bipartisan hate offensive towards foreigners mainly Chinese is used by politicians ti win next election .

But NAZIFICATION of US society is the trainthat already  left the station, and would be difficult to stop.

You’re so full of shit that your eyes are brown!

Edited May 5, 2020 by Douglas Buckland
Iii

[SUZNV + 1,197]

5 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

As I explained earlier, the main reason for the electoral college is to give states with lower populations a better chance to represent themselves so as not to be at the mercy of the heavily populated states on the coasts.

I know that and I'd doubt anyone doesn't. The point I was trying to make is without the mechanism allowing the electors to have the right to cast ballot to different candidates as a last resort, faithless, there is no mechanism to stop the "populism" in each individual state. In  single state level, it is still "mob rule" and which is prone to "populism" and make a disaster choice. In individual state, we still have not a better chance to be at the mercy of the heavily populated cities so I like that mechanism. The Founding Fathers must have thought about "populism" at the beginning.

Edited May 5, 2020 by SUZNV