Who are you voting for?

[mynameisbob84]

Let me put it this way - the guys who beat up the high school girl who supported trump and ended up hurting her = trump is not responsible.
However this is a broader subject...

It's... I mean, that's a completely different subject, isn't it?

 

[Lexi Emerson]

Seriously though, can we, as women, maybe not try to speak for other women in the realm of weaknesses? It perpetuates so much doubt in women. If you, personally, feel that you would not make a good President due to lack of emotional control, I respect that. But why try to take the ability away from other women? Like, I can't kick a ball to save my life, but that doesn't mean there aren't amazing female soccer players. I'm not brainy enough to be an engineer, but that doesn't mean plenty of other women aren't. I don't have a right to represent the female sporting ability or thinking ability just because I have a vagina. You don't have a right to represent women's emotional control just because you have one either. We need to drop the divisive nonsense.

This.

 

[SexySteph]

Let me put it this way - the ppl who beat up the high school girl because she supported trump and they ended up hurting her = trump is not responsible for that just cause he said something in his speech someone does not agree with.
However this is a broader subject...

How... how did we get here? Did you just want to change topics or do you think this is a relevant response to the topic at hand?

 

[Carmita Bonita]

Saying Trump is better than a woman because he doesn't react emotionally like a woman would is ....um....

Have you seen his twitter? The man has been throwing hissy fits for years on it. He's the one who gets butt-hut over any media saying negative things about him. I'm not pro-hilary. I'm not pro-trump either. But let's be honest here.

I think the kinda shitty thing is whenever women express themselves (no matter how calmly and rationally like @JoleneBrody did ) if we're even the slightest bit passionate it's always "ohhhh! She's being emotional!". Part of the reason women are not taken seriously isn't because we're naturally weak/emotional--it's the people who already have written us off as that.

 

[Ariel_Moon]

Do you imagine a man whining like this over "muh feelings"?

Do you think this does not exist? I invite you to check out all of the history of millions of songs, books, films, TV shows, plays with men whining about their feelings. Or like...go on the internet for a bit.

Men have feelings. I know, bizarre concept. Women do as well. It's sort of a human thing. Emotions.

 

[Vera]

Yes men can easier detach from emotions. Can you? Cause rating my post disagree when I say family life handling not same as terrorism handling makes no sense. Do you really think is same? Lol. Seriously.

I am just gonna say, I don't feel like "handling one's shit" is a gendered skill. I come across PLENTY of men who act like crybabies when things don't go their way, though their whining is more chest-beating and huffy than tearful (though there are exceptions.) If anything I think women have had to learn to suck it up more than men ever have, considering women were, for a long time, valued as property and unable to defend themselves verbally without potential fear of repercussions, some of which could be physical. Figurative owners being bigger than you plus in charge of your entire future because you are an object = solid emotion management skills.

 

[BlairLuxe]

I've never been a mom, but I HAVE been a nanny, and if you think that handling a rowdy toddler or fighting siblings isn't akin to handling wartime, then IDK.

 

[justjoinedtopost]

Please forward the bad troll attempt rating to the low-information idiot who thunk up this stupid graphic. Ugh.

I was standing outside the CNN building in Atlanta couple of years ago watching as a group of professed Venezuelans picketed. The story wasn't really paid much attention by the Mainstream Media, so the next day I made a clever post to help spread the word. There were no dramatic font colors, and I didn't make any laughable spelling errors like "propoganda". True story.

This "biggest propoganda" scheme in U.S. history? It is hardly limited to five months, and it is not pro/anti Trump/Hillary. Anyone who believes otherwise might be living in a bubble, afraid to leave their safe space.

I had no problem finding Mainstream Media support for Trump or Hillary. Nor was there any lack of demonization of the both them. The only way you can get one sided is by limiting yourself to the one side that appeals to you.

The Mainstream Media?: News Corp, Disney, Viacom, Time Warner, iHeartMedia, Comcast....

The Establishment in action:
http://billmoyers.com/story/twenty-years-of-media-consolidation-has-not-been-good-for-our-democracy/



Man discovers media spin for the first time:

 

[Mara_Jayne]

This "men act without emotion and women don't know how to" is bull. I feel as though I am only echoing what has already been said but oh well. Most men in my life or have seen or read about either show just as much emotion as any women or attempts to cover it with anger. Yes anger can seem like a good thing in a leadership role, people get things done and intimidate enemies when fueled with anger but I can't possibly be the only one who sees anger as a dangerous go to emotion when you are in charge of a country and negotiating with other countries. "Oh that country hurt my feeling and made me feel weak? HAH I'll show them who's weak" *sends out troops and starts targeting weapons* <----May have exaggerated a bit.

Now to attempt to reiterate what Jicky said. There are women who ARE very feminine and strive to keep that womanly role but there are women who ARE strong, passionate, level headed and able to take command just as you would expect any man to.
There ARE men who are clearly in that manly take charge category and just as many men who are laid back sweet hearts who would do anything to stay out of a leadership role.

In other words there are some PEOPLE who are able to take on such a job as president and some PEOPLE not very well suited for the task. Gender does not matter. If you are more feminine and unable to "do what a man does" then embrace it! But DO NOT shut down other women who are clearly capable of doing a "mans job" There are strong women out there and just as many week men. It's ridiculous to shove your views on others and hinder those who then have to prove themselves that much more just because you can't/don't want to do what they are striving for.

 

[mickerd]

So now this thread is basically men vs women, way to devolve.

 

[n_i_c_u]

A lot late but: Whoah! I was totally expecting to wake up to the news telling me Clinton was president (I have to get up early).

It is totally odd that a person that wasn't a career politician is now a President of the USA. Never thought it would happen. Amazing, really. I totally believed all the things the media was telling me with the polls and I figured, just based on all the web stuff with Trump being such a super creep and his party not really supporting him, that he was doomed to failure. Clinton was supported soooo much that they even badmouthed Bernie (that says a lot to me). Every Big celebrity on the planet supported Clinton and even Jay Z did his "Jigga My N*gga,’" song for Clinton and it was great and there was no major social weirdness. What a wacky world we live in. For as much as America believes in what social media reports this very important event they did not get right (--I was fooled like the majority of America). It is almost like they report and want to will it to be true which makes me wonder about all this other sensational stuff they have been reporting to get ratings for the past years. What a strange world we live in (maybe the younger generation understands it better?).

Not sure how a group of top tier reporting entities can get the facts so wrong (especially since they give the American public the news on a daily basis)?

 

[Deleted member 31926]

Not sure how a group of reporting entities can get the facts so wrong?

They didn't. They told you exactly what they wanted you to believe.

 

[n_i_c_u]

They didn't. They told you exactly what they wanted you to believe.

I hear ya, but, there is a big part of me that remembers news reporting the facts. The world is evolving past me.

 

[Deleted member 31926]

I hear ya, but, there is a big part of me that remembers news reporting the facts.

I'm afraid that world hasn't existed for some time now.

 

[n_i_c_u]

I'm afraid that world hasn't existed for some time now.

Yeah, I just want to remember the good ole days.

 

[MsRoxieBabe]

Not American so my perspective is a bit different. I like Jill Stein's politics generally but I likely would vote for Bernie, or Hillary if she wins the nomination, because it seems to be a two-party race and it feels like "throwing a vote away" to vote for a candidate/party that has no chance. I dislike that system, and I understand that if everyone voted how they wanted it might be different, but from practical perspective I'd rather vote in a strategic manner.

It was similar during the Canadian election; for NDP voters, the Liberals were seen as the better chance for voting out the Conservatives (at least towards the end of the election). So a lot of people I know changed their votes from NDP to Liberal, partially because PM Trudeau said he would change the voting process in the future (but we'll see.

For Canadian elections I feel my involvement is an 8, for American elections maybe a 3-4? I follow along with what's going on but obviously since I can't vote I don't participate, and my perspective is a bit different - of course the American elections affect every country, but my desires/priorities for American politics would then be different than those of someone who actually lives there, to a point.

Of course I am available for marriage to any Americans unhappy with your new President although if the Democrats win, probably Republicans would not like Canada so much, haha.

I was really feeling Jill Stein as well. I voted for her. In my heart I knew she probably would not win, but I voted for what I felt strongly about what she stood for. I wish more people would vote for who they actually like. Maybe then America would see the best change for the people if someone that is down to earth and in touch with the people got elected in office.

 

[BlairLuxe]

I was really feeling Jill Stein as well. I voted for her. In my heart I knew she probably would not win, but I voted for what I felt strongly about what she stood for. I wish more people would vote for who they actually like. Maybe then America would see the best change for the people if someone that is down to earth and in touch with the people got elected in office.

I also voted for Jill Stein. I've always wondered what it would be like if there was no "but you HAVE to vote for one of the two!" narrative. A first past the post voting system naturally tends to fall to two parties at a certain point, though.

By the way, everyone... This is a really great video about why the First Past the Post system is flawed.

 

[JerryBoBerry]

So now this thread is basically men vs women, way to devolve.

The thread is "who are you voting for." Well the votin's pretty much done at this point. Just waiting on the electoral college now to vote and hope they don't get a bunch of idiots voting the wrong way so hillary still wins it. So what else we got to do?

 

[JoleneBrody]

I also voted for Jill Stein. I've always wondered what it would be like if there was no "but you HAVE to vote for one of the two!" narrative. A first past the post voting system naturally tends to fall to two parties at a certain point, though.

By the way, everyone... This is a really great video about why the First Past the Post system is flawed.

It's surprising to hear sex workers voted for Jill, since the Green Party has a pretty scary stance on sex workers

 

[BlairLuxe]

It's surprising to hear sex workers voted for Jill, since the Green Party has a pretty scary stance on sex workers

I'm about to head out the door, so this response will be short, and I hope it doesn't seem curt or anything. My life and opinions extend so much further than being a sex worker. I disagree with her on that issue. I agree with her on basically everything else. I would vote for her before I would vote for someone with scary stances that affect groups much larger than sex workers, and I see more hope for the Green Party to listen to sex workers about our issues than the Democrats to listen to, well, anyone. The Green Party's stance on prostitution is less scary to me than the interventionist policies we see in other candidates. There will never be a perfect candidate, and letting that one issue force me to vote for someone I agree with on FAR less doesn't make sense to me.

 

[AmberCutie]

Just waiting on the electoral college now to vote and hope they don't get a bunch of idiots voting the wrong way so hillary still wins it. So what else we got to do?

Confused. Hillary already conceded and the vote is final, isn't it?

 

[JerryBoBerry]

Confused. Hillary already conceded and the vote is final, isn't it?

Common misconception. The voting by citizens is done. But that isn't what elects a president. The people we send to the electoral college then place their votes for the president. THEY elect a president. They take an oath to vote the way their states population votes. However there is no law requiring them to do so, in many states.

So if an electoral college voter should decide to break their oath and vote a different way...it sticks. Right now if about 20 electoral college voters decided they could not vote for Trump, and voted for Hillary instead, she's the President.

The odds are exceedingly slim that would happen. However someone has done it in the past, and his vote stayed as such as a matter of record. There is precedent.


Read more here.

http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2016/11/10/clinton-electoral-college/

PITTSBURGH (CBS) — After Donald Trump was proclaimed the winner of the 2016 presidential election, there have been protests sprouting up in pockets across the country.

Now, an online petition has been started asking the electoral college to, when they meet on December 19, withhold their support for Trump, something granted to them in the Constitution.

Though Clinton leads the popular vote by about 280,000 as of Thursday morning, Trump has won the minimum of 270 electoral votes necessary to be elected president. He has 290 to Clinton’s 228.

According to the Constitution, electors will meet in their respective state capitals on Dec. 19. In most cases, whoever wins the popular vote gains all of that state’s electoral votes.

The number of electoral votes per state is determined by the number of congressional districts plus one for each senator — a total of 538.

But as the New York Times points out, there is nothing in the Constitution that would prevent any of the electors from refusing to support the candidate who won their state, or from abstaining. They are dubbed a “faithless elector,” though 29 states ban the practice.

The Times says faithless electors have never affected the final result of any presidential election and there haven’t been many in modern times.

The last time was in 2004, when an anonymous elector in Minnesota cast his vote for John Edwards instead of the Democratic candidate, John Kerry.

The foundation for the petition is the fact that Hillary Clinton won the popular vote, something that Trump himself has complained about in the past.

Here’s an excerpt from the petition:

“We are calling on the Electors to ignore their states’ votes and cast their ballots for Secretary Clinton. Why?

Mr. Trump is unfit to serve. His scapegoating of so many Americans, and his impulsivity, bullying, lying, admitted history of sexual assault, and utter lack of experience make him a danger to the Republic.

Secretary Clinton WON THE POPULAR VOTE and should be President.”

In 2012 after Barack Obama defeated Mitt Romney, Trump tweeted on the matter: “He lost the popular vote by a lot and won the election. We should have a revolution in this country!” The tweet has since been deleted.

As of 6pm EST on Thursday, November 10, the petition has more than a million signatures.

It's an eye opener. But it makes you realize in concrete terms. We do NOT have a democracy, we have a republic. You do not vote for president, and in the end your vote could be meaningless under our system. It's only a promise by those we send to the electoral college that keeps it all in check.

 

[JickyJuly]

I don't understand why she conceded before he even hit 270. My guesses are embarrassment or trying to create a peace that won't be here anytime soon. Either way, those seem like pretty pitiful reasons after such a brutal fight. Is there a better real reason she would do this? It's kind of hard to argue that she should be installed as the winner of the popular vote when she was so quick to throw her hands up.

 

[AmberCutie]

Common misconception. The voting by citizens is done. But that isn't what elects a president. The people we send to the electoral college then place their votes for the president. THEY elect a president. They take an oath to vote the way their states population votes. However there is no law requiring them to do so.

So if an electoral college voter should decide to break their oath and vote a different way...it sticks. Right now if about 20 electoral college voters decided they could not vote for Trump, and voted for Hillary instead, she's the President.

The odds are exceedingly slim that would happen. However someone has done it in the past, and his vote stayed as such as a matter of record. There is precedent.


Read more here.

http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2016/11/10/clinton-electoral-college/




It's an eye opener. But it makes you realize in concrete terms. We do NOT have a democracy, we have a republic. You do not vote for president, and in the end your vote could be meaningless under our system. It's only a promise by those we send to the electoral college that keeps it all in check.

Caucuses, delegates and electoral college all sound like a boatload of hootinanny to me.

 

[SexySteph]

I don't understand why she conceded before he even hit 270. My guesses are embarrassment or trying to create a peace that won't be here anytime soon. Either way, those seem like pretty pitiful reasons after such a brutal fight. Is there a better real reason she would do this? It's kind of hard to argue that she should be installed as the winner of the popular vote when she was so quick to throw her hands up.

Well republicans were throwing a fit around 11 pm CST that she was doing "just what the liberals had accused Donald of planning to do" so I think she felt a lot of pressure to just get it over with before it was too late in the night. If she'd waited until the next day there would have been uproar.

 

[JerryBoBerry]

Caucuses, delegates and electoral college all sound like a boatload of hootinanny to me.

It's a complicated system for sure. I think it's just part of the checks and balances the founding fathers wanted to put in place everywhere they could think of.

The number of electoral votes per state is determined by the number of congressional districts plus one for each senator — a total of 538.

One little note on that article I quoted. They did make a mistake. There should also be "Plus 3 votes for Washington D.C.."

 

[Bocefish]

Some of the funnier ones I've seen...









HRC and/or Obama need to come out and publicly denounce all the recent violence and vandalism going on with the protestors before it gets WAY out of hand.

 

[Mila_]

Do you think this does not exist? I invite you to check out all of the history of millions of songs, books, films, TV shows, plays with men whining about their feelings. Or like...go on the internet for a bit.

Men have feelings. I know, bizarre concept. Women do as well. It's sort of a human thing. Emotions.

Men have feelings too, of course, the point we are debating though is what each sex does with those feelings. While most women are frequently overwhelmed by their feelings and do embarrassing displays of emotion publicly, like the Hillary supporters above, most men tend to save those feelings for another, more appropriate time like those times when you are writing songs or writing in your diary. Pouring feelings into art is appropriate. Being photographed crying down the street when you are a candidate's top aide is not.

I dont even understand how we are arguing this crystal clear fact. I am in several forums, 2 of them dominated by men, and this one which is dominated by women. The topics of the forums are wildly different. While men forums focus mostly on sharing business tools and practical shit or talking about sexual exploits, female forums make a strong emphasis on feelings and relationships with others. A DMP thread on a male forum reads quite differently. The fact that we are often overwhelmed by feelings has a lot to do with hormones. A president or a leader should never have to deal with PMS. I still remember how batshit insane and unreasonable my boss at HBO got once a month.

 

[Vera]

I have learned this excellent tool, for any other "hormonal women" (or men) who can't handle their shit. The average emotion lasts 120 seconds. Long enough to touch up your eyebrows, chug a beer, or maybe both, depending on how ambitious you are!

Either push it down and deal later or withdraw long enough to not make an ass of yourself. Easy peasy, goes for both genders. Hormones are a cheap excuse. If we relied on hormones to make our decisions, that dumb "all men are inherent rapists who can't deal with short skirts" argument would stand, and that would be a real bummer. We'd also have babies willy nilly and get fat off dollar burgers, and that's just upsetting.

Again, I have a hard time saying this is related to gender in any "essence precedes existence" sort of manner. It is more related to discipline.

Honestly, though, I believe in responsibility for one's actions, regardless of gender or context. No one is holding a gun to anyone's head and dictating how we respond to a given scenario, which is part of what makes our country so great. Not everyone is as fortunate.

/is shamelessly stirring the pot (in good humor, of course)

 

[mynameisbob84]

Men have feelings too, of course, the point we are debating though is what each sex does with those feelings. While most women are frequently overwhelmed by their feelings and do embarrassing displays of emotion publicly, like the Hillary supporters above, most men tend to save those feelings for another, more appropriate time like those times when you are writing songs or writing in your diary.

Have you ever seen male fans of a losing football/soccer team immediately after a game?