Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Try again. Trump won via the Electoral College. If it were not for that possibly outdated mechanism he wouldn't have won.
When it comes to the actual vote by the populace it breaks down to

Trump 62,985,106
Clinton 65,853,625
Others 8,261,498
total VOTES 137,100,229
do the math. Trump only won 45.94% of the votes. but for the 2016 election there were 200,081,300 registered voters. So you add that to the mix and that's only 31.48% of the population. however there's another approximately 21 million American adults that are eligible who haven't even bothered to register. So add them to the mix and that's 28.49% of the adult citizens.

so how exactly did we 'clearly want' him as President.

You just explained why we have the electoral college and why it's here to stay. Voting is not compulsory, therefore only those citizens interested in the course of the nation will vote. They will continue to do so through the State sovereign processes of choosing electors. The majority of States clearly wanted him to be president. They also wanted Republicans to control the House and Senate. There is no other math.
 
[doublepost=1487948708][/doublepost]
Have you read that in full? Please note the clarifications below the main article:

“The critical element of gender dysphoria is the presence of clinically significant distress associated with the condition.”
“This condition causes clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.”

We are talking about those distressed and impaired by it that fall into the criterion of a mental disorder. It is also not a cut and dried issue by any means.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
So you're saying there was voter fraud in Michigan? Trump didn't win Michigan? :)

Sorry if that's what you are saying you'll need some proof. That state is run by a Republican governor. I don't hear him making the claim you are. Now why would that be?
Yeah I don't need any proof of anything. I could hand count votes myself and send you a picture and you would say its not proof because I could have used Photoshop. So not continuing this pointless discussion with you. It doesn't really matter to me what you believe or think and its clear you have your mind made up about anything regarding the liberal political agenda. Point is it doesn't matter if it were Trump or Hillary or Stein or Johnson who got any votes from dead or illegal or non-existent people in some states that counted more votes than they had people registered. It doesn't matter who they voted for to make that not right. Dead people and illegals/non-citizens should not have their votes counted period.
 
IMG_1912.JPG
It doesn't take a "special power" to go into the damn bathroom and do your business no matter which gender you are. This is becoming much more complicated than it needs to be. It's almost like transgender people are getting offended because they have to use the bathroom of there biological gender, forget about what really matters which is getting rid of your waste products. Geesh, now I know why the nickname "snowflake" was coined. Get over yourself.
Check out the pic I attached. Which bathroom should these men use? And I'm not being snarky. I curious what people here think.
 
Actually, it does "represent a realistic scenario". Try to put yourself in his shoes.
No, it doesn't. It's a ridiculous scenario.

There are potential dangers from perverts anywhere. This does not make it any more likely. Why would it? The safety of children remains a top priority for the parents, the schools etc. I think this is a way to try to win the argument by painting the most severe and frightening scenario.
[doublepost=1487950497][/doublepost]
Inflammatory? Does not represent a realistic scenario? What kind of **** are you trying to shovel here?
See above.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dehydratedH2O
I'm definitely split on this one. I 100% support LGBQT rights. But at the same time I don't know how I feel about some burly guy taking a leak right next to my daughter. Maybe we simply need a 3rd bathroom without a gender designation, many establishments already have these.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aldaris
Oh please what?

How about please answer my question...

Also, please list your qualifications that enabled you to determine this to be a mental illness.

Sounds like you're making a load of pseudo-scientific BS up to fit with your predetermined prejudice.

"There has to be a cause somewhere". Yes, there is a cause for everything. Well done on figuring that out.

There's also a cause for preferring pasta over rice, Apple products over Microsoft. How about you respect a person's own wishes to be whoever they wish to be and stop jumping to conclusions that they are mentally ill. You know...it wasn't so long ago that people were labelling homosexuality as a mental illness (and some still do). I'm absolutely appalled at what you are spouting here!
[doublepost=1487945431][/doublepost]
Who is mentally ill?

Please show your credentials or sources for this determination.
[doublepost=1487945662][/doublepost]
"Me thinks"? "What went wrong"? "Get rid of it"? "Weirdos"?

Want to provide something to backup your offensive and BS statements? My, what disgusting filthy and dangerous rhetoric you are spouting! There's a word for people like you...
LOL! I am glad you are appalled. Maybe you should run to the nearest safe space. People dressing up as the opposite sex and mutilating their bodies is not the same thing as homosexuality. Big difference. Gay folks aren't trying to sew a penis on their vagina. Just isn't happening. They also are not trying to use the incorrect bathrooms and making everyone else uncomfortable.There is SCIENCE to backup that homosexuality happens in other animal groups. So that is why it is more acceptable. It fits with nature and there are all kinds of reason for nature to allow that. I see an obvious mental connection to the situation of transgender. What's the next thing humanity will have to accept? Trans-species? Furry rights? Come on. Less than 1% of the population is probably affected by this....so the rest of the normal society needs to adapt for these people. It's ridiculous. To be honest I don't care how anyone lives their lives. But when you are forcing women to share a bathroom with men so 1% of the population can pretend they are something they are not......that is just too far. I personally know a guy that dresses up as a woman when he comes home and I wouldn't want him anywhere near my family members in a bathroom. With him you can clearly see there is more mentally going on than just wanting to be a woman. It is just not a safe thing to do. If you want to be a man and dress as a woman than you should be the one taking the risks....not the general public. I knew another kid that started dressing like a woman after he took a college course that involved transgender nonsense. He told me "I never really thought about it until that class, now I see I want to be a woman." That is just insanity. Later on he realized it just made him feel worse about himself and stopped. So my experiences have convinced me it is an illness of some sort, more on the mental side. And you can save your reply calling my experience "made up BS to justify my bigotry" just to backup your social justice warrior prejudice claims. Call me when you have scientific proof that this is normal behavior. I won't hold my breath. Keep using words like rhetoric and prejudice if it makes you feel superior or more progressive to everyone else. If you people in the UK want 25 bathrooms for each gender...fine. Go right ahead. Doesn't mean we are going to do the same thing. We also don't care what you think of our politics. I choose not to take or care about opinions from a nation that once controlled most of the world and lost it all.

Also on a side note. When will you people learn what the word bigot means. I mean you use it all the time and have no idea what it means! It makes you look dumb. Here is the definition for everyone:

big·ot
ˈbiɡət/
noun
noun: bigot; plural noun: bigots
  1. a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions.
    "don't let a few small-minded bigots destroy the good image of the city"
It doesn't mean someone who is intolerant of LGBT, various races, or whatever. Learn some English.
 
How does it beat a simple one person one vote system? Everyone votes, person with most votes wins. The US presidential vote is as weird as our constituency based voting in the UK
True. In order to make that effective, you have to force everybody to vote. Otherwise it does not work well.
 
Gay folks aren't trying to sew a penis on their vagina. Just isn't happening. They also are not trying to use the incorrect bathrooms and making everyone else uncomfortable.There is SCIENCE to backup that homosexuality happens in other animal groups. So that is why it is more acceptable. It fits with nature and there are all kinds of reason for nature to allow that. I see an obvious mental connection to the situation of transgender. What's the next thing humanity will have to accept? Trans-species? Furry rights? Come on. Less than 1% of the population is probably affected by this....so the rest of the normal society needs to adapt for these people. It's ridiculous. To be honest I don't care how anyone lives their lives. But when you are forcing women to share a bathroom with men so 1% of the population can pretend they are something they are not......that is just too far. I personally know a guy that dresses up as a woman when he comes home and I wouldn't want him anywhere near my family members in a bathroom. With him you can clearly see there is more mentally going on than just wanting to be a woman. It is just not a safe thing to do. If you want to be a man and dress as a woman than you should be the one taking the risks....not the general public. I knew another kid that started dressing like a woman after he took a college course that involved transgender nonsense. He told me "I never really thought about it until that class, now I see I want to be a woman." That is just insanity. Later on he realized it just made him feel worse about himself and stopped. So my experiences have convinced me it is an illness of some sort, more on the mental side. And you can save your reply calling my experience "made up BS to justify my bigotry" just to backup your social justice warrior prejudice claims. Call me when you have scientific proof that this is normal behavior. I won't hold my breath. Keep using words like rhetoric and prejudice if it makes you feel superior or more progressive to everyone else. If you people in the UK want 25 bathrooms for each gender...fine. Go right ahead. Doesn't mean we are going to do the same thing. We also don't care what you think of our politics. I choose not to take or care about opinions from a nation that once controlled most of the world and lost it all.
Well said! Transgender and especially the word inclusive is starting to leave a bad taste in my mouth because people are using them to justify behavior that is obviously linked to psychological problems.
 
Though he has flipped back and forth between the parties, David Duke was a former one-term Republican Louisiana State Representative in 1989. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dav..._in_special_election_for_Louisiana_House_seat
What Democrat were you referring to?

To say he was a Republican while not technically wrong, is also not correct. He was not endorsed by a single notable Republican. It was only a local election. Duke's opponent however was endorsed by U.S. President George H. W. Bush, former President Ronald Reagan, and other notable Republicans,[25] as well as Democrats Victor Bussie (president of the Louisiana AFL-CIO) and Edward J. Steimel (president of the Louisiana Association of Business and Industry and former director of the "good government" think tank, the Public Affairs Research Council).

Duke was also in the Democratic Presidential primaries (he won the New Hampshire Vice President primary) in 1988 with no party opposition.

He also ran in the Republican in Presidential primary in 1992. The Republicans tried to block his participation and again he was not endorsed by a single notable Republican.

But, I was referring to the other most recent successful notable:
Robert Byrd - Democrat 2010

Then there were the others. See a pattern.
Hugo Black - Democrat 1937
Theodore G. Bilbo - Democrat 1947
Rick Means - Republican 1926
Clarence Morely - Republican 1927
Bib Graves - Alabama Democrat 1942
Clifford Walker - Georgia Democrat 1924
George Gordon - Democrat
John Brown Gordon - Senator Georgia, Democrat 1911
John Clinton Porter - Mayor LA, Democrat 1928
Benjamine F Stapleton - Democrat 1940
 
No, it doesn't. It's a ridiculous scenario.

There are potential dangers from perverts anywhere. This does not make it any more likely. Why would it? The safety of children remains a top priority for the parents, the schools etc. I think this is a way to try to win the argument by painting the most severe and frightening scenario.
[doublepost=1487950497][/doublepost]
See above.
Yes, schools are very safe because people care about safety. Never have school shootings or violence. Your arguments are all rubbish.
 
Most transgenders don't have the money to change their sex (unlike Jenner). So by creating another bathroom for transgender people will accept them without any political fight.
If you give them a dedicated bathroom they will complain that they are being discriminated against and not treated like everyone else. Part of the insanity is actually believing you are the sex that you are. If you can't act like a girl and go to the bathroom with other girls....you are not a girl in their minds.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aldaris
Uh, no we didn't. Trump lost the popular vote. He won on the technicality of the Electoral College, not because most people wanted him.

He didn't win by a "technicality." He won by winning the only thing that matters: the electoral college. The United States of America is a Republic and the electoral college is how we elect Presidents in this country. This is the rules everyone played by and the rules everyone campaigned by. You may not like that Trump won, but facts are facts.
 
He didn't win by a "technicality." He won by winning the only thing that matters: the electoral college. The United States of America is a Republic and the electoral college is how we elect Presidents in this country. This is the rules everyone played by and the rules everyone campaigned by. You may not like that Trump won, but facts are facts.
Exactly! The dynamics of the election would have been much different if we elected using the popular vote. Trump would have spent most of his time in California and other large population centers. He still may have won for all we know.
 
Both sides have committed voter fraud, not just Democrats. Something I'd like to know is how easy is it to get a photo id, especially in poorer neighborhoods? Some Democrat friends of mine say that some states have closed down offices in poorer neighborhoods where people can get IDs, making the poor have to go farther. Not sure if true. I'd be up for voter IDs if those IDs were reasonably easy to get.

If voter fraud were condoned and sought after in the Republican party the way it is in the Democrat party, then the Republicans would be stopping the voter fraud investigation. They are not, at least not yet. To get past the fake news in this issue all you have to do is understand who is the most against voter ID and then you have the fraudsters. Not really very hard to do.
 
He didn't win by a "technicality." He won by winning the only thing that matters: the electoral college. The United States of America is a Republic and the electoral college is how we elect Presidents in this country. This is the rules everyone played by and the rules everyone campaigned by. You may not like that Trump won, but facts are facts.

I like how every single reply to my post focuses solely on the use of the word "technicality", and not on the actual point I was making (that Trump was not elected by the wish of the majority of the American people, as bladerunner2000's post I was replying to said).

This is what is known as "reading for comprehension". While all these individuals are technically reading my post, none of them are truly interpreting the communication within. Or maybe they are, and they are choosing to complain about my specific wording, rather than the content of my message, because they have no real response to it. There's another word for that.
 
I like how every single reply to my post focuses solely on the use of the word "technicality", and not on the actual point I was making (that Trump was not elected by the wish of the majority of the American people, as bladerunner2000's post I was replying to said).
Yes but by choosing that word you are implying that the "technicality" of the Electoral College means that its not relevant. Yes, we do read your posts but don't try to inject subtext and think we won't notice.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TechGeek76
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.