Gerrymandering is one thing, but to sabotage mail delivery to win an election.. you have to admit he is getting things done.

So much cheating winning!

You know what's really good for stopping tyrannical governments? Free and open elections.

How about instead of perpetuating this fantasy where a bunch of guys with AR-15s are gonna take on a government with fucking PREDATOR DRONES, you try and fix your insanely broken electoral system?

Start with repealing Citizens United, then you can move on to fixing gerrymandering, dismantling the electoral college and finally, find a way to get rid of the lobbyist block.

Do all that, and you won't need to overthrow your government. Not that you could anyway.

I think you are missing the historical context that he came to power in. Yes Trump is a compulsive liar. Feeds on Narrow minded slogans he took from the cold war.

The American electoral system is corrupt as hell, The Democratic primary was rigged. And they are doubling down on rigging it for 2020, and pushing out progressive thinkers internally. Half the states have been gerrymandered in the South for Senate and House races.
People don't seem to realize in the US that most corrupt Illegal practices like bribery, money laundering corporate money to and from candidates, are considered an illegitimate election in third world countries by vote monitors even. The US internally legalized their corruption. Basically bribery is legal.

WTF does Hillary have to do with any of this?

Let's be very clear here. No-one is talking about banning guns (and if anyone is, they can fuck right off). Guns are useful tools. I've been target shooting a few times, I have friends who hunt. I wouldn't see their guns taken from them because they are sensible people who use guns in a reasonable way.

What we are talking about is a reasonable level of control, like background checks, restrictions on certain types of weapons, etc.

BTW, you might want to actually read the 2nd amendment.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

None of these people are in a well-regulated militia, and in 2017 "a well regulated militia" is not necessary to the security of the state, that's what a standing army and a police force are for.

Your seatbelt analogy also makes no sense at all. If I drive around without a seatbelt and crash, the only one hurt is me (I'm still a fucking inconsiderate asshole if I do that, but that's another story). Guns are all about hurting other people, so it makes sense to regulate them.


Fundamentally, the USA needs to grow the fuck up and stop believing "Die Hard" is a documentary.

You are not Roy Rogers.
You do not need a gun for "home defence".
You are more likely to be killed by a criminal if you have a gun than if you don't.
And the most powerful weapon you have against a fascist dictatorship is not firearms, but the ballot box.

The irony is that while your democracy is increasingly slipping away from you (gerrymandering, super PACs, voter suppression), you have a corporate-funded lobby group protecting your firearms.

Voter suppression and gerrymandering?

@Fairbs

It's pretty simple. Due to massive gerrymandering most congressional and senate seats are 'safe' Republican or Democrat seats, the only real threat they face is from within their own parties. If you're a Republican loyal to the regime you're less likely to get challenged.

Your video, America Without Gerrymandering, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Gerrymandering is totally undemocratic. It's insanity that legislators can draw their own districts, and I don't think any other country allows this. it's simply stupidity to allow such clear, undeniable conflict of interests that are so easily and consistently abused, particularly with something so central to how democracy works.
At this point, there's little chance of change, seeing as the only people with the power to effect change are the same people benefiting from the broken system.

*length=3:05

I find the history of how the Dems got here interesting. This isn't something I know much about. Is it accurate?

Personally, I'd like to see a third (and more) party. I think the Independents which are a majority in number could come together around a platform and be a force. Bluntly, fuck both the Dems and the Republicans.

One more point is that I don't think the state of the Democratic party is as dire as Cerk suggests. There were still 3 million more votes for Hillary without a fifty state strategy and with horrible gerrymandering and vote suppression.

well, dems keep winning more votes but losing elections. mainly cause republicans re-draw the districts when they get in office ie: gerrymandering.

Granted D.J. Kelly did far better than an infantile narcissist should have, thanks in large part to Clinton being almost as disliked as he is and the fact that the left won't just vote for their team when they put up a loser, unlike the right that will ignore any problems their side may have and exaggerate the opposition's.

So, votes don't matter if you've managed to rig the system in your favor (by gerrymandering)...and you're fine with that if it benefits your side, but up in arms and crying fraud if it's not.

I understand your difficulty in understanding my arguments, but it is your comprehension difficulty, not mine.

Meh. I would say gerrymandered districts need to be fixed and the practice needs to be outlawed. Then we can come back to the electoral college.

None of the recent elections have been landslides because voting groups are so separated and gerrymandering.

There hasn't be a McGovern/Nixon or Reagan/Carter result in decades.

Losing the popular vote is a landslide? Doesn't sound like it.

He certainly won, but he's won over a divided country with 50% participation, with almost 50:50 split supporting him / hating him. So he was basically elected by a quarter of the country.

Group Think / Herd Mentality do not equal 'rigged election'. You can complain about the media coverage, you can complain about campaign finance being broken, and of course gerrymandering, and you could easily make a valid point. But the implication of the 'rigged election' is direct manipulation, which is an ENTIRELY different matter; it's dangerous to play fast and lose with words when you have a populist movement that wants to believe anything.

I can't really disagree with that, but it has to be said that the issues that are not brought up are distinctly non-partisan--that is, the issues that are not brought up are the ones that are disadvantageous to both parties.

For instance, no one talks about gerrymandering anymore. It clearly benefits both parties, but it is destroying our political system by creating disincentives to working across the aisle with the other party.

In my view, there are three major structural reforms in the US government that need to be addressed: 1) Gerrymandering 2) Campaign finance and 3) regulatory capture. Of these three, only the second one is addressed by either candidate, but not in a satisfying way.

We need major reforms in healthcare and economic wealth distribution, and we need to prepare ourselves for certain worldwide economic changes due to technological innovation and globalization, but until we deal with those three major issues, we won't be able to make any headway.