Will Mark Zuckerberg Be Our Next President?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Wiffle said:
By pitting a favored political candidate against one who has no political background and is disliked by they majority,
Click to expand...

If you exclude the following I suppose it's fair to say he was disliked by the majority and is the most unpopular presidential candidate of all time.

  1. Received more votes in the Republican primary than any other candidate. Despite receiving almost zero support from the party.
  2. Received the most amount of votes of any Republican candidate in the general election.
  3. Received more electoral votes than any recent Republican candidate (have to go back to 1988 Bush Sr).
  4. Considering the 18 month onslaught he went through to achieve that.
  5. Only Mrs. Clinton and Obama received more votes then him (and yet he's the one targeted as having racist voters).
  6. That while the "favored political candidate" was cancelling rallies due to turnout or relying on celebrity attendance, Trump was smashing the attendance both in physical attendance as well as online viewers (10K-30K on average watching EACH rally he did on YouTube).
  7. Subtracting just 2 counties (Los Angeles & Cook) from BOTH candidates numbers puts Trump ahead on the popular vote. 2 counties.
  8. As illustrated by these 2 maps:
dcPtw2X.jpg


sGTyunG.jpg


So excluding those pieces of information I can see why people are perplexed that he was able to win. #notmypresident

If you do not want to accept or acknowledge the real reasons he won, then any reason is valid.
 
heatlesssun said:
You clearly don't understand the difference between FB and Jim Crow. Plenty thought JC was beautiful and a great solution to a centuries old problem. It wasn't. I won't someone to point out what FN has done to them? Did FB make you piss in a certain bathroom? Has FB made you live in a certain neighborhood? Has FB made you take a certain job? Has FB done any of these things to anyone posting about the evils of it?
Click to expand...
I've seen Zuckerberg tell Merkel that he will remove posts that she finds offensive. So yea, he is a freedom hating prick. They fly the flag of freedom and democracy but in reality believe in no such thing.
 
We need people in office who have NO TIES AT ALL to big business. Not people who do. This would be almost as bad of an idea as Trump.

We should be electing people with as few as possible prior conflicts of interests and "connections" who might come back and seek favors.
 
rezerekted said:
I've seen Zuckerberg tell Merkel that he will remove posts that she finds offensive. So yea, he is a freedom hating prick. They fly the flag of freedom and democracy but in reality believe in no such thing.
Click to expand...

And I know for a fact that may parents couldn't piss in certain bathrooms or live in certain neighborhoods or go to certain schools. So what? Deal with it.
 
rezerekted said:
I've seen Zuckerberg tell Merkel that he will remove posts that she finds offensive. So yea, he is a freedom hating prick. They fly the flag of freedom and democracy but in reality believe in no such thing.
Click to expand...

lol so nieve.. you may want to go brush up on your european data protection laws and how "the right to be forgotten" laws work over there..

Zarathustra[H] said:
We need people in office who have NO TIES AT ALL to big business. Not people who do. This would be almost as bad of an idea as Trump.

We should be electing people with as few as possible prior conflicts of interests and "connections" who might come back and seek favors.
Click to expand...

never going to happen, money corrupts everyone and the fact that it costs millions of dollars just to run for office keeps the corruption alive.
 
Last edited:
westrock2000 said:
If you exclude the following I suppose it's fair to say he was disliked by the majority and is the most unpopular presidential candidate of all time.

  1. Received more votes in the Republican primary than any other candidate. Despite receiving almost zero support from the party.
  2. Received the most amount of votes of any Republican candidate in the general election.
  3. Received more electoral votes than any recent Republican candidate (have to go back to 1988 Bush Sr).
  4. Considering the 18 month onslaught he went through to achieve that.
  5. Only Mrs. Clinton and Obama received more votes then him (and yet he's the one targeted as having racist voters).
  6. That while the "favored political candidate" was cancelling rallies due to turnout or relying on celebrity attendance, Trump was smashing the attendance both in physical attendance as well as online viewers (10K-30K on average watching EACH rally he did on YouTube).
  7. Subtracting just 2 counties (Los Angeles & Cook) from BOTH candidates numbers puts Trump ahead on the popular vote. 2 counties.
  8. As illustrated by these 2 maps:
dcPtw2X.jpg


sGTyunG.jpg


So excluding those pieces of information I can see why people are perplexed that he was able to win. #notmypresident

If you do not want to accept or acknowledge the real reasons he won, then any reason is valid.
Click to expand...

Yet, despite all the figures you mention above, he won the presidency with the smallest percentage of the popular vote in history of any race where there wasn't a third party spoiler, only one other candidate in modern times has won without the popular vote (George W Bush in 2000) and he had a much larger proportion of the vote than Trump.

Trump won the electoral vote by taking a tiny majority in lots of key states, while losing others "bigly".

I'd argue that he will have the smallest mandate of any U.S. President in modern history.

But we all knew he had a small "mandate". Just look at his hands! :p
 
heatlesssun said:
And that's the reason I can't endorse the last time Texas seceded. People like me were not going to say beyond slaves.
Click to expand...

Even the Union had slaves. I always wonder what's worse, America using them, or Africans selling them to the US. Both probably.
 
Krenum said:
Even the Union had slaves. I always wonder what's worse, America using them, or Africans selling them to the US. Both probably.
Click to expand...

Yes, the Union had slaves. Not like the Confederacy. And what, the Confederacy is like FB? That there's no way to get away from FB without being enslaved like blacks were during the Confederacy? There is.
 
Yeah not cuckgoldbergerwitzstien. Two faced privacy raper, cut from same cloth as clinton. He's your establishment $hill like the rest. That shit failed it had decades. Enough j00 boys running shit, take a walk fuckberger, hope your shitty ventures fail.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
Yet, despite all the figures you mention above, he won the presidency with the smallest percentage of the popular vote in history of any race where there wasn't a third party spoiler, only one other candidate in modern times has won without the popular vote (George W Bush in 2000) and he had a much larger proportion of the vote than Trump.

Trump won the electoral vote by taking a tiny majority in lots of key states, while losing others "bigly".
Click to expand...
That's fine, you can twist the numbers just as I have. I'm not sure on your "much larger proportion" claim as Trump received 12 million more votes then Bush did, had a better vote turnout, and carried same number of states and wasn't from the Bush family, nor did he have any political machine behind him. If you are referring to the 1.7% lead, then I guess that's a major proportion, I don't know compared to what.....but I'll take your word on it since you said it.

The second map I provided shows why he lost. Bastions of "democracy". If you think that is great injustice then I urge to send letters to your congressman/woman telling him/her to get the states together. If you're lucky you will be able to convince the states to give up their protection.

I just read an article last week on Salon why Michael Moore might be the next president of the United States. Who knows.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top