Originally posted by Henry_Pym
The fact that non of you guys look at voting demographics kinda hurts your point... Low Income college graduates tend to vote Democrats and favor issues that don't even concern them. It's partially why the term "cuck" stuck.
I don't mean to insinuate that you in fact have no "higher learning," but have you ever taken a gender studies class, or political science class?
I'm afraid I stuck to actual science rather than Mickey Mouse science.
One thing I love is after the election how the big thing was "college educated whites voted Hilary".
Why is this a good thing? Is this supposed to show educated people just know better? Yet they were all too stupid to see their candidate was so toxic. They are primed and ready to be brainwashed by a number of ideas.
So I never understood why in this day and age with the atmospheres in our universities..why winning the educated vote is an accomplishment? Look at the propaganda factories some of these universities are and then tell my why this shows anything positive?
Originally posted by SurturIf Hillary was "toxic", how did she still gain more votes overall? A candidate losing doesn't mean "toxic candidate" just because you happen to have a deep hatred of women. There was always going to be one winner and one loser in this/every election. Didn't think that one out, did you, sport.
One thing I love is after the election how the big thing was "college educated whites voted Hilary".Why is this a good thing? Is this supposed to show educated people just know better? Yet they were all too stupid to see their candidate was so toxic. They are primed and ready to be brainwashed by a number of ideas.
So I never understood why in this day and age with the atmospheres in our universities..why winning the educated vote is an accomplishment? Look at the propaganda factories some of these universities are and then tell my why this shows anything positive?
ps Your hatred of the college educated is really showing agin
Originally posted by Robtard
If Hillary was "toxic", how did she still gain more votes overall? A candidate losing doesn't mean "toxic candidate" just because you happen to have a deep hatred of women. There was always going to be one winner and one loser in this/every election. Didn't think that one out, did you, sport.ps Your hatred of the college educated is really showing agin
Lol holy shit the level of reaching here is hilarious. Have you truly run out of things to say at this point? You seem to just type whatever random BS comes to mind. It's followed by the same old song and dance, when it doubt revert to hurling accusations of racism or sexism or some kind of ism.
If she was toxic how did she gain more overall votes? You act like toxicity equates to not being popular. I never said that. I said they were too stupid to see how toxic she was. Whether or not you agree, I literally just answered your question with that statement: because I feel they failed to see how toxic she was.
You act like large groups of people can't be fooled, unless of course they are Trump voters, right?
Originally posted by Robtard
Good rant, you typed out a lot, but said effectively nothing. Some would call that a form of being #triggered.
Some people are stupid and label any response more than a few sentences long as being triggered.
Some people might also say with the amount of times you fall back on the "triggered" claims that deep down you're the one who is more triggered than anybody.
Originally posted by Surtur
You act like large groups of people can't be fooled, unless of course they are Trump voters, right?
Every person who voted for Obama in 2012 was fooled.
And almost every single 2016 Hillary voter was an Obama voter. If that tells you why there is so much foolish butthurt that Trump won. Thankfully, not so many Obama voters were dumb enough to vote for Hillary and many switched the Trump.
The more I hear and read about how much libtard butthurt there is, there more extreme I want Trump to be. Let them explode from buttmadness.
Originally posted by Surtur
Some people are stupid and label any response more than a few sentences long as being triggered.Some people might also say with the amount of times you fall back on the "triggered" claims that deep down you're the one who is more triggered than anybody.
Your post amounts to a "no you!", you should have saved yourself the time and just typed that, sport.
Originally posted by dadudemonSo you'd put see them 'explode from buttmadness' above the well-being of the country. Interesting.
Every person who voted for Obama in 2012 was fooled.And almost every single 2016 Hillary voter was an Obama voter. If that tells you why there is so much foolish butthurt that Trump won. Thankfully, not so many Obama voters were dumb enough to vote for Hillary and many switched the Trump.
The more I hear and read about how much libtard butthurt there is, there more extreme I want Trump to be. Let them explode from buttmadness.
Originally posted by Adam Grimes
So you'd put see them 'explode from buttmadness' above the well-being of the country. Interesting.
Democrats put feelings above the well being of the country all the time. Do you find that interesting as well?
But let me guess:
1-Triggered
or
2-Deflection
I know the drill, it's almost like you don't even need to respond anymore.
Originally posted by Robtard
Examples? Since it happens so often.
A truly curious response from you. Are you saying it does happen, just not often? If so, I applaud you for at least recognizing it happens.
Anyways, just off the top of my head: when Obama and the feds were threatening to pull funding due to the transgender bathroom bill. Feelings> the country. Or I guess the good of the state? But still sets a nasty precedent IMO, much nastier than the bathroom bill sets.
IMO, the democrats views on illegal immigrants also are putting feelings above the legal people of this country.