It is not so much that I wanted to vote for Trump. I don't like either party. But no matter what Trump really is, he is working the best he can to make this country great.

Yeah he may not be the best suited for it. But do you really think Hillary is too?

I see it like this. Better to get an idiot when it comes to politics, (meaning he has never done this kind of thing before) than to get an even bigger idiot that wants to blow up certain countries as soon as she gets in.

What is done is done. He is our president now, so no matter what, unless he gets impeached, we have to deal with him for quite a while. He may turn into Hitler 2.0 for all we know. But as of right now, he is doing what needs to be done.

I am also not trying to offend anyone here, I am just stating my honest opinion on this whole thing. I have seen it time and time again. But people just need to accept it now. Trump is our president for the time being.

FinalFantasyDBC : Who did you vote for in the primaries?

Txgangsta : I voted for Trump in the primaries. As stated before, no matter what, to me Trump is the better choice. I voted for him then, and I voted for him to be elected at the end.

FinalFantasyDBC : That kinda disgusts me.

But to my actual point, if you voted for trump in the primaries, you did want to vote for trump. That's the whole point of a primary system: you pick the guy you want within your party. When you say "it is not so much that I wanted to vote for trump...", I think you're lying.

Txgangsta: While I think you have a good point, it is fair to say that the other republicans in the primaries were pretty awful picks too. Jeb was boring and we don't need 3 Bushes, Ben Carson pretty much discouraged people from voting for him, and Ted Cruz is the Zodiac Killer. It really just boiled down to Trump who was the only one left who was actually competitive and wasn't super creepy. I think if people like Rubio and Kasich pushed more they might have beat Trump.

Or maybe the true face of America is as racist and ignorant as the results show.

Txgangsta : You are misunderstanding me. I say that I did not want to fully vote for trump for one reason. He does not have political experience. But compared to all the other candidates, he was a way better candidate than the rest. I can not stand Hillary for two reasons. She is naive and would most likely get us killed. And also which ties into the first, she is a she. Most countries including Russia and Korea see a woman leader as an insult.

The rest had their good points, but I knew there was no way they would win. Favor was shifting to Hillary and Trump pretty quickly. Just because I do not fully like Trump does not mean I could not and should not have voted for him. I just see it as this. Trump may have been the better fit for presidency so I voted for him. I hate both sides. I am a moderate. I agree with 1-2 things that each side believes in, but that is it. And so far he is doing exactly what is needed to be done in our country. Yeah he may go too far, but that might not happen, and its still down the line if he does.

So I find it pretty rude that you would say "I think you're lying.". I did not lie about anything. I took my time and decided last minute. No set rules are applied to anything. Yeah, that is what its for, but not every single American can just have a look at someone and decide instantly. No matter how the person is, I voted for what I see would most likely be the best fit. In all honesty that is how everyone should do it. But that is just my opinion.

So no matter what you think, or believe, that is what YOU believe. So don't go on just deciding something just because it sounds far fetched or something along those lines. I hope this clears the whole, "I think you're lying" thing. Because clearly, I am not. Same with the whole "disgusting" thing. What about anything I said is disgusting? Nothing.

FinalFantasyDBC : I cannot believe someone who says they're a moderate yet voted for alt-right trump in the primaries is telling the truth. If you're a moderate, you can't possibly believe that Trump was the best possible candidate, especially because Kasich and Rubio were in the primaries for a long time and were drastically closer to the middle. I still think you're lying. And if you find this rude, you need to rethink from my POV.

And for the record, "I voted for Trump" is pretty disgusting by itself, but I just usually don't comment like that if they only remorsefully voted for him in the general election.

Oldschool777 : The best idea would be to keep the part of where every state counts for x amount of votes however, what candidate each state is counted for is decided by the majority vote in said state.
Example: lets say every state counts for 1 vote state A has 32,000 people candidate A gets 12,000 votes candidate B has 18,00 votes and candidate C has 2,000 votes. Candidate B wins that state and gets one total vote from that 5tateA.
And before you say "that's what the electoral college is" not exactly. That is what it was meant to be however the delegates are still people they can still be manipulated and have their own biases. So keeping the x votes for winning the state makes sense but the delegates do not for today's America.

thetruemasterofgames : It is what the Electoral college is for. Now,your idea would be nice except for one little issue. People can still be bought and convinced to vote for a person that cares little for your state. The Electoral College is a bit tougher to buy off. I understand what you are saying,but if we went by majority rule,as you suggest,we would be doing garbage that Commiefornia and New Yuck want to do.

Now,I agree that election 2016 was a huge farce and nothing was really said. It was a lot of back and forth bickering. We do need some sort of control. I truthfully do not think Trump wants another shot at the White House. He is finding out that it is a lot tougher than he expected. Clinton is a joke and she should stay out of politics entirely. Something that has me worried is that Obama may want to get back into politics and we have suffered enough under him.

Oldschool777 : First of all why do you keep saying 'Commiefornia and Newyuck' they are part of the U.S. two running under the same system. Second point: Yes people can be bought off its unavoidable, however, it would be harder to buy off a whole country than just a few people. Just because they are a delegate does not mean they are not greedy/biased/corrupt and able to be manipulated. I want to make clear I am not saying the entire electoral delegates are corrupt however there is no doubt to me that at least a few are. We should not do solely popular numbers after all gives bigger areas more power. But as I said after votes are tallied it would make sense for the state to be considered won by whomever got the max votes there and every won state is equal to 1 lets call it a tally vote for now. There are 50 states so there would be 50 tally votes. Instead of having someone for the state that can override the entire state opinion with their own bias the winning vote for that state would decide the candidate whom the state supports.

The way the electoral college works an entire state could vote for candidate A but if the delegate wants/is paid of or manipulated by candidate B than candidate B wins because the delegate has authority to override the public completely for their state.

1. I say Commiefornia and New Yuck because they muck everything up and shove their liberal BS down everyone's throats.

2. The tally vote sounds interesting,but I will guarantee that the larger states will NEVER go for it. Do you know why we have 535 votes? It goes back to the Great Compromise. 435 representatives (based on population),and 100 senators (based on 2 per state). It may lean more towards the larger states,but that may be the only real way to do it.

I like your idea,but it will never work. And I sure as hell do not want a straight popular vote. That would just be a nightmare.

Oldschool777 : Says the guy shoving his conservative BS down everyone's throats. It's essentially the same exact thing but you agree with one side. We have freedom of speech, people are allowed to put ideas "down people's throats." You conservatives are "mucking up everything" for the poor, while liberals are trying to bring more balance to this economy by actually giving a damn about people less fortunate than them.

TheFadedWarrior-You are allowed to voice your opinion,but when they voice it en masse and it benefits the few,it is BS. We had liberal control for quite a while. And it blew up in our faces.

Oldschool777: well the fadedwarrior is right about the freedom of speech thing but it looks like trump dosn't give a dam about it.

You can't pay the national debt off... EVER. Republicans think it's possible by cutting into peoples social security funds and then axing off their foodstamps and healthcare and many government programs. They are bat chit crazy and are not for the interests of American people.

JigSaw: Well all the people that need healthcare and foodstamps actually can't afford things themselves because obviously they are lazy and it is 100% their fault! It's not like they were born into a poor family that couldn't put them through expensive college, and they definitely aren't poor because they have disabilities that render them incapable of a decent job.

/s

What really bothers me is the amount of republicans that are poor themselves (which is a strikingly large number). Why would you want to cut social security when you're the one that needs it in the first place?

TheFadedWarrior : well like jigsaw said those republicans are crazy.