Comments by "SmallSpoonBrigade" (@SmallSpoonBrigade) on "Styxhexenhammer666" channel.

Bamboozle Plague It's a minority of liberals that are doing it and they're probably not even real liberals. I'm not sure how anybody claiming to be liberal would ever support Clinton. Between the racism, homophobia and sexism that she's used to try and get more power, I can't imagine anybody claiming to care about those issues supporting her or her husband.
5
But, that simply isn't the case. The minstrel shows were popular for less than a century, and didn't even start out so racist. Drag shows are just the most recent iteration of a tradition that's literally thousands of years old. I'm sorry, but you're just wrong about this. Cross dressing has never been exclusive to transgender people, there are various reasons why people do it, but for the longest time people thought crossdressing meant somebody was gay.
2
It's not the left though, the actual left mostly voted against her. Either we wrote in somebody else or we voted for Trump. Clinton was popular amongst feminists and low-information voters, not actual progressives and liberals. She spent a ton of time pandering to the right rather than pandering to the left and it probably cost her the election. Only about 55% of Sanders' supports ultimately voted for her, that alone could have been the difference in the race.
2
Why? So, men that aren't trans aren't allowed to be transvestites and get fabulous? This is just one of the last vestiges of a theatrical tradition that goes back literally thousands of years. The main other one is sketch comedy shows with insufficient casting to avoid crossdressing. Transvestites were never exclusively transgender. There were various reasons for it.
1
There's no evidence that there were illegal aliens voting in the election. If you have evidence of it, hand it over to the proper authorities and they'll be arrested. This is something that comes up routinely, but there's no evidence that this is happening regularly and certainly not with enough frequency to throw the election for one party or another. The election fraud to worry about is things like voter ID laws, closing polling places and voting machines that lack a proper paper trail for the voters to verify that their vote was properly recorded and can be audited after the fact as need be.
1
***** So, in other words, you're completely and utterly full of shit.
1
And yet it's only the Presidency where we don't directly vote for the politicians that serve us. We don't do that for the Senate or for the House. The closest thing would be the various cabinet positions and the Supreme Court justices, but that's a bit of a stretch as those aren't supposed to be political offices.
1
Curtis Hanson The point is that we long ago dropped the idea of electing our Senators indirectly, but we still retain this indirect election for the Presidency. But worse is that we don't know who any of these electors are, nor do we vote for them directly. Which makes absolutely no sense.
1
iamgoddard Yes, but nobody ever bothers to come here to campaign after the primaries are over because whether they win by 1 vote or a million they get the same number of electoral votes. And yes he did win the popular vote in 30 states, a large portion of which don't have many people in them.
1
iamgoddard No, it's not to any reasonable extent. Small states get a disproportionate number of electors meaning that larger states get passed over for smaller ones every year. Not to mention that if you happen to have wanted Gore to win, you were essentially disenfranchised because the electoral college overrode your vote by handing too much power to small states. We would have had President Gore for at least one term if not for the small state bonus that the states get or if the electoral college didn't exist. It's not really that complicated.
1
iamgoddard You've got to be fucking kidding me. Their whole lifestyle is founded on our largess. They pay for very little of what they have. The urban voters finance their lazy and self-entitled lifestyle even as the urban core continues to rot out from under us. But, thank god that some cheap farmers and ranchers don't have to actually pull their own weight because they've got more representation and can steal tax revenues from the urban taxpayers to finance their self-indulgence.
1
iamgoddard And the cost of living out there is substantially lower than it is in the cities. Primarily because we're subsidizing them. Just because you're ignorant, doesn't change reality here. Rural America is suckling at the teet of the wealthier cities even as more and more of us can't afford to have the basic necessities of life without having to work multiple jobs. We export our tax dollars to rural America at the expense of programs that we want and need even as the greedy bastards living in the middle of nowhere have us subsidizing their lifestyle. I mean seriously, just look where the taxes are raised and where they're spent. They're raised in urban areas where the cost of living is higher and their largely spent in rural areas where the cost of living is lower.
1
iamgoddard That definitely does not follow from my logic. I'm opposed to hypocrites in rural areas living off my largess and whining about how poorly they're doing even as they vote for candidates that promise things that make it harder for those of us paying for that largess to make a living. Cry me a freaking river. Most people in cities are not rich, there's a growing number of working poor here and I fail to see why they should have to subsidize you lazy fucks in the country that can't figure out how to support yourselves even as the policies meant to ensure that we can feed ourselves get cut. In other words, stop being such self-centered babies and just man up and earn some more money. I mean, that's what you lazy fucks in the middle of nowhere keep telling us in the city when rent and various other costs of living exceed what can be bought on minimum wage.
1
iamgoddard I don't hate rural people, I just think that it's beyond ridiculous that we wind up subsidizing them while they continually vote to fuck us over in an effort to show how smart they are. We need to restore balance and part of that is taking away their special votes.
1
As opposed to the current situation where they don't bother to come to states like WA, CA or TX and spend huge sums of money on a small minority of voter in places like Ohio, Florida and other swing states. What you're arguing is that those rural voters should have more of a say than those of us in cities should. Have you seen the state of the infrastructure in the urban areas? We've been subsidizing the rural folks for years at our expense, but even basic things like getting potholes filled requires us to pay again through local taxes to get it done.
1
As opposed to the current system of election fraud where they implement various poll taxes and inconveniences in the form of voter ID laws that require people to be able to afford to take off work to get the IDs? Here's a hint, if you think that elections fraud is a problem, then why is it always whining about the imagined ballot stuffing by the Democrats rather than the very real efforts that go on by the GOP to disenfranchise voters?
1