Yzermandius19

If Africa wants to become wealthy, blaming foreigners for their own corruption is not the way to achieve it. Black people oppress black people far more than white people oppress black people, and White people oppress white people, far more than black people oppress white people.

Yes it is. They focus more on foreign corruption, than they do their own, despite their corruption being a far bigger problem, that's called scapegoating foreigners.

Obviously you think just because some politicians blame foreigners, they must be right, except when it's a politician you don't like, then they are racist. Obvious double standard, is obvious.

That's Congressional districts. There aren't any congressional districts in the EC. Every other state than Maine and Nebraska awards their electoral votes by popular vote, within the state. You need to study up a bit. Seriously, just go to wikipedia, you'll see that you are completely wrong about redistricting applying to the EC. Stop confusing Congress with the Electoral College, the electoral college decides who is President, Congressional districts decide who gets a seat in which district in Congress. Only once has Congress decided who the President is, in 1824. Congressional districts have otherwise had nothing to do with who is elected President. Therefore, redistricting did not effect who was elected President in 2016.

People like to blame corruption on outside sources so they never have to look into the mirror. Victim mentality leads to corruption never actually getting fixed, because someone else is always to blame, very often, it's foreigners who get that blame, whether they deserve any of it, or not.

The EC isn't gerrymandered, except in Maine and Nebraska, neither of which swung the election. There is no redistricting going on in the EC, except when states are redrawn or added to the Union, that's it. You are referring to Congress, and confusing Congress with the EC. They are not the same thing.

That isn't the West's fault, that's Africa's fault. Africa is better off with American corporations giving them jobs, not worse. Corruption is the issue, and it wasn't the West who corrupted Africa, they did it to themselves.

Africans starved, mostly because of their own issues, not the West stealing their food.

Some people are ignorant. /shrugs

The Electoral college has nothing to do with the congressional map, or that map being redrawn. Only Maine and Nebraska have districts, every other state awards their electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote in that state. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Electoral_College Congress and the Electoral College are not the same thing. Congress flipped to Democrats in 2018, despite the gerrymandering, and Trump won the electoral college in 2016, by winning the popular vote in 30 of 50 states. You don't know what the Electoral College is, you just listen to EC haters who also don't know what the Electoral College is, nor why it exists. Maybe you should listen to both sides of the argument, and actually learn what EC is, before you jump to ridiculous conclusions because you don't even know what it is.

Owly is brainwashed. /shrugs

This is a false narrative. The rich nations are rich, because they better support property rights, than the nations who were colonized. A lot of places colonized by the West are far better off than they were before the West showed up, this narrative of Africa being better off post-colonization isn't actually the case, the opposite is actually true in many cases. Africa wasn't made poor by Europeans and Americans stealing their wealth, they started poor while the West surged ahead, and just because they didn't surge ahead in tandem is not the fault of the West. North Africa used to be richer than the West, but they stagnated under crap government for too long post-Rome. The Arabs had an early lead, but quickly pissed it away, and the West took over because of Muslim stagnation.

Both are true. Canada backed the confederacy and helped support the underground railroad, it's not one or the other, history is more complicated than your black and white depiction of it. Learn some Canadian history, aside from just the parts of it the Liberal media emphasize, then get back to me.

Because America was powerful enough to stop them, and Canada actually backed the Confederacy.

Of course not. Simply pointing out that white people weren't the worst slavers, and they ended slavery before anyone else did. Africans weren't the great crusaders against slavery, not at all, they were some of the last stragglers to finally end the practice, in fact. Black people have oppressed black people more than white people have oppressed black people, historically speaking. If Africans didn't sell blacks to the west, they would have sold them to the Ottoman's, and they did, sold more to the Ottoman's than to the Western nations, in fact.

Nope. Who do you think sold the blacks to the white people in the first place? Other black people, and the Ottomans. Black people have oppressed other black people far more than whites could ever dream of. Who ended slavery first, western nation, or african nations? Western nations.

That's because America was attacking in terrain they didn't know as well as the enemy. America could have won in Vietnam if they fought it properly, instead of chasing the Viet Cong into the jungle, they should have just sat back and waited for North Vietnam to attack them along the coast without the cover of the jungle, and then hit them with B-52's when they are out in the open. LBJ screwed up real bad, if they had done it the way Nixon did from the start, they would have won. It's a lot harder to make America quit when they are invading you, taking heavy casualties, and the media is against them, than it is to successfully invade and destroy America itself, especially when uniting against them would just bring them together like the Soviet Union did in the Cold War. Big difference. The British tried when they were on top of the world, and even they couldn't do that when America was fairly divided. America is much more powerful now, than they were then, by a considerable margin, and that much harder to invade and destroy as a result. The world uniting against them and attacking the CONUS will just give them a new common foe to righteously fight, and the media will support that war. Pearl Harbor the sleeping giant at your own peril, Japan knows. The biggest problem with your "why not treat America like Japan and Germany" schtick is, the only way Japan and Germany were brought down was by America and The Soviet Union, and the later doesn't exist anymore. There is no America or Soviet Union to take down America anymore, the closest thing there is to that, is the Russians, and they are in a much worse position to do than they were as the Soviet Union, and they didn't they pulled back from the brink every time when they could have nuked America. The Cold War went pretty damn poorly for the Soviets, it's only going to go worse for the Russians if they went Hot War with America, in all likelihood. Pie in the sky, wishful thinking. America isn't going anywhere, unless the Russian's nuke it, by miscalculation, misapprehension, or mistake, at the brink. America being around is a good thing, whether or not you know a few people who think that isn't the case, is besides the point.

Billions aren't going to band together to take America down with one 9/11 after another. Are there not better things to spend time thinking about? Perhaps you should reassess your priorities.

The natives are immigrants too. So all humans should just leave North and South America if no immigrants are allowed. I guess getting rid of all the immigrants is bad idea, and really a joke, even if the person saying it doesn't realize it. Getting rid of illegal immigrants, of course, is apples and oranges, countries have borders, and they have the right to control those borders.

No it won't. Historical evidence will prove you wrong, a simple wikipedia article will show you don't know what you are talking about. But you have done so little research on the EC, that you don't even know what you are arguing against, you just take the word of people who also have no idea what the EC is, because they are arguing against it, and Trump benefitted from the EC, so it must be rigged in his favor, but that's nonsense, pure feels, not facts. The EC used to benefit the Democrats when they did better with rural voters, and it wasn't rigged in their favor then either. All parties know the rules, and are free to exploit them to their benefit, some parties are better than others at doing that during certain elections, but that isn't gerrymandering. That's a feature, not a bug.

The EC is not gerrymandered by either party. You don't even know what it is, you confuse the EC for the House of Representatives districts, which are gerrymandered, but that isn't the Electoral College, you just think it is, because you are talking out of your ass. Only two states award their electoral votes by voting districts, and they are small states who don't often effect the elections outcome, if they ever made a difference. The other 48 award them based on the popular vote within the entire state. You don't know what the EC is.

The EC is more fair, America is a republic and not a democracy for good reasons, the founders did that intentionally. You might be a democracy nuthugger, but that isn't what's fair, so how about you stop preaching to remove something when you don't even know what it's for, or even what is? Come back when you know a little bit of what you are talking about, instead of making a fool of yourself by talking out of your ass.

That's a bonus in Trump's column, Obamacare is garbage. Obama accomplished nothing, but pissing away all his political capital, it wasn't a hard bar for Trump to clear. What really saved Obama was killing OBL, and running against a chump like Romney.

But Bush didn't win the popular vote in 2000, and he was re-elected in 2004, and he won the popular vote in 2004. Even if Trump loses the popular vote again, who cares if he still wins the EC? Butthurt Democrats and their cheerleaders, but no one else.

Trump accomplished more than Obama in his first two years. The only thing Obama accomplished was a negative, Affordable Care Act for the fail, he blew all his political capital on that monstrosity, like a complete lightweight.