I don't watch the show, but whether it's still funny or not is subjective and a matter of opinion. I've never gotten into the show, but it doesn't mean it's not funny to others. But, once again, not quite the point I'm trying to make, isn't it??
Between Clinton/Kaine and Trump/Pence, Pence actually seems sane. Huckabee, good lord, is worse than Romney, if that's possible.
He must know he'll lose, short of a miracle. Which will provide that much more incentive to attempt to beat up Hillary at the last debate over health concerns, whether real or imagined.
Of course I know the comment about Saturday Night Live wasn't the main point and of course others may think the show is still funny. I'm just saying I don't think it's all that good anymore. I can also guarantee I'm NOT the only person that feels that way.
I kinda believe that, at this point, Trump winning is just not going to happen. I'm still voting for him, though, because I'm convinced that anything he could do to be a crappy President will pale in comparison to what Ice Queen has in store for the mental midgets of this country that vote her into office.
By claiming that the election is rigged before it takes place gives Trump his built in excuse. He won't take any responsibility for tanking his own campaign, so the next best thing is to keep saying the election is rigged against him. (so much for the party of personal responsibility, right?) That being said, the Clinton camp didn't do themselves any favors, regarding allegations of rigging, by doing what they did to Sanders. I find it interesting that, despite Trump showing his true colors by opening his mouth and on Twitter, Trump is as close as he is to Hillary in the polls, and not being blown out of the water. But that just goes to show how terrible of a candidate Clinton is. As scary as it sounds, if Trump could('ve) stay off of Twitter at 3 am, and actually talk about issues in a calm, mature manner, he'd probably, at the very least, would be tied with Clinton, of not leading. But because he has the attention span of a gnat, he immediately goes of on tangents that have nothing to do with nothing. And that's where he tanks his campaign.
Well, speaking of rigged elections, I think a valid question to be asked is what gets done to prevent rigged elections? If you don't believe there are folks, on either side, that would love to tamper with the election you're a bit naive.
I didn't say you did. Notice how I used the qualifier "if?" So, like I said, I don't know that Trump has any valid grounds for saying the election is rigged, but I would like to know what gets done, if anything, to prevent elections from being tampered with, as that IS a valid concern.
Ahh, my apologies for the misunderstanding, and you are correct about your concern. But at this point, I don't see it being an issue..............but with Hillary???..................
No worries. Honestly, the way this world is, I could see either side having devoted enough followers that would want to try to rig the election in their favor.
If he should lose the election it's likely voter fraud??? What is the matter with him? If he believes his own stuff, which it seems, we have a classic example of paranoid delusional, on a megalomaniacal scale. (Compliments of my online psychology training) 8) Bilateral conspiracy, however, would not surprise me, and the reality star plays it to a tee. I jest
Nah. I'm not saying if Trump loses it's due to a rigged election. Just saying that stuff is not impossible. When Hillary wins it will be due to the fact this country wants a socialist government run by liberal progressives. It's been headed that way for awhile now. The people will get what they wanted. It's that simple. I've kind of given up on my country, as sad as that is to say.
The trouble is that in a "one man one vote" regime the cities outvote the country. Look at the county map of which way the US votes and it's remarkable to see an almighty sea of red that stretches across virtually the entire nation, with a few pockets of blue. But the blue pockets are in densely populated areas, and the millions of people in LA outweigh the one man and his dog in a rural village elsewhere in CA. If that isn't a strong case for government being local rather than central I don't know what is. Even the so-called blue states are mostly red, but untold numbers of country dwellers get a government that the city dwellers wanted.
Related to this, I read an article that addressed the current election as a difference between the urban and rural experience and the somewhat quiet animosity and distrust between the two worlds.
I read a similar article, with an encouraging title along the lines of "why half the country has lost its (expletive) mind". In many ways it's remarkable that people truly believe that a million people living in a couple of square miles of city should have the right to outvote, and thereby rule over, 900000 people spread across hundreds of square miles of countryside and with a totally different lifestyle. It's like the difference between the city dwellers who think it would be cool to tweak the ecosystem by bringing back a top predator, and the country dwellers who have to live with having the top predator around their livestock (and, naturally, the city dwellers see no need for guns so don't think the country dwellers should have them either)
Haha. That's exactly the article I was referring to. Good to know there are other Cracked readers here!
I saw a video advocating for the popular vote, rather than the electoral college vote, that seems to indicate otherwise to what you are saying here. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_gbwv5hf2Ps