Apple iOS and Microsoft Windows users elected President Trump; Mac and Android users voted for Hillary Clinton

“SurveyMonkey, which nailed the recent U.K. election, has started randomly putting political questions to some of the 3 million people who take their surveys each day,” Ina Fried reports for Axios.

“Adjusted for demographic data, here’s a unique look at the 2016 U.S. election: How the election would have shaped up if the only voters were Mac users; or only PC, iPhone or Android users,” Fried reports.

The actual final tally in the 2016 U.S. Presidential election was 304 electoral votes for Donald Trump to 227 for Hillary Clinton.

2016 U.S. Election by OS
Source: Survey Monkey

Full article here.

MacDailyNews Take: Well, now, there’s an interesting mix!

Some people have said that I shouldn’t get involved politically because probably half our customers are Republicans… so I’m going to just stay away from all that political stuff.Apple CEO Steve Jobs, August 25, 2004

U.S. Apple product users split evenly between Republicans and Democrats; Half of U.S. households own at least one Apple product – March 28, 2012
Mac vs. PC: The stereotypes may be true – April 22, 2011
Study: Apple Mac users more ‘open-minded, liberal, assured of own superiority’ than average person – January 17, 2008
Do liberals like Apple Macs, while conservatives shun them? – February 1, 2007
Red vs. Blue: Companies ranked by political donations: Apple among bluest, Dell among reddest – October 26, 2006
Apple CEO Steve Jobs: ‘I’m going to just stay away from all that political stuff’ – August 25, 2004


  1. IOS and Windows are widespread and generally demographically diverse, so those figures make sense as they’re in the ballpark of the actual result. Mac is more of a city-dweller, upper income demographic, so that makes sense, too. I’m most surprised by Android breaking so strongly for Crooked Hillary.

    1. According to an article in the latest issue of Rolling Stone, lamenting the widespread loss of seats in the national and state House and Senate races over the last couple of elections as well as the presidency, the Republicans won because they had the demographic data and used it effectively while the DNC was almost completely focused on the presidential race. Heads rolled after the election because they dropped the ball on data and didn’t seem to give a rats ass about Democratic politicians at the local level. Too bad… 😁

      1. Rolling Stone is a liberal rag. Biased to the nth degree.

        The reason’s why the Republicans dominate and the Democrat Party has been reduced to regional party is because of POLICIES. Believe it or not, the average voter does not believe — for one example among thousands — that illegal aliens who by definition are criminals should be shielded by local politiicians so that they can be released to inflict even more damage – including murder – on the actual citizens of the country.

        Since the election of Obama, the Democrat Party has posted a net loss of 1,042 state and federal posts, including congressional and state legislative seats, governorships and the presidency.

        In September, Obama declared that his “legacy’s on the ballot.”

        He lost. Big League.

        Since Obama took office in January 2009, Democrat U.S. Senate seats fell from 55 to 46. Their share of the House plummeted from 256 seats to 194. Democrat governerships plummeted from 28 to 16. The Obama years generated a loss of 958 state legislative seats for Democrats.

        “We’re not even a national party at this point. We have some support on the coasts, but we’ve lost the support of middle America.” – Rep. Tim Ryan, D-Ohio, November 20, 2016

        The Republicans won and continue to win because the Democrat Party is much more interested in fringe, weirdo, countercultural special interest groups than in the concerns of real Americans.

        1. You keep quoting those numbers as if they reflected a real consensus behind Mr. Trump. The President and Vice-President received only 46% of the popular vote. Yes, that was enough for them to be elected, but nobody can reasonably claim an overwhelming mandate for their agenda when 54% of the people voted against it (and that does not count those who did not vote at all, out of disgust with both parties). Even the Electoral College majority (57%) for the Trump-Pence ticket only ranks #46 out of 58 presidential elections; hardly a landslide.

          The totals for the US House and state legislatures simply do not reflect the overwhelming support you claim they indicate, though explaining why requires more than 140 characters: Imagine a square state with 64 counties in a checkerboard pattern, red Republican majorities alternating with black Democratic majorities. The state has eight congressional districts, so the Republican-controlled legislature creates one along the black diagonal with an overwhelming Democratic majority. That done, it is easy to draw seven Republican districts from the remaining 56 counties. Result: half the people in the state are Democrats, but they only control 12.5% of the seats in Congress and the state legislature.

          Thanks to computerized geographic information systems, this sort of creative district-drawing can be used in the real world to maintain large Republican legislative majorities (and US House delegations) even in states that now have a substantial majority of Democratic-leaning voters. The AP counts the Republican excess representation in Congress as at least 22 (almost half of their 46-vote majority), with 4 in Texas alone. Austin is the largest city in the United States that cannot elect even a single congressman, because it has been divided between six districts.

          The same process exaggerates the Republican majority in the US Senate and governorships, although the gerrymandering involved in drawing state lines occurred long ago. Most of the states are majority-Republican, but most of the American population lives in majority-Democratic states. Insofar as one-person-one-vote is a valuable principle, the American political map does not reflect it… or a consensus of American voters behind Mr. Trump’s policies.

          Don’t get me wrong. I agree that these tactics are mostly legal, but mere legality doesn’t mean that the resulting regime has significant public support. It is highly unwise for the dominant minority to use their advantage to push unpopular programs that appeal only to one wing of the Republican base. Eventually, the majority of the population whose views have become politically irrelevant will get angry enough to take some sort of action. If the system does not provide an outlet for their frustration, they will act outside the system… and then God help us all.

            1. You seem to like throwing around arbitrary labels on people, George. Could you kindly define what you consider real versus fake? Your antagonistic attitude makes readers like me assume you have no intelligent principled definition. Moreover, “conservative” is not an absolute term to most intelligent people who are not political operatives. One dimensional ways of looking at the world only hurt you, the self appointed judge. It is possible to see people who may be simultaneously conservative in energy use (“green”), liberal in the way he allows and accepts other people, and downright fascist in military matters. Or one coul be conservative in spending and include the military largesse in the targets for spending reductions. What is “real”, tough guy?

              Using labels as a debating ploy means that real people like TX User win the debate by virtue of facts and logic delivered with maturity.

            2. Tough guy? I love walks on the beach, sunsets, flowers, babies, campfires, healthy cooking, Broadway shows, et al. 😉

              A more accurate term would be tough love.

              I will make this really simple because I am just that and not intelligent: TXuser once posted in defense he is a straight white male CONSERVATIVE prosecutor, his own words.

              That term of political definition means something. Certainly NOT an untrue hybrid that combines liberal, moderate and conservative beliefs.

              Anyone that bothers to read voluminous tedious TXuser posts knows 99.9% of the time he defends and promotes liberal viewpoints excoriating and and respond unsung negatively to TRUE conservative posters. That’s fine.

              But don’t be fooled again …

          1. “The President and Vice-President received only 46% of the popular vote.”

            If I remember correctly Bill Clinton won under 50% of the vote, who cares FAKE conservative …

            1. One of five huh, congrats on the accomplishment! 😊

              Shrillary won by 2.7 votes in a couple precincts around LA and Manhattan: Libtard ground zero mob concentration and five liberal precincts do NOT DETERMINE THE OUTCOME. The brilliantly conceived 50 state electoral college does, allowing all Americans a voice. And you conviently forgot the inconvient truth millions of ILLEGALS voted for Shrillary thanks to Democrats fighting Voter ID laws tooth and nail nationwide.

              Can’t believe you and your ilk are still CRYING over the legal election of President Trump. I’ll share your pain and cry with you … Bwaaaaahshahaha …

            2. Last I checked, LA and Manhattan are USA, you can just throw them away. Oh, and Manhattan is his home field, where they knew him better.

              I DID NOT SAY ILLEGAL nor am I crying. I am RIDICULING!

            3. “Last I checked, LA and Manhattan are USA, you can just throw them away.”

              Where did I say you just throw them away? Do you have a reading comprehension problem?

              “Oh, and Manhattan is his home field, where they knew him better.”

              You mean where the NYT, Daily News and Bloomberg knew better? Hillary was a NY Senator and that probably counts more than the local mayor.

              “I DID NOT SAY ILLEGAL nor am I crying. I am RIDICULING”

              I did not say you said illegal voting. Reading comprehension number two.

              Say it with me. When the current administration uncovers millions of fake illegal votes, something you refuse to acknowledge as FACT — we’ll revisit the numbers later on …

        2. First, if you’re going to respond you could at least tell me something I don’t know. Of course RS is a bastion of liberal lunacy. And I am familiar with the election numbers.

          You POLICIES argument might be stronger if the GOP had more coherent and consistent policies. But everything is changing. The GOP used to be the party of free trade, economic growth and optimism. Our imperial clown is moving it towards being the party of economic nationalism, with the Government tell my business who I can buy from. Screw that! And the whole illegal alien thing is a sideshow of demagoguery appealing to the basest nature of the population. Some are doing their best to turn the GOP into the party of fear and pessimism (traits I had formerly associated with Democrats). And they’re doing a fine job of it.

          These are NOT the GOP policies and attitudes I grew up with and respected. Do not forget that many GOP candidates at the local level got elected for different and more traditional policy reasons than Trump got elected. The party is fracturing.

          Right now everyone is happy because we won, we won, we won, not because we are strong but because the Democrats are weak and disorganized. The Democrat’s losses only papered over the massive fracturing within the GOP taking place right now. You could make a good start at mending things by taking the imperial clown’s iPhone away.

          By the way, you should put aside the fact that RS is a liberal rag and read the article on how the Democrats lost. It helps to see what the other side thinks and it provides a few tidbits of insight here and there. Don’t stay in the bubble.

          1. Trump has an Android phone. His tweets are tracked to it. If that is who you are referring to as “the imperial clown”. Otherwise, my apologies for my assumption.

    2. It’s easy to see how the candidate’s supporters were split by OS usage.

      Apple users are better educated and more affluent than the users of Apple knock off products.

      Trump defeated Clinton by appealing to traditional Democrat voters that felt abandoned by the Party. This phenomena showed up best in the East and Mid-West (high population density) where local economies still haven’t recovered from the collapse of large scale US manufacturing. This area is often (and accurately) described as the “rust belt” due to the high number of closed manufacturing facilities sitting idle and rusting away.

      Democrats have been promising this demographic better days ahead for almost 50 years, while jobs continued an exodus to the South and West (those that don’t leave the country altogether). Those promises of better times fell on deaf ears this election.

      Trump blamed the flood of “job stealing illegal aliens”, crime, foreign terrorists on Democrats, and the Democrat electorate bought it.

    3. Pretty easy to explain. Because iOS devices cost more, Android users are (on average) poorer. In many of the states where Android users were more likely than iOS users to vote for Trump (e.g. Ohio, Wisconsin, and Oregon), most of the poor people are the sort of white working-class guys that the Trump campaign targeted. In the states where Android voters broke for Clinton, most of the poor folks are Latino or African-American.

      Trump did not exactly endear himself to persons of color with quotes like “I’ve got black accountants at Trump Castle and Trump Plaza. Black guys counting my money! I hate it. The only kind of people I want counting my money are short guys that wear yarmulkes every day.”

      Or “”When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”

      Women also tend to have less money than males, and those Android owners may have been turned off by “I better use some Tic Tacs just in case I start kissing her. You know I’m automatically attracted to beautiful—I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab ’em by the pussy. You can do anything.”

        1. So many down votes means NOTHING. Are you stupid to believe they are as pure as the driven snow?


          Feel better?

    4. Even saying “crooked Hillary” proves you’re a brainwashed no-minded gullible fool. It’s like hearing someone say something as disgusting as “vaccines cause autism”. Conspiracy theorist moron, thanks for ruining the country and endangering the world.

    5. Until the US stops the gerrymandering and adopts nonpartisan instant runoff voting, every election will continue to be the choice between dumb and dumber. In 2016, you chose by far the weakest candidate of them all. Then instead of writing in a sensible candidate or rallying to a 3rd party, millions of you stayed home. The russians won. You lost.

      1. It seems that the gerrymandering has been the main reason why the Republicans are struggling to pass legislation. The party has created areas where the congressmen and/or women know they will get re-elected if they take the hardline because the area voting for them wants them to do so. It results in a lack of cooperation within the party to achieve its own goals. Especially if those congressmen/women feel that the end result is too moderate for their areas taste. Of course, I’m quite convinced that when given the chance, the Democrats will do the same. What goes around, comes around. Quite sad, actually.

    6. Hillary and the rest of the Dems may be as crooked as a dog’s hind leg, but until we see Trump’s tax returns, I must withhold judgment on him. I just can’t think of him as a genuine Republican. All the other contenders in the primaries would have come clean. And yes they wound up being losers. but people need more than a winner. They need trust, and that requires more than just saying “Trust me” with a big, generous smile. Americans know to follow the money.

        1. Amen.

          President Trump is wise to keep his returns private. With business holdings in multiple countries including the Middle East do not hand your enemies in the FAKE media gasoline to fan the flames.

          For Chrissake they have found nothing for a year now on Russian whatever but still going on about it like it means something. Imagine what they would do with earnings in foreign governments.

          Keep them private until 2024 when he leaves office. Or not …

    7. You have the poor (Android users), and the richer (Mac users) voting for Clinton. No surprise that Democrats control the extremes. The middle and lower income working class which can afford iPhones, some Macs, but mostly cheap PC’s voted Trump. All makes perfect sense. If you work your ass off but have little to show and spend for it, you voted Trump.

      1. What people should be considering is accusations versus convictions. But what partisans gleefully tally is accusations, which can be readily made up out of whole cloth. They are not shy about throwing in insinuations, either. It is all gossip in the pursuit of power, and it is reprehensible.

          1. Hardly anything is more real than our species’ special talent, tactical deception. We are so good at practising it against others that we are wonderfully adept at lying even to ourselves. The ideals of liberty and free will are constantly being hijacked by this cursed propensity of ours to adhere to magical beliefs against the evidence of our own senses. I realise I am speaking to a brick wall, but I hold out hope that cracks in the mortar may let some light leak through.

  2. “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.”

    This is an example of the fact that, if you look often enough for associations, sometimes you will find them, but they actually have no significant meaning, or at least one that is so obscure as to confound reason.

  3. She has NOTHING on President Man-Baby… e.g. personal server with nothing crucial on it compared to inviting top Russian officials into the Oval Office and giving them top secret information.

    1. The damn Dems doomed themselves by sticking with Shrillary, which was not a shrewd move. They totally misread her viability and how even people who supported & were duty bound to vote for her disliked her and her sense of assumed presidential entitlement. And the Clinton dynasty fatigue factor. Enough with the Clintons already. Just retire, disappear, and put us out of our Billary misery.

      NOT the first lady president I wanted either even though i would welcome a more uncorrupted female candidate without quite so checkered a past – if possible anymore.

          1. Hey kate. Because you are a woman and I respect women, I am going to just assume you are a stupid fuck trying to make me look bad. Sheesh, I can buy fucking deadly viruses from the right place but to pretend like your pathetic example proves that Hillary Clinton sold Uranium just shows that you are as stupid as your post.

            Whatever point you think that makes, put it in English.

            Clinton did not sell uranium. A russian company bought a stake in a Canadian company and 14 separate and distinct agencies had to sign off. AND IT IS STILL ILLEGAL FOR THEM TO EXPORT URANIUM TO RUSSIA.

            I know your reptile brain can’t handle difficult concepts. So just shut up.

          2. Stupid fuck.

            Radioactive sample of uranium ore.

            The ore sample material is Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials (NORM).
            Counts Per Minute (CPM) activity rate listed on the label is determined using a GCA-07W Digital Geiger Counter that has an NRC certification. Activity level includes all radiation types: alpha, beta and gamma. Uranium Ore samples are useful for testing Geiger Counters.

            License exempt. Uranium ore sample size and CPM activity will vary. Shipped in labeled metal container as shown.

            Shipping Information: We are always in compliance with Section 13 from part 40 of the NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission rules and regulations and Postal Service regulations specified in 49 CFR 173.421 for activity limits of low level radioactive materials. The item is shipped in accordance with Postal Service activity limits specified in Publication 52. Radioactive minerals are for educational and scientific use only. Images SI Inc., manufacturing electronic instruments and kits for over 25 years.

            Please note: Pictures of Geiger counters testing uranium ore sample and other picture(s) of nuclear equipment sold by Images SI Inc. are not included with uranium ore.”

          3. sheesh. somebody scraped up dirt from some uranium mine, put’s it in a tin, sells it and to you it is proof of, I suppose ofwidespread uranium sales. No wait. I guess it is proof that I don’t have ANY kind of education. I’m sorry. I have no science education. Fucking brilliant scientist you are. How long did it take you to search Amazon for your LOL “proof”?

      1. She didn’t win anything by U.S laws. If she won, she’d be in the White House. The fantasy is over. Trump is President, deal with it like we had to deal with Obama (and I voted for him the 1st time, but wasn’t stupid enough to vote for him the 2nd time, which was the bigger disaster span of the 8 years).

        1. She lost because obviously some votes are more equal than other’s… But she did get more votes, she crossed the finish line further than her opponent, but you’re right, them’s the rules. The rules have to change.

          1. The rules prevent California from electing the government for the entire nation, as they should and as they shall remain.

            Many people who are currently calling for the abolition of the Electoral College don’t realize the chaos that would result.

            Two elements of the “Great Compromise” among the large and small states led to the ratification of the Constitution. A House of Representatives would reflect the popular vote—disadvantaging the small states—but a Senate would give the small states equal representation with the large ones.

            This idea was carried through to the Electoral College, where each state’s allocation of electoral votes is simply the total of its representation in the House and Senate. This again gave the smaller states some additional power in the important choice of the president.

            Leaving aside the fact that a deal is a deal, there are very practical reasons why we will always need the Electoral College under our current constitutional system.

            The most important is that we want the presidential election to settle the question of legitimacy—who is entitled carry on the office of the president. Under the Constitution, the person who receives the most electoral votes becomes the president, even if he or she does not receive either a plurality or a majority of the popular vote.

            In the election of 1992, Bill Clinton received a majority of electoral votes and was the duly elected president, despite the fact that he received only a plurality (43 percent) of the popular votes. A third party candidate, Ross Perot, received almost 19 percent. In fact, Bill Clinton did not win a majority of the popular vote in either of his elections, yet there was never any doubt—because he won an Electoral College majority—that he had the legitimacy to speak for the American people.

            This points to the reason why the Electoral College should remain as an important element of our governmental structure. If we had a pure popular vote system, as many people who are disappointed with the 2016 outcome are now proposing, it would not be feasible—because of third party candidates—to ensure that any candidate would win a popular majority. Even in 2016, for example, although Hillary Clinton won the popular vote, she only received a plurality (48 percent)—not a majority; third party candidates took the rest.

            If we abandoned the Electoral College, and adopted a system in which a person could win the presidency with only a plurality of the popular votes we would be swamped with candidates. Every group with an ideological or major policy interest would field a candidate, hoping that their candidate would win a plurality and become the president.

            There would candidates of the pro-life and pro-choice parties; free trade and anti-trade parties; pro-immigration and anti-immigration parties; and parties favoring or opposing gun control—just to use the hot issues of today as examples.

            We see this effect in parliamentary systems, where the party with the most votes after an election has to put together a coalition of many parties in order to create a governing majority in the Parliament. Unless we were to scrap the constitutional system we have today and adopt a parliamentary structure, we could easily end up with a president elected with only 20 percent-25 percent of the vote.

            Of course, we could graft a run-off system onto our Constitution; the two top candidates in, say, a 10-person race, would then run against one another for the presidency. But that could easily mean that the American people would have a choice between a candidate of the pro-choice party and a candidate of the pro-gun party. If you thought the choice was bad this year, it could be far worse.

            Those who complain now that it is unfair for Donald Trump to become president when he received fewer votes than Hillary Clinton have not considered either the implications of what they are proposing or the genius of the Framers.

            Peter J. Wallison, senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, December 06, 2016

            1. The most cogent response I’ve read from you in a while. What you say is true, but there is an important omission.

              In a Federal Election, Federal rules should apply exclusively. Keep the EC, but abolish “winner takes all” and apply proportionally to the EC, for ALL states.

              BTW, Clinton was indeed a plurality President, but nobody else running got more votes than him.

            2. “Those who complain now that it is unfair for Donald Trump to become president when he received fewer votes than Hillary Clinton have not considered either the implications of what they are proposing or the genius of the Framers.”

              Hey electoralcollegecynic, any of Firsty’s post penetrating your one track mind? …

          2. “She lost because obviously some votes are more equal than other’s… ”

            Show me the evidence and quotes documenting some votes count more than others? I’ll save you the trouble, it does not exist — ALL votes are equal.

            Actually what you are really saying and you will NEVER admit, the 2.7 million votes in a handful of precincts count MORE than the the ALL 50 states in the brilliantly conceived electoral college.

            “But she did get more votes, she crossed the finish line further than her opponent, but you’re right, them’s the rules. The rules have to change.”

            She did not cross the finish line in the electoral college for the 100th time. Get it through your thick skull the popular vote is not as important as the electoral college. You want to change that and deny voices in all 50 states for mob city rule, OK, we can have that discussion.

            But NOT until we enact and enforce voter ID laws on a national scale and count the popular vote 100% FAIRLY …

            1. Yes, I am exactly saying that 2.7 million more votes count more than 2.7 million less votes, but each individual vote is of the same strength.

              The EC as implemented gives disproportionate power to the small states due to the winner take all electoral votes policy of most states. This disenfranchised the losing votes in that state, like they never happened. If the state split the electors according to actual vote totals, it would have been majority rule.

              I’m not going to argue math with you, especially grammar school math.

            2. You are a moving target and cherry pick your points and ignore other facts, realities and questions. Sorry you can’t handle it all at once …

    1. I don’t now about impeachment. But I from my point of view, they were the two worst candidates for US President in my lifetime. Two worthless political parties. Both liars. Both bought and sold. Both incapable of actually representing We The People. 😛

        1. BS. You can’t even tell where his business debts end and his elected duties begin. Is his every weekend golfing on his resort official business or personal vacation? You have been duped. Only a matter of time before you wake up and realize what an empty suit Trump is. All his Tough talk does not deliver wise decisive action.

          1. So I guess you missed the passage of two important immigration bills Kate’s law being number one.

            Guess you also missed pulling out of the climate agreement which would have cost us billions with ZERO enforcement and ZERO oversight.

            Guess you seriously missed pulling out of the Pacific trade agreement, jump starting the Keystone pipeline, nullifying dozens of ridiculous executive orders, stock market soaring, unemployment down and other healthy economic numbers.

            The opposition is forever clueless …

            1. Clueless? I guess you seriously missed the fact that Kate’s Law does not do anything new that was not already on the books. Specifically, it would not have saved Kate, since she was killed by somebody who was in jail under the prior law but was released solely due to a clerical error by the Federal Bureau of Prisons. This “important bill” is window-dressing, like most of Mr. Trump’s other accomplishments (apart from his Supreme Court nomination, which will have serious consequences for the rest of my lifetime).

              Remember all the HVAC jobs Mr. Trump “saved?” They all went to Mexico anyway. Remember all the auto assembly jobs he saved? They all went to Asia instead of the US (or Mexico). His immigration orders have mostly had the effect of spending a fortune in taxpayer money on litigation to keep elderly citizens of six Middle Eastern countries from visiting their grandchildren.

              The Keystone Pipeline will generate less than a hundred permanent jobs. The stock market has been “soaring” since long before the election, and unemployment was falling throughout President Obama’s second term.

              Not a single presidential candidate last fall supported TPP, so it would not have gone forward no matter who won. There was as little support for it among Democrats in Congress as among the Republicans.

              As for our Fearless Leader fighting for “we the people,” the Trump Administration is hardly government by the people and for the people. It is government by people with eight to eleven-digit fortunes (mostly with ties to the New York City real estate or financial industries) for people like themselves.

              Example 1: Mr. Trump called the health bill his House followers adopted “mean” because it would increase the number of Americans without health insurance by 23 million. The best bill his Senate followers could come up with would deny care to 22 million. Since that isn’t mean enough for Senators Paul and Cruz, Mr. Trump is now supporting “repeal without replace,” which would generate 32 million additional uninsured Americans. It would also provide a spectacular financial windfall for the few wealthy individuals who would see their taxes decrease more than their medical costs increased.

              Example 2: Mr. Trump is supporting the repeal of the subsidies that allow poor people to purchase fuel oil to heat their homes. His excuse for this is (a) to claim that a 0.03% rate of households suspected of fraud (about 100 cases nationwide) proves that the program is rife with fraud, and (b) to claim, falsely, that there are laws in place that would require suppliers to continue delivering fuel oil to customers who have not and cannot pay for it. No such laws exist anywhere in America.

              He has also demonstrated his complete contempt for every clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Read it and weep. I have been doing both.

      1. Hmm… As a Mac and iOS user I guess I should have voted for both of them…? I actually voted for somebody else because neither Clinton or Trump were worthy of my vote. One is an idiot and one is a liar, you decide which is which.

        (Hint: It is “both of them”)

      2. “Both incapable of actually representing We The People.”

        You could not be more WRONG.

        President Donald Trump is the EPITOME of we the people, by the people and fighting for the people. Surprised you do not see it.

        I won’t go into a litany of lists to prove my case again. See my response to Sarah.

        You have been posting political for years now with the same meme. Both political parties are 50/50 responsible for the blame.

        I would score it at 80/20 favoring Republicans …

        1. President Donald Trump is the EPITOME of we the people

          A) You’re a sucker. His promises have turned to lies so many times at this point that he has lost all credibility.

          B) If The Trump is the EPITOME of We The People, we are thoroughly screwed. I personally hold hope that the citizens of my country can learn from their FAILs and apply their acquired wisdom to actually improve the future. I dream.

          My summary of the Republicans at this point: Sociopathic. Have fun proving me wrong. Their sociopathy is consistent and destructive. Witness Paul Ryan. Witness the Republican’s PsycopathiCare. They literally have no idea how to help anyone but the rich and corporate. If you’re in that category, you think they’re just great. Is that you Goeb? Are you one of the overlords of We The Peasants?

          And as usual kids, don’t pretend I have any love for the current DemoCraps either. I vote for NEITHER party these days. That’s why I encourage third parties, any and all of them.

            1. Ahhhh, no. Are we better off after 8 years of Obama. DEFINITIVE NO! Trump has been in office less than eight months and look at the enthusiasm and economic outlook. Obama was economy clueless — PRESIDENT Trump is no fear economic master machine. Already better off, and getting stronger every day. Oh, I’m sorry if the FAKE media doesn’t tell you that everyday as opposed to Russia everyday …

            2. No, even though you are wearing President Trump blinders and following fake news for your misinformation, we are much better off in a few short months and what lies ahead in eight years will be outstanding …

    1. And of course the Democrats never did anything of the sort for the 50-60 year period where they had an impenetrable lock on the House… 😒

      Gerrymandering is a feature of our democracy driven by the constitutional requirement for proportional representation by voting district. It’s not going away. Even if you assigned computers to draw the lines you would get arguments about who wrote the algorithm and what nefarious intent they embedded in its logic.

      That’s not to say that we ignore the more egregious examples of stacking the voting deck. Gerrymandering has had the unforeseen side effect of making it more difficult for moderates to get elected, which explains why our politics appears to be more polarized than ever before. The result is that more and more Americans feel alienated from the two primary political parties. The election of Donald Trump who is, in truth, neither a Republican nor a Democrat was driven in large part because he was able to effectively use demagoguery to feed off the alienation many felt toward the hard right or hard left of both political parties.

      1. The “side effect” of excluding moderation while polarizing America into two camps at war with one another has become the major product of computer-assisted gerrymandering.

        Since the primaries have become the real election in the lopsided districts, candidates need only keep a majority of Republican activists happy; Democrats, Independents, and even moderate Republicans don’t matter. As often as not, there isn’t even a contested election in November.

        Yes, the Democrats play the same game, with moderates, conservatives, and libertarians having almost no say in electing anyone in Democratic districts. However, they controlled fewer state legislatures when the 2010 Census was released, and the concentration of Democratic voters in compact cities makes it harder to gerrymander in their favor. Moderates of either party can’t get past the primary anywhere.

        The malapportioned legislatures can—and do—then augment their map manipulation by establishing voting procedures that discriminate against citizens likely to vote for the other party (e.g., voter ID laws that disadvantage those who do not own a car and early-voting hours that disadvantage people who must work during those hours). To that, add the post-Citizens United environment where corporate contributions can be unlimited and, in many cases, kept nonpublic. That puts a thumb on the scale against the middle class.

        This process does not just have an impact on party politics, but on policy formation. In Texas, four of the eleven largest cities in the US have been sliced like pies to minimize their legislative representation, and thus their impact on state legislation. Consequently, when it comes to choosing whether to build urban mass transit or farm-to-market highways, the farmers always win. Likewise when it comes to choosing whether to improve urban schools or enrich suburban districts. On a per capita basis, the patients at rural hospitals get much more state funding than those at urban clinics.

        Since minorities, single parents, and “out” LGBT voters mostly live in cities, their concerns get short shrift. Our elected Supreme Court ruled today that it could effectively overrule the SCOTUS decision on equal rights for same-sex marriages. That is a simple example of the consequences when primaries become entirely one sided.

        The same thing happens on a national basis because there are more senators from predominantly rural states (or pretend-rural states like Texas) than from consciously urban states.

        Again, all this may be legal, but the disenfranchised majority see it as profoundly unfair. If they are offered no legal outlet for their concerns, they may be tempted to pursue politics by other means.

    1. I have 3 Macs and 4 iOS devices and I had enough of Democrat ruling and voted Trump. I used the Reagan test: was my life better after 8 years of Obama. NO. And Hillary promised 8 more years of that crap. A candidate with a different Democrat view might have one, but you guys insisted she deserved her crown, it was her turn. So we told you it wasn’t automatic after all. Put up garbage, lose the election. If a crappy candidate like her that half the country hated ALMOST won, think what you guys could have done with a decent candidate. You could have won. But you didn’t, so go cry with Hillary somewhere.

    1. I too felt that electing Hillary would have been a mistake. Apparently, so did a large number of others who refused to play the “lesser of two evils” game and washed their hands of the whole matter. Myself, I supported Lindsey Graham, and when he dropped out, so did I. But I consider Android a sickening disease. Maybe people like me who think such things are not destined to cast deciding votes, but to forever dwell in a tech underground libertarian subculture, contemptuous of mainstream politics but unwilling to take them on directly.

      1. My first choice was Scott Walker. A courageous Republican fighter in a blue state that took government unions head on. He won and survived a phony recall effort. Graham is pampered priviledge in a red state and can’t even carry Walker’s jockstrap, sorry.

        Eventually settled for the Don. Electing a neophyte non-politician for the highest office in the land that slayed 16 experienced professional politicians was a true honor. I love a street fighter … ✊

        1. I respectfully disagree with your characterisation of Graham. He represents the best instincts of the Republican Party and would have made a good president. I respect your desire, and that of the voters, for a candidate who transcended Washington politics-as-usual, and that candidate was Donald Trump. As president he is a work in progress, not yet Lincolnesque. We will give him time. But even a street fighter needs a gang, and when he goes out to recruit his dirty dozen, we hope he picks the ones with the scars, not just the sycophants that cosied up to him.

          1. Lindsey Anne Graham-Cracker, after returning from the 2016 BIlderberger meeting in Dresden, Germany, was asked what was discussed. He replied, “How to defeat Donald Trump.”

            Graham is globalist piece of shit, a traitor to American sovereignty.

            1. Sir, I’ve noticed a repeat pattern of use, I’m just making sure you have your ideological purity at the level commensurate of a True Conservative and “Real American” (whatever that is..)

              I’m ARINO (Anal Retentive In Name Only).

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.