Very low life behavior to bring up my kid in an argument.

I guess even with my blue tendencies our fearless "leader" is wearing off on me.

Jul 20, 2018 14:56:22 GMT Ness said:

Jul 20, 2018 13:29:05 GMT Mistress said:

Guess it's time to start looking at Canadian real estate...

They have recreation legal or soon don't they?

Very soon I believe.
More reason to get out of here.

Jul 20, 2018 21:52:52 GMT The Kid said:

Very low life behavior to bring up my kid in an argument.

The tolerant left for you.

Jul 21, 2018 3:44:58 GMT System said:

Jul 20, 2018 21:52:52 GMT The Kid said:

Very low life behavior to bring up my kid in an argument.

The tolerant left for you.

And they wonder why they keep losing....

You have to be intolerant of the intolerant.

Jul 21, 2018 5:57:47 GMT KITN said:

You have to be intolerant of the intolerant.

Screaming Nazi at everyone to the right of Bernie Sanders is why the left keep losing.

Jul 21, 2018 9:09:52 GMT System said:

Jul 21, 2018 5:57:47 GMT KITN said:

You have to be intolerant of the intolerant.

Screaming Nazi at everyone to the right of Bernie Sanders is why the left keep losing.

This a 1000x.   

Yes, this exactly sums up the current political climate, I wonder when we decided that shutting down a debate equals winning it.
We have tonnes of left wing protesters in Australia at the moment due to the visit of a right wing canadian YouTube troll. The left can't stop themselves from being over reacting assholes even though that is what her business model relies on... Garbage!

Whether you call someone a cuck or a fascist it does nothing towards winning your argument.

Jul 21, 2018 11:13:05 GMT iNCY said:

Yes, this exactly sums up the current political climate, I wonder when we decided that shutting down a debate equals winning it.
We have tonnes of left wing protesters in Australia at the moment due to the visit of a right wing canadian YouTube troll. The left can't stop themselves from being over reacting assholes even though that is what her business model relies on... Garbage!

Whether you call someone a cuck or a fascist it does nothing towards winning your argument.

I’m going to the Sydney event on Saturday, I’ll let you know if it’s anywhere as near as bad as Melbourne. Pretty pathetic there was no arrests despite them blocking a major highway. Can think of more threatening things to Australia than Lauren Southern.

Someone’s going to need to explain to me how disagreeing is intolerance? You sure love to throw that term out a lot.

Jul 21, 2018 5:21:24 GMT thereallt said:

Jul 21, 2018 3:44:58 GMT System said:

The tolerant left for you.

And they wonder why they keep losing....

We’re losing because population trends have outgrown the idea of an electoral college.

I know a popular vote doesn’t work for Republicans, but hey, even Trump supports it.

You mentioned earlier the liberal vote is centered on a handful of geographies (as I noted in my link earlier as well) ... my question to you is: How does that disqualify or minimize liberal viewpoints? Why does it matter if a majority our in certain locations? Why should the minority have greater control because they’re more dispersed?

None of that disqualifies the Dems failing to appeal to more rust belt states, mind you.

Jul 21, 2018 16:44:01 GMT KJ said:

Someone’s going to need to explain to me how disagreeing is intolerance? You sure love to throw that term out a lot.


There is disagreeing and there is being a jackass.   Bringing his kid into the discussion was a dick move.

Jul 21, 2018 20:52:52 GMT thereallt said:

Jul 21, 2018 16:44:01 GMT KJ said:

Someone’s going to need to explain to me how disagreeing is intolerance? You sure love to throw that term out a lot.


There is disagreeing and there is being a jackass.   Bringing his kid into the discussion was a dick move.

The naming thing was a joke.

The gay thing is a direct quote from him.

Jul 21, 2018 19:16:37 GMT System said:

Jul 21, 2018 16:54:15 GMT KJ said:

We’re losing because population trends have outgrown the idea of an electoral college.

I know a popular vote doesn’t work for Republicans, but hey, even Trump supports it.

Democrats have obviously managed to win many elections with this method, with Obama’s 2008 election getting 365/270 for example

What changed so drastically in 10 years?

We have popular voting in Australia, and the Liberal (conservative) Party has been in power for 5 years (2013-) and previously 11 years
(1996-2007) after Labor’s term so I don’t think it neccessarily means the left wing party will win. Though voting is mandatory here, which means a lot of people just mark the first party listed as “1” and call it a day or just donkey vote.

It actually goes back five elections now, to W. The Democratic candidate has received the majority of the vote in 4 of the last 5 elections, and only taken office twice.

There’s a flaw in that system when the majority of voting Americans don’t actually make the decision.

Why is it happening? Because population is shifting to key areas in the country while the middle part of America is staying the same or declining in population. So as that trend continues the few’s voice gets greater.

Jul 21, 2018 19:16:37 GMT System said:

Jul 21, 2018 16:54:15 GMT KJ said:

We’re losing because population trends have outgrown the idea of an electoral college.

I know a popular vote doesn’t work for Republicans, but hey, even Trump supports it.

Democrats have obviously managed to win many elections with this method, with Obama’s 2008 election getting 365/270 for example

What changed so drastically in 10 years?

Obama won the popular vote by 7% and 4%, and if Hillary had gotten those numbers she also would’ve been considerably more likely to win. Increase her vote total by 2% she wins Pennsylvania, Michigan, Florida and Wisconsin and the electoral college. Both times that a Democrat has won by less than four percent in the last twenty years they have lost.

Why don't people ever compare ideologies and leaders to Mao, stalin, ceausescu or pol pot?

Jul 22, 2018 1:37:47 GMT mikec said:

Jul 21, 2018 19:16:37 GMT System said:

Democrats have obviously managed to win many elections with this method, with Obama’s 2008 election getting 365/270 for example

What changed so drastically in 10 years?

Obama won the popular vote by 7% and 4%, and if Hillary had gotten those numbers she also would’ve been considerably more likely to win. Increase her vote total by 2% she wins Pennsylvania, Michigan, Florida and Wisconsin and the electoral college. Both times that a Democrat has won by less than four percent in the last twenty years they have lost.

When would you guys propose the change would take place to popular vote? I’d say the democratic candidates obviously have a
campaign statergy for 2020 that would have to be drastically different.

Even by 2024 seems too early considering how much money they cost i’d say some are preparing to run already and would need to be announced soon. I’m not opposed to it, I’m genuinely curious how you would propose it?

Jul 21, 2018 11:13:05 GMT iNCY said:

Yes, this exactly sums up the current political climate, I wonder when we decided that shutting down a debate equals winning it.
We have tonnes of left wing protesters in Australia at the moment due to the visit of a right wing canadian YouTube troll. The left can't stop themselves from being over reacting assholes even though that is what her business model relies on... Garbage!

Whether you call someone a cuck or a fascist it does nothing towards winning your argument.

So sad that a trans man cannot speak without people rushing the stage trying to silence him.

I love his stuff on why we should not let emotional perception dictate policy or the lack of nuance in argumentation anymore.  The anti-Islam and xenophobia stuff not so much though.

Jul 22, 2018 4:12:41 GMT System said:

Jul 22, 2018 1:37:47 GMT mikec said:

Obama won the popular vote by 7% and 4%, and if Hillary had gotten those numbers she also would’ve been considerably more likely to win. Increase her vote total by 2% she wins Pennsylvania, Michigan, Florida and Wisconsin and the electoral college. Both times that a Democrat has won by less than four percent in the last twenty years they have lost.

When would you guys propose the change would take place to popular vote? I’d say the democratic candidates obviously have a
campaign statergy for 2020 that would have to be drastically different.

Even by 2024 seems too early considering how much money they cost i’d say some are preparing to run already and would need to be announced soon. I’m not opposed to it, I’m genuinely curious how you would propose it?

This implies they have a strategy.  They really don't and it is why we will lose.  Again.  GOP has amazing think tanks engaging in enacting strategy that with some modifications, is entering it's 50 year and made sure GOP presidents held office majority of the time while they worked on consolidating power in the house and in local politics.  It's the grand cumulation of decades of planning will come in 2020 if Trump can win, as they will take almost complete control of the Supreme Court.  Once this happens they can lock themselves into power with gerrymandering, since they aggressively take over local politics.

Now compare this to what democrats have done.  We passed healthcare reform and it hurt many in middle america when we allowed it to be co-opted and skyrocket medical costs.  We passed a crime reduction bill and saw it co-opted and used to fill prisons.  We built up a single leader for 20 years then rejected her.  We have no solutions for the rust belt, no solutions to the drug epidemics and no solution to bring jobs back to the US.  Our policy has been to pray someone like Kennedy or Obama comes along and we can get some stuff done before the inevitable return to GOP control.  The last election was literally the party running on if you do not vote for us you are an awful person.  And 2020 is more of the same.  

Jul 22, 2018 4:12:41 GMT System said:

Jul 22, 2018 1:37:47 GMT mikec said:

Obama won the popular vote by 7% and 4%, and if Hillary had gotten those numbers she also would’ve been considerably more likely to win. Increase her vote total by 2% she wins Pennsylvania, Michigan, Florida and Wisconsin and the electoral college. Both times that a Democrat has won by less than four percent in the last twenty years they have lost.

When would you guys propose the change would take place to popular vote? I’d say the democratic candidates obviously have a
campaign statergy for 2020 that would have to be drastically different.

Even by 2024 seems too early considering how much money they cost i’d say some are preparing to run already and would need to be announced soon. I’m not opposed to it, I’m genuinely curious how you would propose it?

Well it would require a constitutional amendment, which would require a lot of people that benefit from the system signing off on changing it. If we lived in a magical world where it could be changed though the sooner the better, because nobody is running an electoral college campaign yet, they’re all worried about the primary.

Jul 21, 2018 19:16:37 GMT System said:

Jul 21, 2018 16:54:15 GMT KJ said:

We’re losing because population trends have outgrown the idea of an electoral college.

I know a popular vote doesn’t work for Republicans, but hey, even Trump supports it.

Democrats have obviously managed to win many elections with this method, with Obama’s 2008 election getting 365/270 for example

What changed so drastically in 10 years?

We have popular voting in Australia, and the Liberal (conservative) Party has been in power for 5 years (2013-) and previously 11 years
(1996-2007) after Labor’s term so I don’t think it neccessarily means the left wing party will win. Though voting is mandatory here, which means a lot of people just mark the first party listed as “1” and call it a day or just donkey vote.

Ummm... No we don't, for us it is a little like the USA, whoever wins the most seats wins the election.
We also don't for our our Prime Minister, we vote for a party and they nominate their leader.
It's not states for us, it is seats which is sort of the same thing.
Ironically if we went by states we would nearly always be Conservative.

The only reason labour gets in power every few rounds in Australia is mandatory voting, if we didn't have that we would have different outcomes, more like the USA.

Jul 22, 2018 14:02:47 GMT iNCY said:

Jul 21, 2018 19:16:37 GMT System said:

Democrats have obviously managed to win many elections with this method, with Obama’s 2008 election getting 365/270 for example

What changed so drastically in 10 years?

We have popular voting in Australia, and the Liberal (conservative) Party has been in power for 5 years (2013-) and previously 11 years
(1996-2007) after Labor’s term so I don’t think it neccessarily means the left wing party will win. Though voting is mandatory here, which means a lot of people just mark the first party listed as “1” and call it a day or just donkey vote.

Ummm... No we don't, for us it is a little like the USA, whoever wins the most seats wins the election.
We also don't for our our Prime Minister, we vote for a party and they nominate their leader.
It's not states for us, it is seats which is sort of the same thing.
Ironically if we went by states we would nearly always be Conservative.

The only reason labour gets in power every few rounds in Australia is mandatory voting, if we didn't have that we would have different outcomes, more like the USA.

I know, Sorry should have explained better, was 4am when I wrote that I think.

Jul 22, 2018 14:19:57 GMT System said:

Jul 22, 2018 14:02:47 GMT iNCY said:

Ummm... No we don't, for us it is a little like the USA, whoever wins the most seats wins the election.
We also don't for our our Prime Minister, we vote for a party and they nominate their leader.
It's not states for us, it is seats which is sort of the same thing.
Ironically if we went by states we would nearly always be Conservative.

The only reason labour gets in power every few rounds in Australia is mandatory voting, if we didn't have that we would have different outcomes, more like the USA.

I know, Sorry should have explained better, was 4am when I wrote that I think.

Ambien?

Jul 22, 2018 15:42:25 GMT KJ said:

Jul 22, 2018 14:19:57 GMT System said:

I know, Sorry should have explained better, was 4am when I wrote that I think.

Ambien?

No, was just staying up late watching Planet of the Apes.

A few assorted thoughts, because I don't want to multi-quote like six long posts and make this unreadable:

 - As of right now, I do think Trump takes 2020. Democrats don't have a front-runner, don't have a campaign platform other than Not-Trump (and ask John Kerry how well being Not-Bush worked out for him in 2004) and I kinda think the Dems are going to send a lamb to the slaughter, only because you have to have *someone* in that spot. I don't think they're ready to run someone for realsies yet.

 - I don't know that Bernie would have beat Trump. Sure, he might poll better right now, but the Republicans didn't run against him. They ran against Clinton from day 1 and Sanders wasn't on their radar enough to target. I mean, they ramped up the rhetoric against Hillary to the point where people legitimately believed there was a pedo sex dungeon in a pizza parlor and Clinton definitely was in on it. If you think the conservative machine wouldn't be able to find a way to smear a self-described (democratic) SOCIALIST JEW then I dunno what to say.

 - I am not at all surprised that the Democratic party preferred Clinton to Sanders. Bernie is an Independent, until he decided it would be easier to run for POTUS as a Democrat. (And I'm someone who voted for him in the primary.) Hillary's been the one who was in the party, who had to stand alongside and support positions she maybe didn't necessarily hold for the good of the party, who had to run fundraisers for other Dems and fight for others. Bernie got to stand alone, do his own thing and largely throw insults from the peanut gallery. Which is great, but again I can see why the DNC would prefer the person who's put in the time to someone who hasn't.

 - I am sick of the counter to Trump losing the popular vote being 'well, if you take out the coastal areas/CA and NYC/blah blah blah.' What, do I not count as a person? Am I not an American? A vote from Wyoming is effectively worth 4 times mine already, why are you trying to disenfranchise me even more than that?

Bernie couldn’t stand up to that black girl hijacking his event or the DNC rigging the primaries so I can’t see him doing well against Trump as his opponent.

The conspiracy theories about Hollywood being full of rapists and pedo’s aged well.

Twitter people inflating obvious jokes into pedophilia is suddenly my least favorite thing in the world.

I get why Disney got rid of James Gunn because they’re Disney. But ugh. What sad people have this kind of time?

Jul 24, 2018 23:46:29 GMT mikec said:

Twitter people inflating obvious jokes into pedophilia is suddenly my least favorite thing in the world.

I get why Disney got rid of James Gunn because they’re Disney. But ugh. What sad people have this kind of time?

I mean ... Gunn apologized for those Tweets years ago. This was a Conservative guy hellbent on taking down a "liberal elite." Disney is in the wrong, here.

Jul 25, 2018 0:33:52 GMT KJ said:

Jul 24, 2018 23:46:29 GMT mikec said:

Twitter people inflating obvious jokes into pedophilia is suddenly my least favorite thing in the world.

I get why Disney got rid of James Gunn because they’re Disney. But ugh. What sad people have this kind of time?

I mean ... Gunn apologized for those Tweets years ago. This was a Conservative guy hellbent on taking down a "liberal elite." Disney is in the wrong, here.

Haven’t seen any years old apology for the tweets. Not that I want or care about apologies. Its apparently not that hard to dump tweets, given that when the trouble started he mass deleted tons of them.

I just don’t think that there’s a right and a wrong in the situation between Gunn and Disney. I don’t think it’s wrong to make offensive tweets in the interest of humor. I don’t think it’s wrong for a company like Disney with its business model and its audience to let go of a writer:director over him saying things like this and leaving them easily found.

I don’t like the motivations behind the attack, obviously. I think those guys are in the wrong. But once it went viral I’m not surprised this is the tack Disney went and I don’t blame them for it.