You didn't watch the presidential debate last night

at least Al knows how to do it fair and balanced unlike that slanted rap battles of history shiet

 

you mean you watched it without knowing beforehand that it was going to be crap?

 

well they do have a couple good ones.

 

yes, the good ones are based on history or pop culture, not current events.

you can't create a story of a lifetime out of a life only half lived.

 

A Lesson in Cognitive Dissonance

Posted November 23rd, 2016 @ 8:22am in #Trump #WhenHub

As Trump continues to demonstrate that he was never the incompetent monster his critics believed him to be, the critics will face an identity crisis. They either have to accept that they understand almost nothing about how the world works – because they got everything wrong about Trump – or they need to double-down on their current hallucination. Most of his critics will double-down. That’s how normal brains work.

And that brings us to our current situation. As Trump continues to defy all predictions from his critics, the critics need to maintain their self-images as the smart ones who saw this new Hitler coming. And that means you will see hallucinations like you have never seen. It will be epic.

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/153559105081/a-lesson-in-cognitive-dissonance

 

Scott Adams has been pretty on-point this year.

 

If you want to talk about something then talk about it - as in, write something in your own words. This is a place to have conversations, not for wearing sandwich boards.

 

I'm sorry, Trump got elected and that somehow proves that he's competent?

You guys elected George W Bush. Twice.

 

Also did you guys see that Hillary is estimated to win the popular vote by 2,5 million?

It's funny how in the last 5 elections 2 of them have gone full rogue on popular vote. That's a 60% winrate for democracy

 

And every time you post that without mentioning that the electoral college has a huge impact on voter turnout in non-swing states it makes you look like the silly liberals with their silly polls, and their irrefutable data - basically Sok.

It's like saying the Race car with the fastest lap should have won the race on the merits that he's the fastest race car when looking at the race on a by-lap basis.

Pop vote is not how the election is measured. So you really cannot even officially label all the combined individual votes as a popular vote due to the unknown effects of EC on voter turnout.

The election is measured with EC. Done. The end. If you want to win the political pageant then you need to play by the rules.

Trumps strategy would have been completely different if there was no EC. No one has any way of knowing exactly how that outcome would have turned out. But he wasn't trying to get the fastest lap time, because that doesn't Firking win him the prize.

Also funny, the EC was just fine until it didn't provide the desired result.

I get it, it's the only thing the snowflakes have left at this point now that the safe spaces have been closed, the hot chocolate and pizza gone, the companion animals back in their testing labs and the realization that electoral voter vote change is not actually a reality.

But those knobs are knobs. The people here should have slightly more intelligence than the knobs.

So from now on, when any of you mentions popular vote at the same time as ignoring electoral college, I'll just award you your knob trophy and requote this post.

Love,

Baskit

 

Popular vote is important. Although it has never been the metric used to determine the president.

Shots on goal is a cool thing to track in soccer. Actual goals determine who wins.

Obama won 28 states, DC and NE-02 in 2008 and he won 26 states + DC in 2012. Trump won 30 states this year. Blue wall pierced, bigly.

 

Yeah yeah EC

However to me the more democratic way is still 1 person 1 vote, most votes win.
And if that means that cali has more votes and importance than wyoming, it should, cause wyoming has -15 people living in it and half the US lives in cali.

Also this is the worst comparison anyone has ever made.

Votes are just tries and if you win your state your vote matters, otherwise it doesn't? Aight. Democracy in the land of the free

 

I feel like you aren't even trying to understand the point of the EC, burn.

 

also since you seem to have your period

I in no way was making this a "omg hillary shoulda totally won this is so rigged wtf", nor was it a "omg trump got lucky cause x or y yada yada".

It's just genuinely interesting that it seems that total votes in America is not the defining metric. Because you guys seem to value individual states more than "america" as a whole.

 

individual states are represented yada yada nobody is left out

sure

but at the same time you make votes in large states less important, which means that there isn't a "1 person = 1 vote". Because to me it seems that a vote of someone in a small state has a bigger impact than a vote in a bigger state.

 

It's almost like we're called the United States or something, crazy, right?

 

The animosity in my post is directed at the subject in general. Apologies if it seemed directed at you.

We don't value indivdual states more than the union, but we've always had a very strong backbone of making sure that the states are a voice for their people and making sure those states have the power to exercise some control over the federal govt and share some responsibility with the same.

It stems from the fact that we had a bunch of people get fed up with a monarchy and trying to ensure the same thing didn't happen again, even if you substitute political for royal.

Secondly, people identify very strongly with their state, across all areas - political or otherwise. Always know that this will be the case and never be surprised when states fight to hold/gain/use power over the fed.

 

see that's why we started America. cuz the opinions of Europeans are stupid.

 

1) Government of MuriKa is a Constitutional Republic with a strong democratic impulse. The 17th Amendment to the US Constitution strengthened the central government, via more democracy within each state, and weakened state power. Those that prefer a more hegemonic central gvt turn to democracy as the lever to pull/push, while those that prefer greater local control advocate for states' rights. And so the political teeter-totter moves up and down from cycle to cycle.

California is worth 55 EC votes, while Wyoming is worth 3. Wyoming has 1 Representative in the House, and California has 53.

2) You forgot to quote everything that I said. And then you proceeded to criticize that portion.

The following 2 sentences go together:

"Shots on goal is a cool thing to track in soccer. Actual goals determine who wins.

Obama won 28 states, DC and NE-02 in 2008 and he won 26 states + DC in 2012. Trump won 30 states this year. Blue wall pierced, bigly."

I attempted to share my belief that winning a state is somewhat like scoring a goal. Trump won 30 states. HRC won 20 states + DC. Savvy?

 

Sure

Like I said, you value each state more than the whole of the "union" or whatever. Yet your choosing a union. I can understand the idea of "each state should be represented in a way so EC", but I disagree that this is the most democratic thing to do.

It find it silly that as a whole, your country elects someone that has fewer outspoken supporters than the other guy.