Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Svip
4,024

Svip 4,024

There are a lot of misconceptions about the Electoral College, including - most often - that its raison d'être is to give rural voters more weight. No.

The EC was created because it was decided that the states should elect the President. The people had the House and the state legislatures had the Senate, and the states together had the Presidency. And considering the lack of power the presidency was initially entrusted with, it made good sense.

Particularly considering the sort of Federation they envisioned. But the constitution itself only specifies that states should have N number of electors, not how those states will pick them (this is why Nebraska and Maine have three and two district electors, respectively). That was left up to the states. And until 1860, every state did not use popular vote to decide their electors (the last state to maintain no popular vote of electors was South Carolina).

The constitution provides for Congress to decide the two election days: First the one where the states pick their electors and second when the electors cast their ballot. Currently, those are the first Tuesday after a Monday in November and second Tuesday in December, respectively. But Congress can change that when they see fit, it does not require a constitutional change.

But back to the Electoral College, the original disagreements were not whether or not it should exist, but how many electors each state should have. Originally, it was proposed that each state should have the same number of electors as representatives, plus representatives was calculated specifically according to their population makeup.

But rural sparsely populated states thought this would give them too few electoral votes, and populous states like New York and Pennsylvania would end up picking the President. Remember, the states that got this method through were the same states that were the last ones to use popular votes to decide their electors. Indeed, these states didn't care about their voters, they cared about picking a President favourable to them. And they were generally slave states, and slaves count only as 3/5 of a free person.

So instead the system would be that each state got 2 + their number of representatives. But they also rewrote the model to define the number of representatives, so larger states would get fewer and smaller states would get more.

Example: There are 1.05 million people in Rhode Island. Rhode Island has 2 representatives. That works out to ~528,000 per representative. California has a population of 39.14 million people. California has 53 representatives. That works out to ~738,500 per representative. If California had one representative per 528,000 (as Rhode Island does), California should have 74 representatives.

But 74 is too high, because 528,000 is already too low. Remember, Rhode Island gets more representatives than it should, so its number is below average, while California is above average. There are 309,349,689 people in the United States according to the 2010 census and 435 seats in the House of Representatives. That works out to an average of 711,148 per representative. So not only is Rhode Island way below average, but California is near average. But hey, you say, if you calculate Rhode Island's representatives like that, they should get 1.5, and you cannot have half people. So apparently, you round up (even though the actual number is 1.48534), because the rules benefit smaller states and hurt larger states.

For the record, using 711,148, California would get two more representatives.

All of this means that today, a vote in Rhode Island carry more weight than one in California. Also consider that the number of electoral votes doesn't change with how many actually votes. Imagine just one guy voted in California. That would mean one person got to elect 55 electors.

According to the US constitution, only representatives are required to be elected by popular vote. Article I, Section 2, says that the representatives shall be chosen by the people of the several states. Indeed, the constitution doesn't actually state that representatives should be FPTP within a district. A state could use Proportional Representation within its entire state to elect all its representatives.

Article I, Section 3, says that senators shall be chosen by the state legislatures. The thinking was that senators represented the states and not the people, and could therefore be seasoned politicians without having to campaign for their terms. It was inspired by the British House of Lords, to be sort of a 'grown up check' on the lower house. However, these clause was modified by the 17th amendment to provide for the people to elect the senators instead.

The Electoral College construction is therefore a compromise solution between Northern and Southern states at the time.

But one might sit back and reflect; OK, this was how people in the 1780s and 1790s thought the United States should be. But perhaps - 240+ years later - one might consider whether it is the same country one wants. Indeed, the Founders themselves were not too happy about their compromises and they disagreed a lot about how it worked.

The idea of a new constitution within a century was definitely considered plausible, if not necessary. Constitutional experts may reflect that a lot of new knowledge have been gathered since the 1780s, and this knowledge have been used to write constitutions of other countries.

So in the end; one should ask one self: Should the United States be a Republic first or a Democracy first? If you aim for the former, then stop calling it a Democracy. Call it a Republic. However, if you wish to achieve the latter, then perhaps you ought to consider that the country is in need of new election systems, and maybe a new constitution.

Maybe you ought to have a referendum on that?

Edited November 10, 2016 by Svip

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

AzraelRPG
295

AzraelRPG 295

I actually believe Trump won by a landslide, and a lot of the vote was either shaved or stolen, it's happened in my home state the past 4 election cycles with both the RINO Republicans and the Democrats. And, unlike the rest of the country, in the past 13 Presidential election, no candidate has won without Ohio's votes. Now there is proof that there was widespread fraud. Texas was forced to revert to paper ballots midway through early voting due to the machines flipping votes for Hillary Clinton, it can only be done if pre-programmed. Florida election officials were caught rigging the vote early on for Hillary. Indiana also had massive issues. Pennsylvania even indicted a person of major power within the DNC and the Pennsylvania government due to a mixture of the Podesta emails and her being caught (sorry, I am sh*t at remembering names). Not to mention, there were a ton of poll watchers that were witnessing magic jumps that went 100% in one way, small numbers, but still enough to make large differences. That isn't even mentioning how Trump had only consistently held 33.3% of the vote in California, a state so populated that it holds close to 1/9 electoral votes. Watching California, Trump's numbers should have fluctuated, but it stayed consistent. Same with New York. Ohio avoided the fraud because we got rid of all the electronic devices and went back to the old fashioned way of doing things. By the way, this isn't even mentioning the miraculous amount of resurrected voters that turned out to vote, some even twice, which was around 2 million dead voters. And yet, with all that, and whatever other fraud (looking at places like NH, states shouldn't be called so close), Clinton still only succeeded in a 0.2% lead in the popular vote.

Clinton had some major financial backers, including a George Soros, who owns 2 voting machine companies, and is a major stakeholder in 3, one of them is Diebold (the machines that cause voter fraud here in Ohio). Soros was also a massive backer to both Bushes, Bill Clinton, and the Obamas. As well as the MSM, the Clinton Foundation, and has claimed to have been the one to help destabilize a number of nations, including, but not limited to, Syria, Ukraine, Lybia, and Egypt. Tried to disrupt the peace during Brexit. Helped fund violent jihadis to infiltrate Europe, which has made some of those places war zones. And has been funding a multitude of SJW groups here in the states like BLM and 3rd/4th wave feminism. Also one of the main backers of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Trans-Atlantic Partnership (TTIP), which Clinton co-wrote. There is more, and Wikileaks has more dirt on him as well.

My point with all this is, despite everything against him, Trump pulled off a miraculous victory, a victory, considering the odds, should have never happened, but I'm glad it did, especially since we get to live past January without having a hot war with Russia. Looking over Trump's 100 days plan, he seems pretty serious about keeping his promises, and that is one of the best things he can do. If he does flip, he realizes the people that voted for him, voted for a person with policies that would help all Americans, and going back on that, won't just hurt him with the re-election, it could be the right spark to start a civil war, which would have happened with Clinton if she wouldn't be impeached after the inauguration, or started a campaign against Russia.

We will have to wait and see if he follows through with some of his plans, one of them is to improve the absolutely obsolete infrastructure of our country, which has not seen a major update sine 1970, with some parts running off of equipment and structures built in 1890. Which it seems that part of his plan is already facing resistance with Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell, saying infrastructure is "not a top priority".

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Not A Nice Person
4,313

Not A Nice Person 4,313

I personally think the electoral college and popular vote need to balance, if that could work, 2 candidates in the new millennium losing the Election purely because of the electoral is unacceptable and is showing a trend, I'm not being biased because this could happen to Republicans too (and I wonder if it'll suddenly reform if this scenario happens to a Republican)

Edited November 10, 2016 by Mion

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Svip
4,024

Svip 4,024

Now there is proof that there was widespread fraud. Texas was forced to revert to paper ballots midway through early voting due to the machines flipping votes for Hillary Clinton, it can only be done if pre-programmed. Florida election officials were caught rigging the vote early on for Hillary. Indiana also had massive issues. Pennsylvania even indicted a person of major power within the DNC and the Pennsylvania government due to a mixture of the Podesta emails and her being caught (sorry, I am sh*t at remembering names). Not to mention, there were a ton of poll watchers that were witnessing magic jumps that went 100% in one way, small numbers, but still enough to make large differences. That isn't even mentioning how Trump had only consistently held 33.3% of the vote in California, a state so populated that it holds close to 1/9 electoral votes. Watching California, Trump's numbers should have fluctuated, but it stayed consistent. Same with New York. Ohio avoided the fraud because we got rid of all the electronic devices and went back to the old fashioned way of doing things. By the way, this isn't even mentioning the miraculous amount of resurrected voters that turned out to vote, some even twice, which was around 2 million dead voters. And yet, with all that, and whatever other fraud (looking at places like NH, states shouldn't be called so close), Clinton still only succeeded in a 0.2% lead in the popular vote.

Interesting. Do you have sources for any of this? The two million dead voters story isn't actually that they vote, but rather that they are still registered. And the story was about how terrible some states' bureaucracy is handling all the paperwork.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

AzraelRPG
295

AzraelRPG 295

Now there is proof that there was widespread fraud. Texas was forced to revert to paper ballots midway through early voting due to the machines flipping votes for Hillary Clinton, it can only be done if pre-programmed. Florida election officials were caught rigging the vote early on for Hillary. Indiana also had massive issues. Pennsylvania even indicted a person of major power within the DNC and the Pennsylvania government due to a mixture of the Podesta emails and her being caught (sorry, I am sh*t at remembering names). Not to mention, there were a ton of poll watchers that were witnessing magic jumps that went 100% in one way, small numbers, but still enough to make large differences. That isn't even mentioning how Trump had only consistently held 33.3% of the vote in California, a state so populated that it holds close to 1/9 electoral votes. Watching California, Trump's numbers should have fluctuated, but it stayed consistent. Same with New York. Ohio avoided the fraud because we got rid of all the electronic devices and went back to the old fashioned way of doing things. By the way, this isn't even mentioning the miraculous amount of resurrected voters that turned out to vote, some even twice, which was around 2 million dead voters. And yet, with all that, and whatever other fraud (looking at places like NH, states shouldn't be called so close), Clinton still only succeeded in a 0.2% lead in the popular vote.

Interesting. Do you have sources for any of this? The two million dead voters story isn't actually that they vote, but rather that they are still registered. And the story was about how terrible some states' bureaucracy is handling all the paperwork.

Currently looking through about 3,000 links I have saved over the course of 4 months, could take some time to find the things I need to support. Regarding the dead voters, could very well be, except that some do tend to show to vote. It could take me hours to back that up, at this point, I may just put them in another post if that is fine, if you don't mind waiting.

EDIT: regarding the 33.3% consistent count for Trump in California, that had been a personal observation from the point California closed it's polls. Unfortunately, I do not have a camera to record with so I couldn't record the whole night. But it was something that seemed fishy that it would stay at such a consistent mark for such a heavily populated state.

Edited November 10, 2016 by AzraelRPG

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Eutyphro
2,707

Eutyphro 2,707

I think maybe after votes like Brexit and this US election, the reactionaries should entirely give up the narrative that progressive elites rig votes. Nowhere in the Western world are election results coherent with that narrative, and it is seemingly a bunch of horsesh*t.

And on the whole 'dead voter' narrative, there is no indication these dead voters are centrally organized for the Democrats... They might just as well have voted for Trump. It's an issue of sh*tty bureaucracy which enables people to vote for their dead grandma, but not of a rigged vote.

And why the f*ck would democrats rig the vote of California, which they would've won anyway? That's probably complete horsesh*t too. There's no proof for it anyway. It's a fantasy.

a victory, considering the odds, should have never happened

I actually believe Trump won by a landslide, and a lot of the vote was either shaved or stolen,

Your beliefs are internally incoherent. You both believe Trump actually won by a landslide and everything was rigged, and that his odds were genuinely low. You can't believe both. Choose.

Were all the polls 'rigged' too? We know the polls were off, but we know these polls aren't rigged. The reason the polls were off is probably due to the demographics of the turnout. The turnout among white voters was probably very good, and among black people it was probably very low.

And on all your other fantasy claims, you should really try sourcing them to something that is not infowars or some other far right nut blog.

Edited November 10, 2016 by Eutyphro

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

AzraelRPG
295

AzraelRPG 295

I think maybe after votes like Brexit and this US election, the reactionaries should entirely give up the narrative that progressive elites rig votes. Nowhere in the Western world are election results coherent with that narrative, and it is seemingly a bunch of horsesh*t.

And on the whole 'dead voter' narrative, there is no indication these dead voters are centrally organized for the Democrats... They might just as well have voted for Trump. It's an issue of sh*tty bureaucracy which enables people to vote for their dead grandma, but not of a rigged vote.

And why the f*ck would democrats rig the vote of California, which they would've won anyway? That's probably complete horsesh*t too. There's no proof for it anyway. It's a fantasy.

a victory, considering the odds, should have never happened

I actually believe Trump won by a landslide, and a lot of the vote was either shaved or stolen,

Your beliefs are internally incoherent. You both believe Trump actually won by a landslide and everything was rigged, and that his odds were genuinely low. You can't believe both. Choose.

Were all the polls 'rigged' too? We know the polls were off, but we know these polls aren't rigged. The reason the polls were off is probably due to the demographics of the turnout. The turnout among white voters was probably very good, and among black people it was probably very low.

My viewpoint isn't really that incoherent since there was rigging, of which, I'm still gathering my sources for the other guy. Considering the massive scale of some of the busted rigging operations, all done by Democrats mind you, except Texas, that was machines owned by a major funder of the Clinton campaign, Trump shouldn't have won. But he did, which even Trump supporters can't believe. Considering Hillary did steal the nomination from Bernie Sanders, as supported with information from Wikileaks (thanks btw, that is just another thing I have to look for).

Yes the polls were rigged. Rigged from the start considering nearly every place was severely oversampling Democrats on the polls (including Fox, which was taken over by the Murdoch group that owns the BBC, NBC, CBS, ABC, and several other networks and sites), there were several reports, myself included, that pollsters would hang up before the survey was done if people answered in a certain way.

And really do we have to bring race politics into this? I went to a few rallies since he was relatively close to where I live in Ohio. That was one of the most mixed crowds I've ever seen for any candidate of a Presidential election that I've watched over. Even more mixed than what I'm used to seeing on the street, so I would throw out that narrative that it was racially charged. I do invite you to read the book called "Rules for Radicals" by Saul Alinsky. I saw a lot of what was in that book being implemented on both the Republicans and Democrats against Trump (who essentially ran Independent since the Republicans were equally against him and refused to fund his campaign, despite the fact he raised nearly $140M for the party).

I ask that patience be exercised, I'm a bit unorganized when keeping sources, so it will take time to sift through the junk stuff I don't need anymore versus the still relevant items for this conversation.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Eutyphro
2,707

Eutyphro 2,707

Clinton had some major financial backers, including a George Soros, who owns 2 voting machine companies, and is a major stakeholder in 3, one of them is Diebold (the machines that cause voter fraud here in Ohio).

To be clear, abundant evidence shows that Soros owns no voting machines in the United States.

All your claims are right wing conspiracy garbage.

Murdoch group that owns the BBC

Do you even remotely care about truth at all? Jesus christ.

Which is a partial explanation to why you Lefties love minorities and immigrants so much: you could never win seats of power without the ethnic vote.

And a reason the right wing loves uneducated whites so much, is because they are dumb enough to believe that all their problems are caused by minorities and immigrants. They can actually rally poor white people against having public health care. That's how stupid these people are.

Obviously they can also rally poor whites in favour of privatized unaffordable college. If these people cared about education, they wouldn't be so f*cking stupid.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Piggsy pls
1,732

Piggsy pls 1,732

The turnout among white voters was probably very good, and among black people it was probably very low.

Which is a partial explanation to why you Lefties love minorities and immigrants so much: you could never win seats of power without the ethnic vote. f*cking duh. I'd rather be pandered to than treated like garbage.

AzraelRPG 295

To be clear, abundant evidence shows that Soros owns no voting machines in the United States.

All your claims are right wing conspiracy garbage.

Please don't lump me in with the f*cking right wingers, nor the left either, I hate both sides. I'm an Independent and will stay that way, and this stuff was from all my other research.

Do you even remotely care about truth at all? Jesus christ.

Yes, very much thank you. I tell it quite often because I'm not in the business of screwing people over.

Which is a partial explanation to why you Lefties love minorities and immigrants so much: you could never win seats of power without the ethnic vote.

And a reason the right wing loves uneducated whites so much, is because they are dumb enough to believe that all their problems are caused by minorities and immigrants. They can actually rally poor white people against having public health care. That's how stupid these people are.

Obviously they can also rally poor whites in favour of privatized unaffordable college. If these people cared about education, they wouldn't be so f*cking stupid.

I may be white, and I may be poor, but I still went to a private college that was more affordable than OSU, and was one of the better schools for business. So I'm not actually stupid, nor were the people I met that supported Trump, a lot of them were well informed. But then again, you, like the rest, resort to personal attacks and call people stupid. And I don't blame minorities or immigrants either. Please, stop watching American MSM, it itself is an embarrassment, and most people know it here.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

X S
6,124

X S 6,124

So in the end; one should ask one self: Should the United States be a Republic first or a Democracy first? If you aim for the former, then stop calling it a Democracy. Call it a Republic. However, if you wish to achieve the latter, then perhaps you ought to consider that the country is in need of new election systems, and maybe a new constitution.

Maybe you ought to have a referendum on that?

I'm of the former. I have never considered the US to be a democracy and always referred to is as a republic.

If there was to be some sort of referendum, I would rather see it at the state level. Nebraska and Maine already dedicate one or two electoral votes outside the popular vote of their respective states, and California propositioned one in 2008, but it never passed.

I guess another interesting question is, if the EU were to elect a single executive representative, how would they compromise that? Would Malta and Luxembourg be fine with Germany and France dictating the results of every election just because they have the greatest populations? It's a difficult situation to compromise.

Edited November 10, 2016 by X S

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Mythical_Lotus
34

Mythical_Lotus 34

And a reason the right wing loves uneducated whites so much, is because they are dumb enough to believe that all their problems are caused by minorities and immigrants. They can actually rally poor white people against having public health care. That's how stupid these people are.

Obviously they can also rally poor whites in favour of privatized unaffordable college. If these people cared about education, they wouldn't be so f*cking stupid.

Typical leftist condescension. Treating those with different viewpoints as stupid. How about having a look in the mirror?

Socialized medicine is cancerous, a system plagued by corruption, interminable waits for treatment, prohibits competition from private medicine and ultimately destroys the quality of medical care.

Obviously, not all private colleges have sky-high tuition, and many public colleges provide a first-rate education.

God I'm so euphoric the White House won't be occupied by a Leftist anymore. The thought of the United States becoming a social welfare state like the Netherlands or Sweden makes me sick to my stomach.

Edited November 10, 2016 by Mythical_Lotus

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

AzraelRPG
295

AzraelRPG 295

And a reason the right wing loves uneducated whites so much, is because they are dumb enough to believe that all their problems are caused by minorities and immigrants. They can actually rally poor white people against having public health care. That's how stupid these people are.

Obviously they can also rally poor whites in favour of privatized unaffordable college. If these people cared about education, they wouldn't be so f*cking stupid.

Typical leftist condescension. Treating those with different viewpoints as stupid. How about having a look in the mirror?

Socialized medicine is cancerous, a system plagued by corruption, interminable waits for treatment, prohibits competition from private medicine and ultimately destroys the quality of medical care.

Obviously, not all private colleges have sky-high tuition, and many public colleges provide a first-rate education.

God I'm so euphoric the White House won't be occupied by a Leftist anymore. The thought of the United States becoming a social welfare state like the Netherland or Sweden makes me sick to my stomach.

I'm just going to compliment you here. You are a much better speaker than I am. It took me 19 years to be able to speak and write in English, which is my native tongue, and I'm still sh*t at it. That is all I really wanted to say.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

GTA_stu
8,360

GTA_stu 8,360

Considering the often polarizing nature of the topics up for discussion, on top of the Forum Rules and the D&D section guidelines, a standard of mutual decency applies: Do leave the rhetoric, ad hominem, and one-liners at the door.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Eutyphro
2,707

Eutyphro 2,707

Yes, very much thank you. I tell it quite often because I'm not in the business of screwing people over.

Then maybe stop posting garbage that is proven false in this topic, and promising to base it on 'sources' and 'research' which in the end will amount to links to infowars or some other conspiracy website. Your claim about Soros and Murdoch owning the BBC I've already pointed out as false. All your other garbage has been based on nothing. We don't have time in this topic to refute all your fantasies about this election. Every single post you have made up until now was 100% misinformation and fantasy.

Typical leftist condescension. Treating those with different viewpoints as stupid. How about having a look in the mirror?

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Eutyphro
2,707

Eutyphro 2,707

I'm not condescending everyone who has reactionary sympathies. I actually get it. You could choose between the type of establishment shill who has made mediocre policy for the last 8 years, who have since the 60's destroyed the middle class and made income inequality boom, or you could give a giant f*ck you to the system and elect a loud mouthed lunatic.

The people I am condescending is the tea party, because they are a gang of misinformed idiotic racist lunatics. They're pretty much the most idiotic political group on earth. If I'm going to condescend any political group it's them.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Svip
4,024

Svip 4,024

I guess another interesting question is, if the EU were to elect a single executive representative, how would they compromise that? Would Malta and Luxembourg be fine with Germany and France dictating the results of every election just because they have the greatest populations? It's a difficult situation to compromise.

Which is why the EU's executive branch, the Commission plus the President of the European Council, is elected by the member states' governments. The President of the Commission is elected by the European parliament.

Additionally, the power of the executive in the EU is very diminished and divided among the many (hence why there are two Presidents[1]).

Each member state elect their own government, and their government elect the President along with the members of the Commission. Then all eligible citizens of the European Union elect members of the European Parliament according to a proportional representation within their constituency,[2] and in turn they elect the President of the Commission.

My point is, that at least the European Union doesn't make an attempt to suggest it's a popular election of the President(s), there are no votes cast for President in the EU, so people don't get the impression that it should be that way.

But the United States is still different from the European Union. It's far easier to think of it as one country compared to the EU (I am sure Stu will agree). The demographics are just not there for a single popularly elected executive. While demographics in the US are certainly not as homogeneous as among singular European countries, the US is more homogeneous on a whole.

Additionally, the origin story of the US and the EU are so different, which is why there are these staggering difference. Culture in Europe is deeply seeded, dating back millennia, and while I am sure the UK wouldn't mind everyone else speaking English, the rest of Europe aren't keen on that.

At least in the US, you can inherently agree early on a lot of issues: The President should be a US citizen, not just cause the constitution says so, but because it feels right. Talking about nationality we would have a problem in Europe, and an issue people wish to avoid. Secondly, the US President should speak English. Should a EU President speak all 24 official languages in the EU?

My point is; it would be far easier to have a popular Presidential election in the US than in the EU. Your point is well taken, but I think you are missing the number of issues in the EU that simply don't take hold in the US, which makes it all the more problematic.

Alternatively, you can ask; perhaps the United States is too big for its own good?

[1] One can think of the President of the European Council (currently Donald Tusk) as the Head of State and President of the European Commission (currently Jean-Claude Juncker) as Head of Government.

[2] In most cases, the constituency corresponds exactly to the entire member state, but member states are allowed to divide their own territory into constituencies, which some do.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

sivispacem 18,740

sivispacem 18,740

Since when does something have to impact you directly, for you to have an opinion on it?

It doesn't. What it does do is render the arguments from anecdote used to justify that opinion largely invalid (as if they weren't anyway) and bring into question exactly why someone may have such a strongly held opinion on a subject they neither have actual experience nor any ostensible intimate knowledge of.

Are people not allowed to have opinions on global warming unless they live on a tiny Pacific island which is under imminent threat? Nobody can have an opinion on the Heathrow expansion unless they live near it?

Are these intentionally crap analogies? You don't have to live on a tiny Pacific island to see the affects of climste change and you don't need to live inside Heathrow's flightpath for it to have some effect on you.

and this stuff was from all my other research.

Not to be too flippant, but your "research" is utter drivel that doesn't even pass the most basic sniff test. Pretty much every sentence of each of your responses on the subject thusfar contains either a clear factual innacurately, a non sequitur of another logical fallacy.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

AzraelRPG
295

AzraelRPG 295

Yes, very much thank you. I tell it quite often because I'm not in the business of screwing people over.

Then maybe stop posting garbage that is proven false in this topic, and promising to base it on 'sources' and 'research' which in the end will amount to links to infowars or some other conspiracy website. Your claim about Soros and Murdoch owning the BBC I've already pointed out as false. All your other garbage has been based on nothing. We don't have time in this topic to refute all your fantasies about this election. Every single post you have made up until now was 100% misinformation and fantasy.

InfoWars? f*cking really? Yeah, you are one of those annoying leftists, almost as militant is the right-wingers that visit Stormfront. Just because someone disagrees with you does not mean they are inherently wrong, and it certainly does not mean you get to label them as a conspiracy theorist, by which, conspiracies are f*cking illegal here in the US. The term "conspiracy theory" was put into play during the McCarthy-ism era to discredit dissenters. And considering that, that means dissenters would then be allowed to be arrested for suspicion of espionage. Thus, you calling me a conspiracy theorist, would mean you would want me to be arrested for having a differing opinion, before ever reviewing the facts. You can rightly f*ck off, as nothing will convince you, no matter what evidence I present. You're just another regressive leftist with their head stuck far up your self-righteous ass that you can't hear anything other than your idealogue ideology.

And no, that wasn't me being triggered, that was me choosing not to deal with you. I'm going to go back to my absolutely messy library to find the sources I had promised I would post later today/tonight. It just will take some time since I just hastily copied and pasted to a word pad document the links. Now when I do drop those links, you are free to do whatever you want with them, but it is obvious, you have no interest in hearing out the other side without calling "CONSPIRACY THEORIST!" "INFOWARS!" You can f*ck off with that, it was WikiLeaks, Podesta Emails, Project Veritas Action, and Black Box Voting. Assange has proven himself non-partisan, the Podesta emails were found by a Ufo-ologist looking for information on UFOs (which is dumb, aliens don't exist), Project Veritas Action has several videos about how organizations associated with the DNC, worked with the DNC and the Clinton campaign to fraud the vote (backed up by the Podesta emails), and Beth Harris (founder of Black Box Voting) is a Democrat that blew the top off the vote rigging in Ohio in 2004. That much is f*cking there, stop being lazy and go see the information yourself.

I'm not condescending everyone who has reactionary sympathies. I actually get it. You could choose between the type of establishment shill who has made mediocre policy for the last 8 years, who have since the 60's destroyed the middle class and made income inequality boom, or you could give a giant f*ck you to the system and elect a loud mouthed lunatic.

The people I am condescending is the tea party, because they are a gang of misinformed idiotic racist lunatics. They're pretty much the most idiotic political group on earth. If I'm going to condescend any political group it's them.

Now, I do agree with you on that, the Tea Party is a bunch of crazies. And America definitely chose to say "f*ck you" to the establishment. But a small correction, the policies have been very similar, not identical, but similar to each other since Bush Sr. But other than that, I agree with you on these two points.

Edited November 10, 2016 by AzraelRPG

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Eutyphro
2,707

Eutyphro 2,707

InfoWars? f*cking really? Yeah, you are one of those annoying leftists, almost as militant is the right-wingers that visit Stormfront. Just because someone disagrees with you does not mean they are inherently wrong, and it certainly does not mean you get to label them as a conspiracy theorist, by which, conspiracies are f*cking illegal here in the US. The term "conspiracy theory" was put into play during the McCarthy-ism era to discredit dissenters. And considering that, that means dissenters would then be allowed to be arrested for suspicion of espionage. Thus, you calling me a conspiracy theorist, would mean you would want me to be arrested for having a differing opinion,

*Facepalm*

before ever reviewing the facts. You can rightly f*ck off, as nothing will convince you, no matter what evidence I present. You're just another regressive leftist with their head stuck far up your self-righteous ass that you can't hear anything other than your idealogue ideology. And no, that wasn't me being triggered, that was me choosing not to deal with you.

Translation: "I've just posted a bunch of proven garbage. Now I'm going to defend this garbage by saying 'nothing will convince' the one I'm arguing with, because I have nothing to back up my garbage claims."

I did review your facts. They were false.

You can f*ck off with that, it was WikiLeaks, Podesta Emails, Project Veritas Action, and Black Box Voting. Assange has proven himself non-partisan, the Podesta emails were found by a Ufo-ologist looking for information on UFOs (which is dumb, aliens don't exist), Project Veritas Action has several videos about how organizations associated with the DNC, worked with the DNC and the Clinton campaign to fraud the vote (backed up by the Podesta emails), and Beth Harris (founder of Black Box Voting) is a Democrat that blew the top off the vote rigging in Ohio in 2004. That much is f*cking there, stop being lazy and go see the information yourself.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

sivispacem 18,740

sivispacem 18,740

Just because someone disagrees with you does not mean they are inherently wrong

In this case you are, though. Demonstrably so. The lack of agreement is a secondary consideration.

it certainly does not mean you get to label them as a conspiracy theorist

If the glove fits...

The term "conspiracy theory" was put into play during the McCarthy-ism era to discredit dissenters.

Incorrect. The term predates McCarthyism by about forty years, and only began being used pejoratively some ten years after the end of the McCarthyist era, though it's use was typically by government agencies to discredit JFK assassination theories.

as nothing will convince you, no matter what evidence I present.

Let's gloss over the fact that the total evidence you've presented is zero.

You're just another regressive leftist with their head stuck far up your self-righteous ass that you can't hear anything other than your idealogue ideology.

If all you have to contribute are ad hominems, you can bugger off out of D&D.

WikiLeaks

Which is about far from a politically impartial source of information you could possibly find.

Project Veritas Action

Which is run by James O'Keefe, who made his name by editing manipulating covert footage designed to discredit political causes he doesn't agree with, and who did such a poor job of it he was forced to pay a six figure settlement to one victim having been found to have basically made sh*t up.

Black Box Voting

Started by a reputable security researcher who has demonstrated vulnerabilities in closed source voting systems which could be leveraged for manipulation, but not, to the best of my knowledge, someone who has ever asserted thst these vulnerabilities have been exploited to commit electoral fraud. Despite your assertions to the contrary.

the Podesta emails were found by a Ufo-ologist looking for information on UFOs