Lurker > Annihilated

Squall28 posted...

Blue states make up half the population. Ofc they have half the cases lol. If anything, it should be higher due to how sense it is.

Georgia is the eighth most populous state in the country but is 9th for deaths, with Michigan catching up. Some smaller blue states like New Jersey and Massachussetts have considerably more deaths. Raw numbers have nothing to do with it.

More importantly, if the blue states are supposedly doing so much against the virus, why do they make up half of the states for the highest confirmed cases, new cases, and total deaths? And if they're not locking down or restricting, then why the fuck not?

s0nicfan posted...

The big question (and likely the source of a trump legal challenge) is that they confirmed there are an estimated 8000 military absentee ballots that haven't yet arrived, and they won't count them if they don't show up by the end of the day. In a state that close, that's an actual discriminating factor in who wins. Given that some states do "postmarked by" limits and others don't, and I'm not sure what GA's rules are, throwing away those 8000 votes could be a problem for them.

I'm a Georgian who requested an absentee ballot, and I called the registrar's office when it took like a month to arrive. She said that the ballot would be accepted as long as it's postmarked by November 3rd before 7:00. Of course there were ballot boxes so mailing it at the post office wouldn't be necessary. Still, given how freaking long it took for me to get it and all the shenanigans happening with mailed votes, I ultimately decided to surrender the ballot for early voting.

Tappor posted...

did you fall for a Complete_Idi0t post

Looks more like I was playing along.

FursonaNonGrata posted...

@Annihilated are you a nationalist?

Oh, you were actually serious. No I'm not a nationalist, I think my original post was a pretty big giveaway. Do you just not know what a nationalist is?

Democrats going hard against the radical left. Things like this put a smile on my face.

https://www.wbap.com/news/furious-house-dems-target-pelosi-socialism-in-call/

Rep. Abigail Spanberger, D-Va., was particularly vocal.

No one should say defund the police ever again, Spanberger said. Nobody should be talking about socialism.

Spanberger added that if Democrats dont change their messaging ahead of the 2020 midterm elections, We will get f****** torn apart.

Details of the Democrats phone call were leaked by anonymous sources who were listening.

House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn, D-S.C., was also critical of the partys messaging leading up to this weeks election.

If we are going to run on Medicare for All, defund the police, socialized medicine, were not going to win, he said, Politico reported.

It doesn't even matter what district they're in, or whether they actually support socialism. The far left democrats of other districts floating around radical bills, combined with the party's united front against Trump, scares the shit out of people all over the country. No one wants another Cuba, or another Venezuela, or another California. You don't push far-flinging radical legislation in a country as big and as diverse and as complex as the United States. You just don't.

Complete_Idi0t posted...

Hey remember that time that Biden kept insisting that Obama wasn't eligible to be president because he was born in Kenya?

No way, he'd never say that, because Barack Obama was the first mainstream African American who was articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. Didn't you hear? It was storybook, man! C'mon man. C'mon!

Chadwick Boseman hit me pretty hard.

Medussa posted...

gfd, we're going to be debunking those stats for a long time.

again, they're exit poll numbers. guess which voters were more likely to walk through the exits this year?

What difference does it make when they voted? You do know how exit polls work, right?

GhettoFlip posted...

You don't think Trump is racist? @Annihilated

Not more than most presidents, not nearly as much as the media tries to portray him, and DEFINITELY not more than his opponent. In the vast majority of cases in which he allegedly said something racist, it's either A) hearsay or some anonymous source, or B) something the media took out of context which can be clarified by reading the full text. The media often love to take advantage of the pronoun game here, as with his infamous "very fine people" quote, or his "they're rapists, murderers" quote.

uwnim posted...

What that means is the cancerous right wing propaganda is spreading more. The nation shifting to the right is not a good thing.

Give me one reason why it's not a good thing.

Just look at this NYT columnist's racist meltdown over Trump's new voting demographics.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/ny-times-charles-blow-personally-devastating-trump-voters

"This is so personally devastating to me: the black male vote for Trump INCREASED from 13% in 2016 to 18% this year. The black female vote for Trump doubled from 4% in 2016 to 8% this year," Blow reacted. "Also, once again, exit polls show a majority of white women voting for Trump."

He continued, "Also, the percentage of LGBT voting for Trump doubled from 2016. DOUBLED!!! This is why LGBT people of color dont really trust the white gays. Yes, I said what I said. Period."

"Also, the percentage of Latinos and Asians voting for Trump INCREASED from 2016, according to exit polls. Yet more evidence that we cant depend on the browning of America to dismantle white supremacy and erase anti-blackness."

This is pretty much exactly what I hoped to see. After four years of relentless false narratives about Trump being a racist (and also burying Biden's disturbing and ACTUALLY racist comments), when all was said and done, Trump gained in every group except white people. This proves that minority groups are not some monolith that needs to be pandered to, that people of all races actually care about real issues, that the media's constant barrage of anti republican attacks is no longer working, and most of all that the left is so insane that they're turning people away. The democrats don't stand for anything anymore, only against. Even with massive, historic record voter turnout, it's still barely enough for Biden to win (possibly not enough at all, time will tell) and Trump gained 6 million more votes than he had in 2016.

Granted, I know a lot of black Trump supporters who are enthusiastic about Trump but still don't like the republican party in general, and that is a problem which I hope will be addressed in time. But this election alone has doubled the number of GOP women in the House. We could see more black and latino republicans 4 years from now. Between the ultra thin margins and some of the blue states even starting to shift to the right a little bit, I think it marks a sea change. To me this is even better than holding the Senate, better than gaining in the House, and better than protecting the Supreme Court. This is a moral victory. Donald Trump is easily worth the trade.

Sackgurl posted...

this is a nonsense sentence--counties are not districts, you know that right?

Of course I know that. There are only 435 congressional districts and literally thousands of counties. I was just illustrating a comparison.

skermac posted...

seriously? No one should get preferential treatment based on race or color every one should be treated equally and the same

The "yes" was to repeal the amendment.

LMAO at 45% voting yes. What a racist state.

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say AOC has the exact wrong idea of what democrats should have done.

SomeGuyUO posted...

I think those latinos who voted for trump are a lost cause.

A lost cause if your goal is socialism and religious oppression.

DarkChozoGhost posted...

Yup. Pretty soon abuse rates, drug related death, HIV spread, and violent crime are going to plummet in the state.

And homelessness, drug related deaths, and violent crime will spike just as it has in San Francisco when they did the same thing.

Candace Owens is everything AOC wishes she was. Intelligent, beautiful, and most of all, right.

If it wasn't for Covid, yes it absolutely would have been a landslide, maybe even a runaway victory. He'd win every state he did in 2016 and a couple more. Best economy in generations, no new wars and two peace deals, and a hard line stance against the democrats' baffling push towards socialism and violence.

They must have been jealous of San Francisco's death toll.

I've seen enough polls to think Joe Biden will probably win, but also enough of other indicators to not at all be surprised if Trump does.

Tyranthraxus posted...

This should be the official party name for the left.

Antifar posted...

I'm saying if somebody is going to govern everyone in the country, it should be the person who won more of the country's votes.

The president doesn't govern everyone in the country, the governors do. The president governs the states, and not even with absolute authority. That's why he couldn't just march in with the National Guard and stop all those riots without consent from the governors and the mayors. Really though, you defeated your own point when you pointed out that states were not a monolith. A popular vote for the presidency is like that except much, much worse.

Antifar posted...

It won't be wasting money when changing the margin actually matters, whereas it doesn't now. There's currently no value to be gained by Biden losing Louisiana by just 10 points instead of 15 by campaigning to black voters there. Voters in Maryland and Montana will be just as important as those in Florida under a popular vote system.

I'm starting to wonder if you actually live in the U.S. Changing the margin matters every election, because it's always in different states. You're not looking at the long term. Nobody thought 4 years ago that a democrat should waste any time or resources trying to flip a red state like Georgia or Texas, and now they're hugely competitive. Similarly, the Biden campaign is starting to worry about his lead in Minnesota, which hasn't voted for a republican president since 1972. And don't forget, California and New York were red states not that long ago. Given everything that's happening there, if things don't improve, I'd say it's possible that California could go republican controlled within the next 10 years, and maybe become a swing state in the next 4 years. Just wait and see. I wouldn't be surprised if they lost a few assembly or senate seats in this election too.

Evening_Dragon posted...

That's funny coming from you. You still haven't told me how NJ and the like are doing, and you still haven't told me just what Trump has done for the base that voted for him.

It's really easy to answer direct questions when you're honest.

Read the links I gave you. I don't have time to hold the hand of every low information voter on CE.

Sackgurl posted...

why should 'flipping' a state even be a thing?

parties don't allow it in their primaries because they realize it leads to the selection of candidates their members don't want

Maybe it shouldn't be a thing. I don't have the answer to that because I'm not a political scientist, so I haven't worked out the scoring mechanics or the implications of the campaigning landscape of a nationwide NE/ME voting system vs winner take all. Electoral votes are assigned based on the number of districts, and keep in mind that Hillary Clinton only won 400 counties while Donald Trump won over 2000. The point is to limit the amount of influence clusters of population have on the vast majority of governments and municipalities. If splitting California and Texas were possible, maybe it wouldn't be different enough from a popular vote for the candidates to worry about whether they're getting all of Montana's 3 votes or not. Because I can guarantee you nobody is ever gonna have enough money to try and hold down all 50 states.

Sayoria posted...

Biden's side has Lady Gaga, Bill Nye, Taylor Swift, Drew Carey, Sasha Baron Cohen, Robert Downey Jr, Tom Hanks, Samuel L. Jackson, Scarlett Johannson, Shia Lebeouf, Jennifer Lopez, Patrick Stewart, George RR Martin, Stephen King, Jon Stewart, John Oliver, Oprah Winfrey, Beyonce, Bon Jovi, Ariana Grande, Steph Curry, Magic Johnson, Jennifer Lawrence, The Rock, Jim Carrey, Leonardo Dicaprio and many others.

Far better people on Biden's side. Not just trailer park trash.

In other words, people who have a lot more to lose.

Nothing to forgive.

Antifar posted...

If having other states dictate who becomes president is this great problem, why
1) have a system that treats states' voters as a unified whole, when they are not
2) have a system where Florida and Pennsylvania get to dictate to Vermont and Maryland who becomes president?

Like, someone has to lose; you're arguing for a system where sometimes the loser is the side with more people.

1) So you're saying the states' voters aren't a unified whole, but the country's voters are?
2) Because Florida and Pennsylvania only get as much attention as they do when they become competitive, as is the case with states of every size. No one is gonna waste campaign money in a state they can't flip.

Antifar posted...

How is this different from the EC as presently constructed?

I don't even understand the question. One is local and one is federal. Also why ignore all my other points?

Ruvan22 posted...

I think that conversation would go the following:
CE (Antifar, Blarog, Cyriz, many others) "Well those aren't actually problems, since you are using biased sources/assuming facts not in evidence/drawing causation out of correlation/etc"
Annihlated: "Makes more broad unsubstantiated claims and refuses to address the points raised earlier" OR disappears

I'm not sure, you'd have to ask them - I was asking if you believed painting broad strokes was an insult

lol damn you went full fanfiction there.

Intro2Logic posted...

Is this supposed to be a selling point of our current system, that losing states are falling apart? Aren't the troubles they're having partly a reflection of the fact that Trump has cut off funding and covid testing in these areas because he knows he can ignore them?

The fact that they're falling apart isn't the point, although it shouldn't come as any surprised to anyone who is informed on their policy issues. The point is that their way of voting is incompatible with the midwest/rust belt way of voting. High taxes, regulations, and minimum wages could be absorbed (to a point) if the state is an international commerce hub, a home to Hollywood and Silicon Valley, and a major tourism spot. If you try and copypasta the same laws into Idaho, they won't have any new business to replace what they lost. Their economy is just smaller and not the same. And no, federal funding for Covid testing is irrelevent because a lot of this stuff started before the pandemic even happened.

Antifar posted...

How do we know they flipped red? By counting the popular vote. The same way these same states elect senators and governors. A popular vote seems to work perfectly fine there; I don't see anybody suggesting we create an EC type system for those positions.

There is one state that does something along these lines, though, and they do it for reasons the founders would have appreciated.
https://apnews.com/article/dc57e6e1b01c5a18af058d587daa2e11

Similarly, on a national level the EC gives disproportionate power to small, rural states that are whiter than the country as a whole - and a lot whiter than the states and cities you deride.

I'm only talking about PRESIDENTIAL elections, not statewide elections. Of course states should use popular vote for their own governments. You wouldn't want other districts telling you who should represent your district in congress or the mayor of your city, so why should states get to do that for the president? You keep making the mistake of thinking of the U.S. as a singular country, when it's more analogous to the European Union. The states themselves are more comparable to foreign countries in terms of how they are composed and governed. I don't think Japan would appreciate a president or leader of East Asia being determined almost exclusively by China, or the 50 countries in Europe having one leader mostly thanks to Russia's 150 million population.

Evening_Dragon posted...

How are things working out for them, exactly? Your red state deficits are only cleared by Cali and NY surplus, remember?

That's why a popular vote would completely overshadow these gains. Hillary Clinton would be the president, so no one would be lamenting "oh if only she had acknowledged the workers in the rust belt or the coal miners in Pennsylvania" because no one would give a shit about them. Now they do, and it changes the game every time. Wait til 2024 when California and New York lose electoral votes while Texas, Tennessee, and North Carolina all gain votes while also becoming battleground states. It's going to be a very different ball game.

Evening_Dragon posted...

And where did you even get this from? What has Trump done for them, specifically?

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/11/why-hillary-clinton-lost/507704/
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/10/upshot/why-trump-won-working-class-whites.html

Some review material for 2016. In the future, please do your own research if you're that out of the loop.

Ruvan22 posted...

A) Based on what?
B) Did you just insult people in this thread? With no provocation? Under your rules, doesn't that mean YOU lost?

Tell me how you think this conversation should go.

CE: "Waaah republicans waah"
Me: "Well let's talk about that. The problem with your argument is <blah blah blah>"

Also if whining and crying is considered an insult, then why do they keep doing it?

Guarantee that 99% of the people whining and crying about this tweet have no idea why they're doing it except "waaah republicans."

harley2280 posted...

I mean that just doesn't seem like anywhere near as big of a deal as people are acting like it is.

If you ever played an ENB mod, you would see just how stunning of a difference improved lighting has on a game's photorealism, even for dated games like Skyrim and GTAIV. Lighting is everything.

Antifar posted...

Remember: the method laid out in the constitution for presidential elections had to be overhauled the first time there was a competitive election. It was a total dumbass system made by dumbasses, and only via the 12th, 15th, and 19th amendments have we created a slightly less dumbass system. The system intended by the founders was dogshit.

You can think what you want about the electoral college, and maybe the scoring system is flawed. But a popular vote for any of the United States government is the most dogshit idea of all. Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania all flipped red because Trump listened to them when no one else did. And now they got the democrats' attention too. If Hillary Clinton won the popular vote in 2016, no one would give a shit about those other states because the result is the same. They'd just continue pandering to the liberal megalopolis of California and New York who have no knowledge or cares of how people in those "flyover" states live. And look how things worked out for California, New York, Illinois, and New Jersey. They're all falling apart, and are at the bottom of the state migration list in that order. Thank God for the electoral college.

I love how their response to the violent crime is like "this is good, this is progress! We admit we have no idea how to solve the drugs and violence, but on the plus side there are no cops!"

Wetterdew posted...

What a pointless post, who cares if he's rich himself, the point is HE'S the one who's actually been trying to CHANGE things so poorer people have better conditions. "But he's rich!" OK

If he gave a shit about the interests of anybody in the inland states, or any of the states, he wouldn't be a "democratic socialist."

Says the coastal elite himself.

Proto_Spark posted...

If people aren't worried about Trump dying or facing mental breakdown due to his age, Joe Biden is fine.

Joe Biden isn't the one who think losing the election will lose the electricity.

Yeah, the guy who think he's running for senate and is worried about four more years of Bush is fine. Nothing to worry about there.

I already canceled Netflix because there's nothing to watch and they think raising the price is going to bring me back. lmao

Evening_Dragon posted...

You're saying statehood sovereignty matters, but do you understand why it matters? Statehood sovereignty exists for the people. Like, none of what you said covers why less people should get precedence over more people.

Why else do you think statehood sovereignty exists if not for people?

Statehood sovereignty exists so that people can be free. It's like a country you can move to freely and still speak the same language, use the same currency, and have the same constitutional protections. And I already told you, the president's authority is over states, not over people. Also consider the fact that presidents are paying more attention to little "forgotten" states like Wisconsin, Michigan, and Minnesota instead of just the states with the 15 largest cities every election.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/sep/18/trump-messages-resonate-wisconsin-rally-us-elections-2020
https://www.startribune.com/trump-biden-both-headed-to-minnesota-for-friday-rallies/572911991/
https://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/2020/10/05/biden-makes-6m-bet-on-texas-ending-drought-for-democrats-whove-written-off-state-for-decades/
https://www.cnn.com/2016/11/09/politics/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-blue-wall/index.html

You know for a media that hates the electoral college, they sure do love to constantly remind us why we have it.

Evening_Dragon posted...

You did, but that does not answer the question.

If the question was "why give precedence to land over people," it's because people depend on the land, and people who live in different land will vote for the interests of their own land rather than the country as a whole. Statehood sovereignty matters, that's why the United States was created with a limited federal government in mind. We're electing a president of states, not a president of people.

Evening_Dragon posted...

My ignorance is unwillful, so give me the answer, instead.

I already mentioned in my posts the part about industries and resources that other states depend on. Also compartmentalizing government is inherently a good thing as failed states like California have dozens of escape options.

_Rinku_ posted...

The one that represents more people. Why do you think empty fields should take precedence over actual humans?

I would answer your question if I believed even a microcosm that you want to know what the answer would be. This is just willful ignorance.

_HayleyWilliams posted...

Why should the less populated states decide every election? Because they vote red? We don't use this bullshit in elections at any other level. One person, one vote. Come what may.

Because they have their own governments, their own laws, their own schools, their own police forces, their own natural resources, their own industries, and their own economies? Hillary Clinton won 400 counties. Donald Trump won over 2,000. Which one sounds more representative of America?

pinky0926 posted...

On one hand, I can sympathise with the working class man or woman who is in an isolated community, who does not have the time or the academic background to have read up on feminist theory or racism history, who has very real and pressing problems and feels ignored and dismissed by cultural elites who seem more preoccupied with looking down on them than helping them, who are constantly told by these better off people that their problems aren't real because of the same feminist and racism history they've never heard about in the first place

On the other hand, how their answer is to vote against their own interests is beyond me.

"Why can't the people that we hate with murderous rage see that only WE have their best interests at heart??"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qduJjDJnQfo

I love how people like AOC and Stacy Abrams cry about voter suppression just because there's a line somewhere even when the districts are democrat controlled and people have all fucking month to vote.

Some men just want to watch the world burn.

The Wolverine trilogy is the only trilogy where each movie is better than the last.

zinezinzadan posted...

So I'm not into Politics. But anytime I watch it, it literally seems to me that the Republicans don't give a shit about you as a human being, while the Democrats are fighting them to give power to the people. I watch this video of Obama basically getting a standing ovation for saying something that shouldn't even require an ovation. These are basic human rights such as "women will be paid equal to men", or "you had no plans to insure over 1 million people so I will provide them insurance". And while these statements are being made, you can tell a portion of the crowd that is Republican just sits in silence.

What the fuck? As someone whose not educated, can a Republican please inform me on exactly how the fuck your party cares about people? Why didn't they give insurance to that 1 million people during the 8 year run with Bush? Why did Trump's party give tax breaks to millionaires but not the middle class? From an outsider looking in, everything the Republican party does is to please those who are wealthy. They do not care about 95% of the U.S.A.'s population. How the fuck are they the "Patriotic" side, as they self proclaim with flags and USA chants. The democrats are patriots because they care about you.

Explain to me what I'm missing before I start demonizing everyone on facebook who keeps touting Trump this trump that when they (Republicans) tried killing people by allowing insurance companies to not insure you if you had pre existing conditions. Again, the mega wealthy and CEO's of insurance companies benefit, the poor get fucked.

What am I missing here? Either you're helping people, or you're against people. From what I can see, Republicans are against people while democrats are for people.

For starters, almost everything you listed is either only a small piece of the picture or something that is intentionally distorted by the almost universally left leaning media. Read enough news and you will start to notice they almost never badmouth any member of the democratic party or say anything positive about a republican. Ever. As far as your individual points, here is some context that both the media and CE will refuse to give you.

1. "Women being paid equal to men" refers to a persistent and constantly debunked myth that somehow women are being paid unequal salaries for the same job. This has been dispelled many times by even a cursory look at the data and in some cases tech companies like Google were sued for discrimination against women only to find out in their investigation that they were actually underpaying men.
2. Obamacare is hugely unpopular with republicans due to how bad it is. It causes deductibles and premiums for people who don't qualify for a "low cost" plan to skyrocket, and part of this is because it's making the cheaper plans illegal to exist. Obamacare insurance is overbloated and the worst part is people who can't afford any insurance because they lost their jobs had to pay a ransom to the government for not buying private insurance.
3. Trump's tax cuts were for ALL income groups, not just the millionaires. That's another lie. Almost everybody saw an increase in their paycheck, though it varies from person to person based on which allowances they had claimed on their W4s. Some ended up paying a little more withholding, and some got smaller refunds, but overall their tax liabilities were lower. The only reason millionaires got the biggest tax cuts is because they pay all the taxes. And I literally mean all of them. Even a tax cut for the middle class is also a tax cut for the rich due to how tax margins work. In any event, the biggest boon was the corporate tax cut, which previously was 35%, one of the highest in the world. It was cut to 21% and basically turbo charged the economy with jobs created and pay raises.

Basically, if your only exposure is the mainstream media, and definitely DEFINITELY CE, all you're going to get about republicans are lies.

hockeybub89 posted...

Yeah I'm sure discriminating against people that aren't straight, white, male Christians would fix all of our problems. Shut the fuck up.

Anyway, I thought liberals were pretending America is so bad? I thought this was the greatest country in the world?

Funny how you assume that Christians are all straight and white. Racist much? Also it's amazing how you managed to badly misrepresent both liberals and conservatives at the same time.

hockeybub89 posted...

It's ridiculous that someone in office in 1983 can still be in office almost 40 years later. This is the same reason we should end lifetime justice appointments so Republicans can't try to force America backwards into Christian conservatism for the next 50 years.

Considering that things have gotten so much worse now, "backwards" is probably the right direction to go.