Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[mainiac]

Were you though?  Cuz this sort of thing happens a lot when people are being shitty towards others.  The ones who aren't sympathetic to either side dont connect the dots.  "Gee, why are the blacks/gays/immigrants/trans/women just assuming that they know what this is about?"  It's because it's an old fucking story.

[Neonivek]

Were you though?  Cuz this sort of thing happens a lot when people are being shitty towards others.  The ones who aren't sympathetic to either side dont connect the dots.  "Gee, why are the blacks/gays/immigrants/trans/women just assuming that they know what this is about?"  It's because it's an old fucking story.

I was talking about one person believing everything Trump said without any doubt or fact checking.

And another person believing Hilary is an angel and there is no evidence she ever did anything wrong.

---

Also what would Hilary have to gain for founding ISIS?

[smjjames]

Is it because he thinks the election's rigged?

Or maybe the state they're in is so far leaning one way or another it really won't matter.

Being in California, I get that feeling too.

Also, did you know that California has the biggest electoral college prize of any state? You'd think the Republicans would try to compete like mad for it, yet we're solidly Democrat.

[RedKing]

Also what would Hilary have to gain for founding ISIS?

Duh, she hates America and wants to see it destroyed -- so that she can rule over the ruins with an iron fist. Because who doesn't love ruling a ruined kingdom?

[mainiac]

And another person believing Hilary is an angel and there is no evidence she ever did anything wrong.

And I'm talking about how people generally exaggerate the positions of anyone who defends those that are shit upon.  For instance your mother is defending Clinton and you are describing her position as a ridiculous extreme.  However you aren't being specific about the position.  Because then it would be a specific statement that you could be judged by.

Was she extreme?  Then name some of these extreme positions.

[Neonivek]

Also what would Hilary have to gain for founding ISIS?

Duh, she hates America and wants to see it destroyed -- so that she can rule over the ruins with an iron fist. Because who doesn't love ruling a ruined kingdom?

I just don't get some of the positions.

The thing is... Lets just assume hypothetically that the whole "Hilary sold weapons to ISIS" was true.

Well... chances are it would be selling weapons in order for them to overthrow a government they find... unsavory.

You know like when the USA sold weapons to the Taliban

Or when the USA sold weapons to Sadam Husain.

Or when the USA sold weapons to despotic totalitarian governments!

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Is it because he thinks the election's rigged?

Or maybe the state they're in is so far leaning one way or another it really won't matter.

While I have every intention of voting for Hillary in spite of the futility, I'm pretty sure Jesus Christ Himself could alight atop the polling stations here in South Carolina and say, "Vote for Hillary Clinton, lest ye taste the leaping flames of Hell," and Trump would still win the state handily.  It's just the liberal media Satan tricking people, after all.

Don't count yourself out, Traitor Carolina has similar odds to Texas of going blue, and in the Clinton landslide scenario they're both in play.

It's not the most likely outcome, but it's a realistic one, and cut up into scenarios the way 538 does it is in fact the plurality.

[Neonivek]

Was she extreme?  Then name some of these extreme positions.

It was a two sentence post. I am not married to Tonnet's mother.

[mainiac]

Whoops, forgot which post was which there. 

I'm just saying that it happens a lot that saying good things about Clinton is labeled "extreme" while ridiculous lies about her are considered perfectly normal.  But someone is considered reasonable if they repeat ridiculous lies about Clinton so long as they also believe in a downright cartoonish version of Trump.

[Mephansteras]

Is it because he thinks the election's rigged?

Or maybe the state they're in is so far leaning one way or another it really won't matter.

Being in California, I get that feeling too.

Also, did you know that California has the biggest electoral college prize of any state? You'd think the Republicans would try to compete like mad for it, yet we're solidly Democrat.

What really surprises me is that Republicans haven't tried harder to change the state to a proportional electoral count system. California is solidly Democrat, but it still has more Republican voters than most red states have voters period. Splitting the California Electoral votes up , even if it is 60/40 or whatever, would still net the Republicans more EC votes than most red states give right now.

Granted, it's also a great example of why any such electoral college changes need to be done nationally rather than piecemeal by state. It just wrecks the balance of the system too much otherwise.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

If California went proportional it would cause a political landslide. The Dems would work tirelessly to either get it reversed or to make proportional assignment a nationwide thing (which would more than make up for losing some Cali votes). Or perhaps to finally get the EC Compact through.

It's one thing when nobody states like Maine or, ugh...Nebraska want to throw away some EC votes. Quite another when the big dogs get involved.

[smjjames]

Is it because he thinks the election's rigged?

Or maybe the state they're in is so far leaning one way or another it really won't matter.

Being in California, I get that feeling too.

Also, did you know that California has the biggest electoral college prize of any state? You'd think the Republicans would try to compete like mad for it, yet we're solidly Democrat.

What really surprises me is that Republicans haven't tried harder to change the state to a proportional electoral count system. California is solidly Democrat, but it still has more Republican voters than most red states have voters period. Splitting the California Electoral votes up , even if it is 60/40 or whatever, would still net the Republicans more EC votes than most red states give right now.

Granted, it's also a great example of why any such electoral college changes need to be done nationally rather than piecemeal by state. It just wrecks the balance of the system too much otherwise.

Yeah, I mean, if you had a multiplayer game and set something among a bunch of other stuff a high amount of points in the same ratio as California does, you'd absolutely expect the players to fight like hell over it, right? I'm saying California has MASSIVE potential to be competitive, yet it is non-competitive senate and presidential wise.

Joe Walsh............

I know he's labelled a 'professional internet troll' there, but at this rate, we're going to have enough people believing that there will be violence that there actually WILL be violence on and/or after election day.

[RedKing]

Is it because he thinks the election's rigged?

Or maybe the state they're in is so far leaning one way or another it really won't matter.

Being in California, I get that feeling too.

Also, did you know that California has the biggest electoral college prize of any state? You'd think the Republicans would try to compete like mad for it, yet we're solidly Democrat.

What really surprises me is that Republicans haven't tried harder to change the state to a proportional electoral count system. California is solidly Democrat, but it still has more Republican voters than most red states have voters period. Splitting the California Electoral votes up , even if it is 60/40 or whatever, would still net the Republicans more EC votes than most red states give right now.

Granted, it's also a great example of why any such electoral college changes need to be done nationally rather than piecemeal by state. It just wrecks the balance of the system too much otherwise.

Yeah, I mean, if you had a multiplayer game and set something among a bunch of other stuff a high amount of points in the same ratio as California does, you'd absolutely expect the players to fight like hell over it, right? I'm saying California has MASSIVE potential to be competitive, yet it is non-competitive senate and presidential wise.

Or you'd be hearing tons of "California OP, nerf plz"

[smjjames]

Is it because he thinks the election's rigged?

Or maybe the state they're in is so far leaning one way or another it really won't matter.

Being in California, I get that feeling too.

Also, did you know that California has the biggest electoral college prize of any state? You'd think the Republicans would try to compete like mad for it, yet we're solidly Democrat.

What really surprises me is that Republicans haven't tried harder to change the state to a proportional electoral count system. California is solidly Democrat, but it still has more Republican voters than most red states have voters period. Splitting the California Electoral votes up , even if it is 60/40 or whatever, would still net the Republicans more EC votes than most red states give right now.

Granted, it's also a great example of why any such electoral college changes need to be done nationally rather than piecemeal by state. It just wrecks the balance of the system too much otherwise.

Yeah, I mean, if you had a multiplayer game and set something among a bunch of other stuff a high amount of points in the same ratio as California does, you'd absolutely expect the players to fight like hell over it, right? I'm saying California has MASSIVE potential to be competitive, yet it is non-competitive senate and presidential wise.

Or you'd be hearing tons of "California OP, nerf plz"

Lol! very true, very true

[RedKing]

America needs major rebalancing. Third-party builds are useless for upper-tier campaign dungeons.