HolyGod

Registered bored user

holygod wrote:
FYI. He has done this lots of times in the past. 
holygod wrote:
johncourage Ahhh the I am rubber you are glue defense. Well thought out.

I have a lifetime of achievements and accolades to back up my confidence in my intelligence. I'm asking what yours are? I always find that the cockiest conservatives online, like 5Cats, are those that are over-compensating for their complete dearth of achievement elsewhere in life. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe you are a genius that just has a horrible understanding of math, statistics, population distribution, demographics, and the electoral college.
holygod wrote:
johncourage 

1. Mea culpa on Rhode Island. That definitely should have been on my list. I was doing it off an unlabeled map and simply missed the little fucker. D.C. I left off because we were talking about states, but OK, throw that on too. Fair enough.

2. Are you SHITTING me on the rest? We were talking about "SAFE STATES" I intentionally didn't list those. You are telling me Florida and Ohio are SAFE states? Then what the fuck is a battleground state in your mind?

3. Your entire premise is retarded. Let me give you an analogy. Let's say there were 250 million americans living in California and 50 million Americans living in the other 49 states. California, safely democrat, gets 260 electoral votes. The other 49 states get 278 split among them and none of them are "safe" republican. Would you maintain that the Electoral college system is "skewed" towards democrats?




holygod wrote:
johncourage I didn't call you names. I just said you're stupid. It isn't your fault. It doesn't make you a bad person. Some people are just born stupid the way some people are born short. 

The problem is that a lot of stupid people lack self awareness enough to know how little they understand which leaves them shockingly perceptible to being swayed by an echo chamber of misinformation and then disseminating it.

I also find arrogance pairs very poorly with ignorance.
holygod wrote:
johncourage Uh huh. Look, its 5Cats Jr. I'm guessing you have literally done NOTHING in your life to back up your presumed superior intellect. You are just an empty headed vessel for right wing punditry to shit into so you can regurgitate it online. 
holygod wrote:
johncourage Holy SHIT. You are dense.

Here is your quote: "at around 2:30. It discusses how only a few states are visited by candidates because the other large states are assumed to vote a specific way. There were more states assumed to be voting Democrat in the election and that is the skew."

OK. Let's see. The "safe" states for 2016:

Democrat
WA, OR,  CA, NM, MN, IL, ME, VT, MA, NY, CT, NJ, DE, MD, HI

Republican
ID, UT, AZ, MT, WY, ND, SD, NE, KS, OK, TX, MO, AR, LA, IN, KY, TN, MS, AL, GA, SC, NC, WV, AK

Please tell me again about how "more states assumed to be voting Democrat".
holygod wrote:
johncourage It makes me super bummed out that people as dumb as you live in my country.
holygod wrote:
johncourage That isn't a skew man. That just means there are more Democrats in America then Republicans. You may not like it but it isn't a "skew". A "skew" is when you make someone in Wyoming's vote for president be worth as much as 4 people's vote in California. This is very simple and basic math and if you haven't understood it at this point I'm not explaining it.

Watch this video, pay attention to which states get more representation than they should and which get less, and then come back here and tell me if you still thinks the electoral college skews towards democrats:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wC42HgLA4k


holygod wrote:
johncourage Reality? What a fucking joke.
holygod wrote:
johncourage You absolutely could not understand math any worse. The electoral college drastically diminishes the value of a democrat's vote in places like New York, Illinois, and California while boosting the value of a republican's vote in places like Wyoming, Idaho, North Dakota, Montana, South Dakota or any other fly over state.

It is unbelievable to me that you could even make that statement considering a Democrat has never won the electoral college while losing the popular vote and Republicans have done it 4 times including 2 of the last 5 elections.
holygod wrote:
thething911 Wait. Are you saying backing Trump was putting country first?
holygod wrote:
"So they asked me, Wolf ... asked me about NATO, and I said two things. NATO's obsolete — not knowing much about NATO"

If you voted for Trump I honestly and truly hope you are embarrassed enough to really think about the consequences of your choices when you vote in the future instead of just following rabid party affiliation.
holygod wrote:
If Trump wouldn't have been born to a socially and politically connected multi-millionaire he would currently be the 3rd most successful used car salesman in Trenton, New Jersey.
holygod wrote:
Remember when we weren't embarrassed by our president? Those were good times.

holygod wrote:
megrendel 

1. I don't think there was anything particularly "funny" about the 1st idea. Seems perfectly rational and reasonable to me. You have people that base their world view on distorted propaganda and the only way to fix it is to show them reality.

2. It is not. There have been multiple studies. One in particular by a Conservative in the Reagan and Bush administrations. Pew has done several. The problem is you are going to say ANY study as "biased" because it doesn't confirm with your world view.

Which pew studies are you referring to? Here's some of mine:

http://www.people-press.org/2007/04/15/public-knowledge-of-current-affairs-little-changed-by-news-and-information-revolutions/

http://www.people-press.org/2008/08/17/news-interest-and-knowledge/

http://www.people-press.org/2010/09/12/section-4-who-is-listening-watching-reading-and-why/

Just look through the data. Fox News viewers are consistently shown to be near or at the bottom of information, education, income, bias, etc. Don't shoot the messenger.
holygod wrote:
megrendel Just because it bothers you doesn't change the fact that Fox News viewers are routinely shown to be less informed than almost every other category.
holygod wrote:
megrendel Obama was handed a country at war and sliding into the worst economy in 70+ years. You really don't get that? You don't think those issues affected his term? 
holygod wrote:
LOL. Did you write that headline 5Cats? Yes, the "plan" of the entire "left" was laid out in a random blog post written by a student on a south african site.
holygod wrote:
Well I don't think it is too much of a stretch to admit that a pretty decent share of the worst shit in the world and the worst shit in America has been perpetrated by middle aged white males. Because of that they do have a disproportionate amount of wealth and influence.

How do you fix that? Would this fix it? Ya, probably. Is the fix as unfair as the injustice it aims to fix? Ya, probably.
holygod wrote:
Its going better than I thought, but that's because my expectations were REALLY low. Outside of just being a general embarrassment for our country, nothing he has done (that I'm aware of) has adversely affected me in any significant way.
holygod wrote:
melcervini "You" as in the global you. As in the Patriots who happen to be owned by a personal friend of Trump. I'm aware you didn't make any additional context. 
holygod wrote:
trimble For certainly sir.
holygod wrote:
"Cognitive dissonance" and confirmation bias explain so much in this world.
holygod wrote:
waldo863 Yes "this gentleman" that "outplayed" Clinton. You know, when he was 15. LOL.
holygod wrote:
dromed Where were you when 5Cats was posting every day about Obama not wearing a jacket in the oval office or saluting with a coffee cup in his hand? Seriously? 

I'm actually consistent and have said on multiple occasions that a lot of these Trump posts are meaningless petty bullshit. You are just playing the "sides" game, whining about whining.