Hoover spoke chinese because he knew that would help him score better dope. another example of how republicans of eighty years ago are smarter than republicans of today.
I'm only linking to this site because for some reason the youtube video was deleted. His names Mike Lofgren. You might like what he has to say about the GOP
http://videosift.com/video/How-Republic … me-Useless
http://videosift.com/video/How-Republic … me-Useless
So its basically the dim and the Christian fruitcakes vs the free and the educated?13urnzz wrote:
Fact; the top ten, most educated states voted democrat in the last election.
Fact; 9/10 of the least educated states voted republican. (nevada went democrat, thus proving that legalized betting doesn't make you smarter, just makes you better at determining a winner).
Fact; the democrats had more votes cast for the house of representatives. Thanks to gerrymandering, the republicans hold a majority in the house.
Fact; the democrats won 38% more of the single, white, woman vote, proving that once you go black, you never go back.
Fact; America once again proved that despite a big bloc of voters voting against their self interest, that there is still a a concerned citizen that will rush to their aid and help them out of a potential disaster.
gg America! you may enjoy entertainers like hannity and limbaugh, but you've proven that their brand diarrhea has no place in practical matters.
I'm proud that the average citizen rejected rick santorum's assertion that America doesn't need higher eduction, and that the democrats assertion that a way to a better future is through an education for the 21st century. the republicans are proving to be like the Beach Boys - their fans are dieing out.
R I P Beach Boys.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
It was all about the money.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
unsure if posted:
Mitt Romney Campaign Aides Had Credit Cards Canceled Late On Election Night
For the donors they expected a return on their investment, Rmoney would repay their personal contributions with tax dollars.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
There needs to be more GOP supporters like you.13urnzz wrote:
he has the background, experience, and convictions that any republican candidate would be proud of. he has 2 fatal flaws that won't get him by the republican primaries, even after they got their ass kicked in this general election - he believes in science, and he served his country as an ambassador in [GASP!] a democratic administration.Spearhead wrote:
I was considering joining the GOP to vote for Huntsman, but unfortunately he quit the race before he made it to my state. Much respect.
Hopefully he will run in 2016. I'll vote for him. I mean it.
republicans of today are so fucking stupid that i can't relate to them.
Social conservatives are a joke and bring down the fiscally conservative faction with stupidity.
See Akin, Bachmann, Palin, Santorum, Perry (I could keep going...)
I think you're missing the point that it is the relative distribution of democrat vs republican-heavy locales that makes "effective" gerrymandering difficult. Any attempt to change district boundaries to weight one side or the other over the status quo would be glaringly obvious, resulting in court cases/injunctions/etc. And since it's based on census findings, it only happens every 10 years at most (roughly three presidential election cycles per census).Spark wrote:
I think the point is that it's exactly the geographic boundaries, not the congressional races, which are the problem. Don't get me wrong, a highly localised seat-by-seat campaign has some big benefits, but it is extremely susceptible to gerrymandering and that could severely undermine confidence in the electoral process. It doesn't favour Republicans per se - it favours whoever gets to draw the district boundaries in that state. Perhaps you mean some sort of Hare-Clark quota system to try and alleviate the issue, but I don't know how that would work without the preferential bit and a one-vote-per-district basis. And it would be an unholy clusterfuck by definition.FEOS wrote:
I don't know if he would've won or not. Keep in mind that it's still (more closely than now) tied to the popular vote, but by district, rather than "winner take all"--which, IIRC, people have complained about since at least 2000.
And again--I'm not talking about congressional races, I'm talking about using the congressional districts (geographic distribution) to allocate Presidential electoral votes in the Presidential race. Why is that so hard to comprehend?
The number of electors for a given state are determined by the number of congressional districts in that state, plus two additional for the senators. All I'm proposing here is that those same electoral votes are allocated based on the popular vote in their corresponding district. The two senator-related electoral votes would go to the candidate with the highest percentage of the popular vote for the state. How does that favor Republicans? It favors neither, and more closely aligns the electoral college count with the popular vote, while still maintaining the intent of the college, which was to attempt to give rural areas (relatively) the same influence as highly urbanized areas in the Presidential election.
It would force the candidates to campaign in (at least) all 48 contiguous states, minus a handful, as already stated. It would mean the outcome in one or two states wouldn't determine the outcome early in the vote counting. It would mean the candidates would have to get their message out to a larger proportion of the population than they do now. How is it a bad thing?
It's also worth noting that, at least here (though we have two major, major differences on top of the seat-by-seat system which could render the comparison moot) it's actually more common for the popular vote loser to win the election. So it's not necessarily true that it'll avoid that possibility.
For the record, on a fairly crude analysis, if you applied Obama's 2.5%-3.0% national popular vote margin to a model where the electoral votes are distributed on a district-by-district basis, Obama would have just won.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
I'll have that karma now thanks.Pochsy wrote:
That is actually pretty impressive. There aren't many ways you could arrive at those numbers without having predicted several other non-guaranteed states as well.Ty wrote:
I'm just waiting the result from Florida. If it falls Democrat my entire prediction will be correct. I think I should win a prize.Pochsy wrote:
I guess I was only half correct. Although Obama did win Ohio, it wasn't all that important given that by the time they counted those votes he had already won.Ty wrote:
My prediction hinges on Florida but either way I'll call it for Obama. My guess is 332 to 206.
I'll reserve my karma for the release of the Florida results.
*bows*
[Blinking eyes thing]
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
You obviously just copied Nate Silver.
Bullshit, he copied me. And not saying that I did copy him but even if I did I think I should win points for deciding to copy him. Again, not admitting to anything.
I looked at a lot of pundits, polling and predictions but yeah, when it came down to it if you read Silver's fivethirtyeight blog it's pretty clear that it'd be what you'd want to base any predictions on. The guy's math is solid. He's not influenced by sides or what he thinks politically because I don't think that matters to him. He just wants to make an accurate prediction. I was actually going to follow Joe Trippi's lead and say Florida would fall for Romney simply because Florida has always seemed a more pink-ish purple swing state to me. But Silver's math put Florida just falling for Obama, so I followed him.
To be fair aside from Silver I think every political pundit was going on wishful thinking or just going with the "it's too close to call" line. Most pundits are all about reassuring their audience. It's not like their logic and reasoning is looked at, it's not like they're held to account, it's all just guesswork and hope. And you see what happens when that's all you rely on; anger, denial, depression. And now a lot of the bigwigs who contributed financially to the Romney campaign are now angry and demanding compensation because apparently they were assured of an Election win. Forgetting how ridiculous this is it's not like it's the Romney camp's fault anyway. The information was out there for anyone to see, they just chose to be reassured.
And yes, all glory to Nate Silver. The guy who proved that strangely enough when it comes to polling and predictions you're better off using numbers over blind hope and gut feelings.
I looked at a lot of pundits, polling and predictions but yeah, when it came down to it if you read Silver's fivethirtyeight blog it's pretty clear that it'd be what you'd want to base any predictions on. The guy's math is solid. He's not influenced by sides or what he thinks politically because I don't think that matters to him. He just wants to make an accurate prediction. I was actually going to follow Joe Trippi's lead and say Florida would fall for Romney simply because Florida has always seemed a more pink-ish purple swing state to me. But Silver's math put Florida just falling for Obama, so I followed him.
To be fair aside from Silver I think every political pundit was going on wishful thinking or just going with the "it's too close to call" line. Most pundits are all about reassuring their audience. It's not like their logic and reasoning is looked at, it's not like they're held to account, it's all just guesswork and hope. And you see what happens when that's all you rely on; anger, denial, depression. And now a lot of the bigwigs who contributed financially to the Romney campaign are now angry and demanding compensation because apparently they were assured of an Election win. Forgetting how ridiculous this is it's not like it's the Romney camp's fault anyway. The information was out there for anyone to see, they just chose to be reassured.
And yes, all glory to Nate Silver. The guy who proved that strangely enough when it comes to polling and predictions you're better off using numbers over blind hope and gut feelings.
[Blinking eyes thing]
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
are you Spoiler (highlight to read):Ty wrote:
Bullshit, he copied me. And not saying that I did copy him but even if I did I think I should win points for deciding to copy him. Again, not admitting to anything.
I looked at a lot of pundits, polling and predictions but yeah, when it came down to it if you read Silver's fivethirtyeight blog it's pretty clear that it'd be what you'd want to base any predictions on. The guy's math is solid. He's not influenced by sides or what he thinks politically because I don't think that matters to him. He just wants to make an accurate prediction. I was actually going to follow Joe Trippi's lead and say Florida would fall for Romney simply because Florida has always seemed a more pink-ish purple swing state to me. But Silver's math put Florida just falling for Obama, so I followed him.
To be fair aside from Silver I think every political pundit was going on wishful thinking or just going with the "it's too close to call" line. Most pundits are all about reassuring their audience. It's not like their logic and reasoning is looked at, it's not like they're held to account, it's all just guesswork and hope. And you see what happens when that's all you rely on; anger, denial, depression. And now a lot of the bigwigs who contributed financially to the Romney campaign are now angry and demanding compensation because apparently they were assured of an Election win. Forgetting how ridiculous this is it's not like it's the Romney camp's fault anyway. The information was out there for anyone to see, they just chose to be reassured.
And yes, all glory to Nate Silver. The guy who proved that strangely enough when it comes to polling and predictions you're better off using numbers over blind hope and gut feelings.
mad
_______________________________________________________________________________________________ 
Nah, an attempt humourous denial. I realise it doesn't come across well in text.
[Blinking eyes thing]
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
I didn't think so.
[Blinking eyes thing]
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
i did
Maybe they should have been more fiscally conservative with their investment.Ty wrote:
And now a lot of the bigwigs who contributed financially to the Romney campaign are now angry and demanding compensation because apparently they were assured of an Election win. Forgetting how ridiculous this is it's not like it's the Romney camp's fault anyway. The information was out there for anyone to see, they just chose to be reassured.
Come back Jay, we forgive you!
He got banned. Should be back tomorrow.
[Blinking eyes thing]
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
I shall await the return of lavadisk. He's an esoterical alchemist, you know.
he sent me some weird PMsSpearhead wrote:
I shall await the return of lavadisk. He's an esoterical alchemist, you know.
Banned him until 2013. If he comes back then he shouldn't need to talk about the 2012 end of the world thing any more. And if he was right then fuck it, we don't have to see him again anyway. Win-win.
[Blinking eyes thing]
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
Why make it so complicated? Just assign electoral college votes based on proportion to popular vote. If a state has 3 electoral college votes and candidate A wins with 51% of the vote, give them 2 of the 3. If a state has 10 votes, and candidate B earns 70% of the vote, give him 7 and 3 to the other(s). Winner take all is what makes the swing states overly important.FEOS wrote:
I think you're missing the point that it is the relative distribution of democrat vs republican-heavy locales that makes "effective" gerrymandering difficult. Any attempt to change district boundaries to weight one side or the other over the status quo would be glaringly obvious, resulting in court cases/injunctions/etc. And since it's based on census findings, it only happens every 10 years at most (roughly three presidential election cycles per census).Spark wrote:
I think the point is that it's exactly the geographic boundaries, not the congressional races, which are the problem. Don't get me wrong, a highly localised seat-by-seat campaign has some big benefits, but it is extremely susceptible to gerrymandering and that could severely undermine confidence in the electoral process. It doesn't favour Republicans per se - it favours whoever gets to draw the district boundaries in that state. Perhaps you mean some sort of Hare-Clark quota system to try and alleviate the issue, but I don't know how that would work without the preferential bit and a one-vote-per-district basis. And it would be an unholy clusterfuck by definition.FEOS wrote:
I don't know if he would've won or not. Keep in mind that it's still (more closely than now) tied to the popular vote, but by district, rather than "winner take all"--which, IIRC, people have complained about since at least 2000.
And again--I'm not talking about congressional races, I'm talking about using the congressional districts (geographic distribution) to allocate Presidential electoral votes in the Presidential race. Why is that so hard to comprehend?
The number of electors for a given state are determined by the number of congressional districts in that state, plus two additional for the senators. All I'm proposing here is that those same electoral votes are allocated based on the popular vote in their corresponding district. The two senator-related electoral votes would go to the candidate with the highest percentage of the popular vote for the state. How does that favor Republicans? It favors neither, and more closely aligns the electoral college count with the popular vote, while still maintaining the intent of the college, which was to attempt to give rural areas (relatively) the same influence as highly urbanized areas in the Presidential election.
It would force the candidates to campaign in (at least) all 48 contiguous states, minus a handful, as already stated. It would mean the outcome in one or two states wouldn't determine the outcome early in the vote counting. It would mean the candidates would have to get their message out to a larger proportion of the population than they do now. How is it a bad thing?
It's also worth noting that, at least here (though we have two major, major differences on top of the seat-by-seat system which could render the comparison moot) it's actually more common for the popular vote loser to win the election. So it's not necessarily true that it'll avoid that possibility.
For the record, on a fairly crude analysis, if you applied Obama's 2.5%-3.0% national popular vote margin to a model where the electoral votes are distributed on a district-by-district basis, Obama would have just won.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
the fact you bring this up after the election instead of using a previous example just screams of QQ
Wonder if the GOP will suddenly be able to appeal to black/ hispanic and other minorities... women lol
They used to.AussieReaper wrote:
Wonder if the GOP will suddenly be able to appeal to black/ hispanic and other minorities... women lol
