We The People: National Popular Vote!

[Jhhnn]

Of course not, that would be illegal and these people would never do anything that was against the law. Oh, to have the faith of a liberal.

In order to prove the existence of illegals voting you must supply data to that effect.

You have none, obviously.

 

[bozack]

Hello sore loser, good to see you back to posting again....hahaha...gotta love it, so happy to see the meltdown. Can you say "anti democratic" possibly one more time knowing full well this would completely stack the deck for the heavily populated urban areas.

 

[Moonbeam]

If he is incapable of seeing why are you telling him? Do you think you are wrong and he will be able to see it if you just tell him again?

I am telling him because it is completely pointless to try to hell him anything. He imagines he can reason scientifically when he can't and that is precisely the skill he would need to see it. He is trapped in the prison of imagining he has capacities that he doesn't and it is that that creates the prison condition. It's like being a victim of pride and being too proud to admit it.

But, If you will notice, you understood intuitively that I appeared to be wasting my time. But there is always a small chance that when you see his hopeless condition you might recognize it closer to home. It's a shame that anybody should be hopelessly lost.

 

[bozack]

The democratic party is a mess, here you have an article about how Obama "forced" Hillary to concede on election night, most likely because of the big to do they made of the election process being infallible and how they went against Trump's rhetoric about not conceding the election if he didn't like the results....now Hillary's camp driving the whambulance because they didn't hold out...what a joke. http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...n-night/ar-AAkLTND?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp

 

[Jhhnn]

The democratic party is a mess, here you have an article about how Obama "forced" Hillary to concede on election night, most likely because of the big to do they made of the election process being infallible and how they went against Trump's rhetoric about not conceding the election if he didn't like the results....now Hillary's camp driving the whambulance because they didn't hold out...what a joke. http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...n-night/ar-AAkLTND?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp

"Sources" is synonymous with "bullshit".

 

[imported_tajmahal]

"Sources" is synonymous with "bullshit".

Absolutely, especially in regards to Watergate........................ oh wait.

 

[Jhhnn]

Absolutely, especially in regards to Watergate........................ oh wait.

There were some actual facts associated with Watergate-

Shortly after midnight on June 17, 1972, Frank Wills, a security guard at the Watergate Complex, noticed tape covering the latches on some of the doors in the complex leading from the underground parking garage to several offices (allowing the doors to close but remain unlocked). He removed the tape, and thought nothing of it. He returned an hour later and, having discovered that someone had retaped the locks, Wills called the police. Five men were discovered inside the DNC office and arrested.[17] They were Virgilio González, Bernard Barker, James McCord, Eugenio Martínez, and Frank Sturgis, who were charged with attempted burglary and attempted interception of telephone and other communications.

The only fact associated with bozack's linked story is that Hillary conceded.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Of course, and there was never an unnamed source called "Deep throat" without who it never would have happened. I'm just laughing at your typical leftist hypocrisy.

 

[agent00f]

millions of illegals voted? any proof buddy?

I can't imagine that. They are mentally ill.

Just imagine what it would feel like if you suddenly woke up to discover that you were as stupid as they appear to be. You'd have to go though a really rough patch before you could look yourself in the mirror. The temptation would be to stay asleep.

It's always tempting for people who value reasons & facts to assume others do, too, when it's entirely possible they do not.

Consider that it's quite likely some people value loyalty & strength over those other virtues, especially when there's an evolutionary advantage to it.

So when buckshot/legendkiller et al spout objective nonsense, they can very well know it's untrue but keep going because it effectively furthers the cause. Framing them as simply too stupid to figure things out is a discredit to what they do.

Keep in mind their sort won an election as a result so there's no reason to stop.

 

[agent00f]

Fellow Democrats, we need to stop whining about the Electoral College, and start winning small rural states.
If you think that some other state is getting a sweet deal from more political power, just move there. But the reality is that these states are falling far behind under Republican control, and Democrats should not just give up on them, but should go there, present an alternative, and work to win them.

Liberals need to seriously consider whether the dysfunctional marriage is worth keeping together. Pay the way for people whose only worth seems to be stabbing you in the back is a game for low T cucks.

If anything, a little discussed reason why Clinton & democrats like her lost is due to perceived weakness. It's in the nature of these people to respect strength and authority, so playing a weak hand by focusing on facts & reason is only ever counterproductive.

 

[senseamp]

They do usually give us a big tax cut to soften the blow, maybe that's why we stay
Plus we make money hand over fist automating their jobs while they blame Mexico

 

[Sunburn74]

If anything, a little discussed reason why Clinton & democrats like her lost is due to perceived weakness. It's in the nature of these people to respect strength and authority, so playing a weak hand by focusing on facts & reason is only ever counterproductive.

It's so crazy that people call her a weak candidate, but the night of the election most betting markets (again people who are neutral and have skin in the game in the form of actual dollars) had her anywhere from 80-99% chance of winning. One very prominent guy put her at 71% and was ridiculed by his peers.

You can't after the results come in say someone was a weak candidate when they were the overwhelming favorite going into a contest. The golden state warriors last year were up 3-1, won the most games in NBA history in a single year and lost in a remarkable comeback by the Cavaliers. That is literally the sporting equivalent of the Trump win. People called the Cavs dead in the water, just like we called Trump dead. People called for him to drop out. He was making vague, early conciliatory statements like "regardless of what happens, I am happy with the race I ran" and so on.

It was a surprising result and yes Hillary made mistakes just like the Warriors made mistakes and had flaws. But its stupid to call both teams weak or soft when neutral gambling markets are giving them overwhelming odds to win their respective contests.

 

[agent00f]

It's so crazy that people call her a weak candidate, but the night of the election most betting markets (again people who are neutral and have skin in the game in the form of actual dollars) had her anywhere from 80-99% chance of winning. One very prominent guy put her at 71% and was ridiculed by his peers.

You can't after the results come in say someone was a weak candidate when they were the overwhelming favorite going into a contest. The golden state warriors last year were up 3-1, won the most games in NBA history in a single year and lost in a remarkable comeback by the Cavaliers. That is literally the sporting equivalent of the Trump win. People called the Cavs dead in the water, just like we called Trump dead. People called for him to drop out. He was making vague, early conciliatory statements like "regardless of what happens, I am happy with the race I ran" and so on.

It was a surprising result and yes Hillary made mistakes just like the Warriors made mistakes and had flaws. But its stupid to call both teams weak or soft when neutral gambling markets are giving them overwhelming odds to win their respective contests.

I mean weakness as in doesn't roflstomp lesser adversaries, in the same way the liberals here don't roflstomp those with lesser arguments like they should.

But she was also a weak political candidate due to lack of charisma in a popularity contests. Of course that Trump was worse, and the popular vote shows this. It just so happens that he got marginally more votes in a few places than expected.

 

[compuwiz1]

They do usually give us a big tax cut to soften the blow, maybe that's why we stay
Plus we make money hand over fist automating their jobs while they blame Mexico

Thank your for admitting what you are....a leach.

 

[agent00f]

Thank your for admitting what you are....a leach.

Tax policy is how the market capitalism crowd prefer regulation/planning to be done. Eg. instead of funding/constructing automation system, ie the future, the gov gives a tax break to someone else who does. OTOH folks who literally live off other people's money while not doing anything particular worthwhile in exchange (eg the military) are by definition leeching.

 

[fskimospy]

Thank your for admitting what you are....a leach.

Automating jobs increases productivity and increased productivity is the primary engine through which we increase the sum total of human wellbeing.

 

[bozack]

"Sources" is synonymous with "bullshit".

umm looks like its pretty official there buddy given that every major news outlet has now covered it and the campaign is even admitting it.

This is a colossal waste of time and money

 

[fskimospy]

umm looks like its pretty official there buddy given that every major news outlet has now covered it and the campaign is even admitting it.

This is a colossal waste of time and money

Aren't you someone that supports voter ID? If so you can't really talk about wasting money when it comes to elections.

 

[Kazukian]

Denial
Anger
Bargaining <-----
Depression
Acceptance

 

[fskimospy]

Denial
Anger
Bargaining <-----
Depression
Acceptance

You're going to have to explain this one? Very confusing, haha.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Automating jobs increases productivity and increased productivity is the primary engine through which we increase the sum total of human wellbeing.

That certainly would be the argument of the 0.01% and the basis of argument for their increasing gap in wealth over the rest of humanity. A most productive society would be a totalitarian system where the few control the many, dictating what they may and may not do, with the justification that productivity increases the sum total of human well being.

You have made a very dangerous argument based on a truism. Who wins and loses? If I have a company and make more product by displacing most or all workers I increase productivity. I will be rewarded financially. The workers will be destroyed as others will look at my success and emulate it. I and others will have acquired irrevocable power over the masses and they become irrelevant to finance and irrelevant as a whole. The Purple class and Scrooge's surplus population.

 

[fskimospy]

That certainly would be the argument of the 0.01% and the basis of argument for their increasing gap in wealth over the rest of humanity. A most productive society would be a totalitarian system where the few control the many, dictating what they may and may not do, with the justification that productivity increases the sum total of human well being.

Well sure, but literally no one is arguing for that. If you look you will see I said 'primary' and not 'sole'.

You have made a very dangerous argument based on a truism. Who wins and loses? If I have a company and make more product by displacing most or all workers I increase productivity. I will be rewarded financially. The workers will be destroyed as others will look at my success and emulate it. I and others will have acquired irrevocable power over the masses and they become irrelevant to finance and irrelevant as a whole. The Purple class and Scrooge's surplus population.

No, you're trying to turn an economic argument into a political one. There's no reason why we have to have a society where what you described happens, that is a political choice. Increasing productivity gives us more resources and then it's up to us to decide what to do with them.

Broadly speaking if a job can be automated it should be as there is rarely a good reason to keep doing things a worse way just to protect someone's job. I mean why bother having farm equipment? We could employ everyone working the fields. We would all be immeasurably poorer, but we would all be employed. Is it sad when someone loses their job to automation? Sure. Humanity as a whole was a whole lot sadder before we started replacing human labor with technology though.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Well sure, but literally no one is arguing for that. If you look you will see I said 'primary' and not 'sole'.



No, you're trying to turn an economic argument into a political one. There's no reason why we have to have a society where what you described happens, that is a political choice. Increasing productivity gives us more resources and then it's up to us to decide what to do with them.

Broadly speaking if a job can be automated it should be as there is rarely a good reason to keep doing things a worse way just to protect someone's job. I mean why bother having farm equipment? We could employ everyone working the fields. We would all be immeasurably poorer, but we would all be employed. Is it sad when someone loses their job to automation? Sure. Humanity as a whole was a whole lot sadder before we started replacing human labor with technology though.

I'm turning an economic argument into a real life scenario. Your choice is academic, because power determines what is "best". You don't have to argue for anything, it will happen because you don't have any.

You are also making an economic argument completely void of human concerns. When people are losing high paying jobs for inferior ones with no real hope of regaining them, then you say what? It's all about productivity? You just don't understand that this decrease you face is for the Greater Good. That will sell.

The have nots will have less and the haves will have more. Displacing humans and making them valueless is a goal and that's a problem. If you want to argue that we go sharecropping then so be it, but this is a real problem for real people. Inner cities have had this problem for generations. "Get a job you lazy so and so" but there is no real opportunity and you've put forward a reason why them and everyone else needs to suck it up.

I don't accept that. I may be powerless, but I do not have to agree with the natural consequences of what is being dictated.

 

[fskimospy]

I'm turning an economic argument into a real life scenario. Your choice is academic, because power determines what is "best". You don't have to argue for anything, it will happen because you don't have any.

My choice isn't academic at all, it's a choice we face every day. Your 'real life scenario' of creating a totalitarian state for the purposes of productivity enhancement has never happened in all of history.

You are also making an economic argument completely void of human concerns. When people are losing high paying jobs for inferior ones with no real hope of regaining them, then you say what? It's all about productivity? You just don't understand that this decrease you face is for the Greater Good. That will sell.

Absolutely not! In fact human concerns are my ONLY focus here. Improvements in human productivity have lifted literally billions of people out of subsistence living and saved countless billions of lives. It's why human standards of living were basically stagnant until the industrial revolution and have increased by leaps and bounds since.

The have nots will have less and the haves will have more. Displacing humans and making them valueless is a goal and that's a problem. If you want to argue that we go sharecropping then so be it, but this is a real problem for real people. Inner cities have had this problem for generations. "Get a job you lazy so and so" but there is no real opportunity and you've put forward a reason why them and everyone else needs to suck it up.

This is a real problem for real people but the answer isn't to ignore technology or turn back the clock. We don't need to regress and make the world poorer to help people keep their jobs. That would be insanity.

I don't accept that. I may be powerless, but I do not have to agree with the natural consequences of what is being dictated.

There are no natural consequences here, there are choices we make.

 

[Moonbeam]

The respectful argument happening here between eskimo and Hay is the most important one I have seen here on P and N in ages.