Civil Discourse

Status
Not open for further replies.
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Buddha2525 said:
I think what he's getting at is if voter fraud happens in one place, and massive, in a highly densly populated area, will get offset by the rest of the nation with an electoral system. It's very hard to do fraud everywhere, and if one wanted to do that, their best bet is in those highly populated densely packed areas.

For example California. This is odd and highly suspect. But doesn't prove fraud.

"Clinton won the state with 61.73% of the vote and a 30.11% margin, both the highest since Franklin D. Roosevelt's 66.95% vote share and 35.25% margin in 1936. This was also the first time Orange County voted Democratic since 1936, when Franklin D. Roosevelt swept every single county in the state."
Click to expand...
No, that's not what he was getting at.
 
Unclebaldrick

Unclebaldrick

Well-Known Member
Buddha2525 said:
Did you fail venn diagrams in 9th grade? Drawing circles is hard!
Click to expand...
Nope. I am very good at them. That is why I know your argument is full of shit. I'm sorry that you have an impossible job defending that so your only option is obfuscation. I am even more sorry if you don't know that your argument is shit. But I care little either way, Buddhaboy.

The premise was that the electoral college was or was not put in place to prevent voter fraud. Your idiot cohort replied that voter fraud takes place in cities (because... Dark people?) and that, since cities are disadvantaged by it, it proves his point. But it doesn't as his city/voter fraud claim was unsupported and certainly did not factor into the decision to create the electoral college.

Then you chimed in on your other keyboard and showed where somebody said that the electoral college was put in place to mitigate voter manipulation (funny coming from a little buddha-bitchboy troll like you). At least this is a reasonable claim but, again, was not the issue.

Then you claimed that voter manipulation=vote manipulation=vote fraud... But it just doesn't.

Tell me more about these Venn Diagrams.
 
7391

7391

Member
Unclebaldrick said:
Nope. I am very good at them. That is why I know your argument is full of shit. I'm sorry that you have an impossible job defending that so your only option is obfuscation. I am even more sorry if you don't know that your argument is shit. But I care little either way, Buddhaboy.

The premise was that the electoral college was or was not put in place to prevent voter fraud. Your idiot cohort replied that voter fraud takes place in cities (because... Dark people?) and that, since cities are disadvantaged by it, it proves his point. But it doesn't as his city/voter fraud claim was unsupported and certainly did not factor into the decision to create the electoral college.

Then you chimed in on your other keyboard and showed where somebody said that the electoral college was put in place to mitigate voter manipulation (funny coming from a little buddha-bitchboy troll like you). At least this is a reasonable claim but, again, was not the issue.

Then you claimed that voter manipulation=vote manipulation=vote fraud... But it just doesn't.

Tell me more about these Venn Diagrams.
Click to expand...
Yet you had to do the same thing.....Cities posses more corruption, yet, you would accuse, when you are at practice, I am sure that you make your masters proud. So go to your masters and feed off their table scraps, this is where you are happier, and we do not fault you, nor do we care.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Buddha2525 said:
I think what he's getting at is if voter fraud happens in one place, and massive, in a highly densly populated area, will get offset by the rest of the nation with an electoral system. It's very hard to do fraud everywhere, and if one wanted to do that, their best bet is in those highly populated densely packed areas.

For example California. This is odd and highly suspect. But doesn't prove fraud.

"Clinton won the state with 61.73% of the vote and a 30.11% margin, both the highest since Franklin D. Roosevelt's 66.95% vote share and 35.25% margin in 1936. This was also the first time Orange County voted Democratic since 1936, when Franklin D. Roosevelt swept every single county in the state."
Click to expand...
Yeah, California doesn't like Trump.

A lot. Most of the country is trending in that direction. Trump is such a shitty president even you, our RIU alt.right pet shies away from fully endorsing him.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
7391 said:
Yet you had to do the same thing.....Cities posses more corruption, yet, you would accuse, when you are at practice, I am sure that you make your masters proud. So go to your masters and feed off their table scraps, this is where you are happier, and we do not fault you, nor do we care.
Click to expand...
What's it like working for Putin?

Do you steer clear of rooms above the ground floor?
 
MichiganSpinDoctor

MichiganSpinDoctor

Well-Known Member
7391 said:
So far, I have very little to disapprove of, so far industry and economy are booming, he has lived by his word. The only thing I might disapprove of would be his constant battle with media. Most media outlets are dying right now, viewership is down on MSM, CNN is taking the bigger hit, President Trump does have some character flaws, who does not?
Click to expand...
His constant battle with the media is my favorite thing about his presidency, besides the supreme court justices.
 
Unclebaldrick

Unclebaldrick

Well-Known Member
7391 said:
Yet you had to do the same thing.....Cities posses more corruption, yet, you would accuse, when you are at practice, I am sure that you make your masters proud. So go to your masters and feed off their table scraps, this is where you are happier, and we do not fault you, nor do we care.
Click to expand...
In respect to the fact that there are far more people in cities, you may be right. But you have shown no evidence that they are more corrupt per capita than Hicksville, USA.

The rest of your post is just invective. Please be civil.

What is your first language?
 
7391

7391

Member
Unclebaldrick said:
In respect to the fact that there are far more people in cities, you may be right. But you have shown no evidence that they are more corrupt per capita than Hicksville, USA.

The rest of your post is just invective. Please be civil.

What is your first language?
Click to expand...
I have lived in many cities and I have lived in towns, as far as civil, always with grace and class. You are just afraid of someone who speaks with temerity and lacks the animus that you have towards others, and what would first language have to do with anything, amazing that you looking to dig up something on me. As invective, no, I debate, I do well at it, you do not.
 
Unclebaldrick

Unclebaldrick

Well-Known Member
7391 said:
I have lived in many cities and I have lived in towns, as far as civil, always with grace and class. You are just afraid of someone who speaks with temerity and lacks the animus that you have towards others, and what would first language have to do with anything, amazing that you looking to dig up something on me. As invective, no, I debate, I do well at it, you do not.
Click to expand...
Lol. Bro, you weak - but I know you are all pumped up on white pride. The next few years will be instructive for you. Wait for it.

:p
 
Buddha2525

Buddha2525

Well-Known Member
Unclebaldrick said:
Then you claimed that voter manipulation=vote manipulation=vote fraud... .
Click to expand...
I never claimed that.

My claim:

(voter manipulation ∈ voter fraud) isn't necessarily true but, (voter fraud ∈ voter manipulation) is true in all cases.

While certain cases of voter manipulation isn't illegal, it's still immoral. But, whenever an authority tries to make imoral behavior that's repulsive illegal just because others object, usually more harm than good happens, no matter the good intention. Illegal behavior must follow much stricter standards than immoral ones, which many can claim opinion, and sometimes is too complicated, requiring a case by case basis to determine illegality.

But as a safeguard against densely populated areas getting manipulated with group think, from having more undue block vote influence, the founders set up a compromise of electoral vote blocks. So landslide block votes are just as valid as slim margin block votes.

The reasoning behind this is, although an idea like Never Trump can reach many geographical areas, that message was refused by enough key demographics acting as a cancer, electoring Cheeto Jesus.

Whether that's "unfair" is up to debate.
 
Unclebaldrick

Unclebaldrick

Well-Known Member
Buddha2525 said:
I never claimed that.

My claim:

(voter manipulation ∈ voter fraud) isn't necessarily true but, (voter fraud ∈ voter manipulation) is true in all cases.

While certain cases of voter manipulation isn't illegal, it's still immoral. But, whenever an authority tries to make imoral behavior that's repulsive illegal just because others object, usually more harm than good happens, no matter the good intention. Illegal behavior must follow much stricter standards than immoral ones, which many can claim opinion, and sometimes is too complicated, requiring a case by case basis to determine illegality.

But as a safeguard against densely populated areas getting manipulated with group think, from having more undue block vote influence, the founders set up a compromise of electoral vote blocks. So landslide block votes are just as valid as slim margin block votes.

The reasoning behind this is, although an idea like Never Trump can reach many geographical areas, that message was refused by enough key demographics acting as a cancer, electoring Cheeto Jesus.

Whether that's "unfair" is up to debate.
Click to expand...
Well at least you conceeded the point. Good for you bogus-buddhist.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top