Republicans - The Party of Blunt Honesty, Democrats - The Party of Emotion

[Diabolical Minds Think Alike]

So let me get this straight

Republican logic:

If 50.1% of people vote for somebody, they don't win unless those 50.1% of people lived in more populous states?

I understand the Constitution but the notion that a vote in California counts more than a vote in Montana doesn't disturb the sh*t out of you guys?

It's much, much less ridiculous than the U.S. Senate.

Also, a vote in Montana counts for slightly more than a vote in California. Divide population by electoral votes.

I'm talking in terms of the amount of electoral votes up for grabs. California has 55, Montana has 3.

[Reaganfan]

It's adorable how little Naso's beliefs have matured over nearly a decade.

Not saying that one set of beliefs is more "mature" than another, just that there usually is some sort of evolution in one's thoughts. Naso flatlined (and I don't mean like the 1980's film FLATLINERS that Naso undoubtably loves).

Flatliners was the 1990s.

[opebo]

My opinion?

Republican Party - The Party of Darwin's Winners.
Democratic Party - The Party of the Chronically Naive.

The old analogy of the upper classes as 'Darwinian Winners' is very misleading.  Human society is like an anti-hill, and the upper-classes are comparable to the Queen.  They are served by the others, and the society functions as a whole - there is no independent action.  The winners do nothing to win, and the losers do nothing to lose, its all built into the system.

[Paul Kemp]

It's adorable how little Naso's beliefs have matured over nearly a decade.

Not saying that one set of beliefs is more "mature" than another, just that there usually is some sort of evolution in one's thoughts. Naso flatlined (and I don't mean like the 1980's film FLATLINERS that Naso undoubtably loves).

Flatliners was the 1990s.

Barely. 1990.

[Reaganfan]

It's adorable how little Naso's beliefs have matured over nearly a decade.

Not saying that one set of beliefs is more "mature" than another, just that there usually is some sort of evolution in one's thoughts. Naso flatlined (and I don't mean like the 1980's film FLATLINERS that Naso undoubtably loves).

Flatliners was the 1990s.

Barely. 1990.

1990 is the 90s.

[Paul Kemp]

It's adorable how little Naso's beliefs have matured over nearly a decade.

Not saying that one set of beliefs is more "mature" than another, just that there usually is some sort of evolution in one's thoughts. Naso flatlined (and I don't mean like the 1980's film FLATLINERS that Naso undoubtably loves).

Flatliners was the 1990s.

Barely. 1990.

1990 is the 90s.

But those were the BUSH YEARS!

[Reaganfan]

It's adorable how little Naso's beliefs have matured over nearly a decade.

Not saying that one set of beliefs is more "mature" than another, just that there usually is some sort of evolution in one's thoughts. Naso flatlined (and I don't mean like the 1980's film FLATLINERS that Naso undoubtably loves).

Flatliners was the 1990s.

Barely. 1990.

1990 is the 90s.

But those were the BUSH YEARS!

?

[Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario)]

It's adorable how little Naso's beliefs have matured over nearly a decade.

Not saying that one set of beliefs is more "mature" than another, just that there usually is some sort of evolution in one's thoughts. Naso flatlined (and I don't mean like the 1980's film FLATLINERS that Naso undoubtably loves).

Flatliners was the 1990s.

Barely. 1990.

1990 is the 90s.

Only technically. It was culturally still the 1980's.

[Senator Snowstalker]

The 90's began in 1994 and ended on September 11th.

[Proud Lieberal from Northeast]

?

The most intelligent post Naso ever made.

[Diabolical Minds Think Alike]

The 90's began in 1994 and ended on September 11th.

No way, the 90's literally began in 91 and suffered a stroke when Kurt Cobain died in 1994. The 90's officially died on 9/11.

[© Tweed the Younger]

That's why so many men (a majority) voted for John McCain the same day virtually the entire world was gasping over the election of the first black President of the United States.

Obama won men 49-48.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#USP00p1

[© Tweed the Younger]

btw, Naso, you could easily be the next right-wing talk show host.  you have that perfect blend of being knowledgeable while simultaneously being impervious to the influence of the Real.

[So the Heroes Fall]

Two good dates to begin the 90s would be the dissolution of the Soviet Union or the release of Nevermind.

[Gravis Marketing]

So let me get this straight

Republican logic:

If 50.1% of people vote for somebody, they don't win unless those 50.1% of people lived in more populous states?

I understand the Constitution but the notion that a vote in California counts more than a vote in Montana doesn't disturb the sh*t out of you guys?

It's much, much less ridiculous than the U.S. Senate.

Also, a vote in Montana counts for slightly more than a vote in California. Divide population by electoral votes.

I'm talking in terms of the amount of electoral votes up for grabs. California has 55, Montana has 3.

Realistically speaking, a vote in neither state matters because of national patterns meaning they're almost never going to be the deciding state.

I'm comfortable with the electoral college because, while it's not perfect, it recognizes that there's a margin of error in a two-person race and at the very least it focuses the scrutiny and attention on a limited number of states, which (again in theory) enables retail politicking and the control of fraud. You can theoretically win a narrow margin in the EC with a significant loss in the PV, but that would never happen. I think Gore winning the popular vote by 500,000 and losing the EC would have been ok if not for that fact that voting patterns and his totals indicates that by intended voters, he surely won Florida by a sizable margin (thousands or tens of thousands - look at discarded votes in Duval( and the electoral college by a decent margin as well. If he'd won by 300,000 votes but lost Florida by a non-contested margin, that would have been fine, because 300,000 is essentially a tie in a country of 140 million voters.

[Californian Tony]

It's adorable how little Naso's beliefs have matured over nearly a decade.

Not saying that one set of beliefs is more "mature" than another, just that there usually is some sort of evolution in one's thoughts. Naso flatlined (and I don't mean like the 1980's film FLATLINERS that Naso undoubtably loves).

Flatliners was the 1990s.

Barely. 1990.

1990 is the 90s.

Actually, 1990 is the last year of the 199th decade. Just like 2000 was the last year of the Second Millennium.

[Reaganfan]

Two good dates to begin the 90s would be the dissolution of the Soviet Union or the release of Nevermind.

1990 and 1991 are when I have my first memories.

Indeed, by 1992 I remember that year very well, as that was the year we moved to our new home, and I began pre-school and also got my first guitar for my 4th birthday.

It still amazes me that just a few short years after Ronald Reagan, Beverly Hills Cop II and Cutting Crew, you had Boyz 2 Men, Nirvana and Bill Clinton. In the same amount of time of 2006 to the present, we had that drastic of pop culture change. Still stuns me.

[Vermin Supreme]

1990's started in 1991 with the Gulf War and Nirvana Nevermind album, ended on 9/11.

[memphis]

That's why so many men (a majority) voted for John McCain the same day virtually the entire world was gasping over the election of the first black President of the United States.

Obama won men 49-48.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#USP00p1

Naso: No, you're not.

[Proud Lieberal from Northeast]

Just wait few more years and you'll see Naso's thread about awesome 2000s.

And if you wait till 2030s, you'll see his thread about awesome 2010s.

[A cowboy always follows his beard]

I think the 90's ended in 2003 when social networking websites became popular.