He's Back
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 03:31:09 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2012 Elections
  He's Back
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3
Author Topic: He's Back  (Read 8546 times)
bedstuy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,526


Political Matrix
E: -1.16, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: November 24, 2012, 09:52:37 AM »

It's certainly plausible. Does anyone really think that these areas went 100% for Obama? If you look at the exit polls, you see actual self-identified liberals who voted for Romney and conservatives who voted for Obama. And yet these areas are 100% unified?

Even if it's not literal fraud, it's defacto fraud. Because the only explanation for such overwhelming homogeneity in the vote, other then fraud, is tribal bloc voting that is fundamentally at odds with democracy.

Why is it so hard to believe one candidate could win 99-100% of a precinct?  It's not a huge number of people.  I'm sure there are areas in Utah and Oklahoma where Romney won 100% in certain precincts.  Is that fraud too?

Just for example, my precinct in 2008 was 453 for Obama - 0 for McCain.
Logged
So rightwing that I broke the Political Compass!
Rockingham
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 547


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: November 24, 2012, 11:12:15 AM »

It's certainly plausible. Does anyone really think that these areas went 100% for Obama? If you look at the exit polls, you see actual self-identified liberals who voted for Romney and conservatives who voted for Obama. And yet these areas are 100% unified?

Even if it's not literal fraud, it's defacto fraud. Because the only explanation for such overwhelming homogeneity in the vote, other then fraud, is tribal bloc voting that is fundamentally at odds with democracy.

I'm sure you have no problem with King County, TX &ilk.
That's right. Even if said votes were excluded, TX would still have gone Romney. Whereas tribal block voting(and probably fraud on top of that) were responsible for swinging Penn, Ohio, Virginia and Florida to Barack Hussein Obama.


Poor, overwhelmingly African-American inner city areas have been hardcore Democratic since FDR, and almost any other Democrat, white or black, would have gotten 100% in at least some precincts in Chicago and Philly.
And how do you know that their hasn't been fraud in those previous elections as well, hmm?



"Tribal" politics, huh? How subtle.
No need to be so PC. Remember: racism was the political correctness of 1800s and early 20th century.
Logged
Franzl
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,254
Germany


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: November 24, 2012, 11:37:30 AM »

So just exclude the nearly 100% black precincts? Yeah, that'd sure make elections fair.
Logged
SUSAN CRUSHBONE
a Person
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,735
Antarctica


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: November 24, 2012, 11:41:42 AM »

It's certainly plausible. Does anyone really think that these areas went 100% for Obama? If you look at the exit polls, you see actual self-identified liberals who voted for Romney and conservatives who voted for Obama. And yet these areas are 100% unified?

Even if it's not literal fraud, it's defacto fraud. Because the only explanation for such overwhelming homogeneity in the vote, other then fraud, is tribal bloc voting that is fundamentally at odds with democracy.

I'm sure you have no problem with King County, TX &ilk.
That's right. Even if said votes were excluded, TX would still have gone Romney. Whereas tribal block voting(and probably fraud on top of that) were responsible for swinging Penn, Ohio, Virginia and Florida to Barack Hussein Obama.

Impressive doublethink you have going on there.
Logged
Franzl
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,254
Germany


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: November 24, 2012, 11:42:29 AM »

It's certainly plausible. Does anyone really think that these areas went 100% for Obama? If you look at the exit polls, you see actual self-identified liberals who voted for Romney and conservatives who voted for Obama. And yet these areas are 100% unified?

Even if it's not literal fraud, it's defacto fraud. Because the only explanation for such overwhelming homogeneity in the vote, other then fraud, is tribal bloc voting that is fundamentally at odds with democracy.

I'm sure you have no problem with King County, TX &ilk.
That's right. Even if said votes were excluded, TX would still have gone Romney. Whereas tribal block voting(and probably fraud on top of that) were responsible for swinging Penn, Ohio, Virginia and Florida to Barack Hussein Obama.

Impressive doublethink you have going on there.

He's probably 13 years old and in middle school.
Logged
So rightwing that I broke the Political Compass!
Rockingham
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 547


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: November 24, 2012, 11:49:09 AM »

So just exclude the nearly 100% black precincts? Yeah, that'd sure make elections fair.
I'm not calling for them to be excluded from democracy, they've excluded themselves from it. Democracy is by definition competitive.
Logged
Franzl
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,254
Germany


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: November 24, 2012, 11:52:08 AM »

So just exclude the nearly 100% black precincts? Yeah, that'd sure make elections fair.
I'm not calling for them to be excluded from democracy, they've excluded themselves from it. Democracy is by definition competitive.

a.) It's perfectly competitive. People were given a choice between 2 candidates (excluding whoever else might have been on the ballot) and an overwhelming majority thought it was in their interests to support the Democrat over the Republican. This also happens to be true. There's nothing Republicans offer that could possibly be in their interests (or in the interests of 90%+ of the population.)

b.) Even going by your (incorrect) understanding of competitiveness, what's your exact definition? Does a group exclude themselves from democracy only if they vote 90%+ for a candidate? Or 80%+? Where do you draw the line?
Logged
So rightwing that I broke the Political Compass!
Rockingham
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 547


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: November 24, 2012, 11:52:33 AM »

It's certainly plausible. Does anyone really think that these areas went 100% for Obama? If you look at the exit polls, you see actual self-identified liberals who voted for Romney and conservatives who voted for Obama. And yet these areas are 100% unified?

Even if it's not literal fraud, it's defacto fraud. Because the only explanation for such overwhelming homogeneity in the vote, other then fraud, is tribal bloc voting that is fundamentally at odds with democracy.

I'm sure you have no problem with King County, TX &ilk.
That's right. Even if said votes were excluded, TX would still have gone Romney. Whereas tribal block voting(and probably fraud on top of that) were responsible for swinging Penn, Ohio, Virginia and Florida to Barack Hussein Obama.

Impressive doublethink you have going on there.
Where is the doublethink? It's a statistical fact.
Logged
Franzl
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,254
Germany


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: November 24, 2012, 11:54:22 AM »

It's certainly plausible. Does anyone really think that these areas went 100% for Obama? If you look at the exit polls, you see actual self-identified liberals who voted for Romney and conservatives who voted for Obama. And yet these areas are 100% unified?

Even if it's not literal fraud, it's defacto fraud. Because the only explanation for such overwhelming homogeneity in the vote, other then fraud, is tribal bloc voting that is fundamentally at odds with democracy.

I'm sure you have no problem with King County, TX &ilk.
That's right. Even if said votes were excluded, TX would still have gone Romney. Whereas tribal block voting(and probably fraud on top of that) were responsible for swinging Penn, Ohio, Virginia and Florida to Barack Hussein Obama.

Impressive doublethink you have going on there.
Where is the doublethink? It's a statistical fact.

I think the White evangelical vote should be excluded from Texas totals. After all, they have a "tribe mentality", attempting to ram their sick ideology down the throats of the rest of the country.

Logged
World politics is up Schmitt creek
Nathan
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,248


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: November 24, 2012, 11:55:49 AM »

Rockingham, does the fact that Republicans voted over 90% Romney mean that they have a tribe mentality and have excluded themselves from democracy? How about members of the Romney and Ryan families?
Logged
So rightwing that I broke the Political Compass!
Rockingham
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 547


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: November 24, 2012, 11:59:27 AM »

So just exclude the nearly 100% black precincts? Yeah, that'd sure make elections fair.
I'm not calling for them to be excluded from democracy, they've excluded themselves from it. Democracy is by definition competitive.

a.) It's perfectly competitive. People were given a choice between 2 candidates (excluding whoever else might have been on the ballot) and an overwhelming majority thought it was in their interests to support the Democrat over the Republican. This also happens to be true. There's nothing Republicans offer that could possibly be in their interests (or in the interests of 90%+ of the population.)

b.) Even going by your (incorrect) understanding of competitiveness, what's your exact definition? Does a group exclude themselves from democracy only if they vote 90%+ for a candidate? Or 80%+? Where do you draw the line?
a)False. Their culture deprives them of the individualism and critical thinking necessary for genuinely free decision making.

And theirs plenty that Republicans could do. Eliminate the abortion that is shredding untold numbers of black babies. Eliminate the minimum wage and other regulations that are hindering their access to employment. Protecting marriage, which is under threat in the black community more then anywhere else.

b)That's for legislatures to decide. But I'm pretty sure 100% is past the cutoff point.

Logged
Franzl
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,254
Germany


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: November 24, 2012, 12:04:19 PM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Who are you decide what is and what is not a legitimate reason to vote one way or the other? Why is individualism necessary to identify what political candidate's policies are more in your interest than the alternative?

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

What would abortion laws have to do with the problems that the black community faces? And what exactly does "protecting marriage" mean to you? Illegalizing divorce?

So now the minimum wage is responsible for higher than average unemployment among African Americans? I thought it was their reduced mental capacity and being lazy....encouraged by their herd mentality? Which is it?

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

What on Earth does this mean? That legislatures should declare the results of any precinct invalid that exceeds a certain percentage for a particular candidate? LOL.
Logged
So rightwing that I broke the Political Compass!
Rockingham
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 547


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: November 24, 2012, 12:04:55 PM »

I think the White evangelical vote should be excluded from Texas totals. After all, they have a "tribe mentality", attempting to ram their sick ideology down the throats of the rest of the country.


That would violate the separation of church and state, not to mention common decency.


Rockingham, does the fact that Republicans voted over 90% Romney mean that they have a tribe mentality and have excluded themselves from democracy? How about members of the Romney and Ryan families?
Republicans aren't a ethnic group or county population, bruz.
Logged
SUSAN CRUSHBONE
a Person
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,735
Antarctica


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: November 24, 2012, 12:06:15 PM »

So just exclude the nearly 100% black precincts? Yeah, that'd sure make elections fair.
I'm not calling for them to be excluded from democracy, they've excluded themselves from it. Democracy is by definition competitive.

a.) It's perfectly competitive. People were given a choice between 2 candidates (excluding whoever else might have been on the ballot) and an overwhelming majority thought it was in their interests to support the Democrat over the Republican. This also happens to be true. There's nothing Republicans offer that could possibly be in their interests (or in the interests of 90%+ of the population.)

b.) Even going by your (incorrect) understanding of competitiveness, what's your exact definition? Does a group exclude themselves from democracy only if they vote 90%+ for a candidate? Or 80%+? Where do you draw the line?
a)False. Their culture deprives them of the individualism and critical thinking necessary for genuinely free decision making.

Mr Rockingham, you need to veil your racism better.

And theirs plenty that Republicans could do. Eliminate the abortion that is shredding untold numbers of black babies. Eliminate the minimum wage and other regulations that are hindering their access to employment. Protecting marriage, which is under threat in the black community more then anywhere else.

None of those are things that would help the black community.

b)That's for legislatures to decide. But I'm pretty sure 100% is past the cutoff point.
And when would the cut-off be? Would a precinct that votes 100% for one candidate be excluded from the next election? After the vote count is finished but before it is certified? What criteria would it need to meet to regain its voting rights? Or would it be permanently out?
Logged
So rightwing that I broke the Political Compass!
Rockingham
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 547


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: November 24, 2012, 12:07:36 PM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Who are you decide what is and what is not a legitimate reason to vote one way or the other? Why is individualism necessary to identify what political candidate's policies are more in your interest than the alternative?

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

What would abortion laws have to do with the problems that the black community faces? And what exactly does "protecting marriage" mean to you? Illegalizing divorce?

So now the minimum wage is responsible for higher than average unemployment among African Americans? I thought it was their reduced mental capacity and being lazy....encouraged by their herd mentality? Which is it?

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

What on Earth does this mean? That legislatures should declare the results of any precinct invalid that exceeds a certain percentage for a particular candidate? LOL.
Seriously bruz?
Logged
So rightwing that I broke the Political Compass!
Rockingham
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 547


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: November 24, 2012, 12:08:58 PM »

So just exclude the nearly 100% black precincts? Yeah, that'd sure make elections fair.
I'm not calling for them to be excluded from democracy, they've excluded themselves from it. Democracy is by definition competitive.

a.) It's perfectly competitive. People were given a choice between 2 candidates (excluding whoever else might have been on the ballot) and an overwhelming majority thought it was in their interests to support the Democrat over the Republican. This also happens to be true. There's nothing Republicans offer that could possibly be in their interests (or in the interests of 90%+ of the population.)

b.) Even going by your (incorrect) understanding of competitiveness, what's your exact definition? Does a group exclude themselves from democracy only if they vote 90%+ for a candidate? Or 80%+? Where do you draw the line?
a)False. Their culture deprives them of the individualism and critical thinking necessary for genuinely free decision making.

Mr Rockingham, you need to veil your racism better.

And theirs plenty that Republicans could do. Eliminate the abortion that is shredding untold numbers of black babies. Eliminate the minimum wage and other regulations that are hindering their access to employment. Protecting marriage, which is under threat in the black community more then anywhere else.

None of those are things that would help the black community.

b)That's for legislatures to decide. But I'm pretty sure 100% is past the cutoff point.
And when would the cut-off be? Would a precinct that votes 100% for one candidate be excluded from the next election? After the vote count is finished but before it is certified? What criteria would it need to meet to regain its voting rights? Or would it be permanently out?
Again, seriously bruz?
Logged
SUSAN CRUSHBONE
a Person
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,735
Antarctica


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: November 24, 2012, 12:10:17 PM »

Those are some top-notch arguments you've got there, Mr Rockingham.
Logged
Franzl
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,254
Germany


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: November 24, 2012, 12:11:00 PM »

Those are some top-notch debating skills you've got there, Mr Rockingham.

Indeed, he even puts J.J. to shame.
Logged
bedstuy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,526


Political Matrix
E: -1.16, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: November 24, 2012, 12:13:42 PM »

So just exclude the nearly 100% black precincts? Yeah, that'd sure make elections fair.
I'm not calling for them to be excluded from democracy, they've excluded themselves from it. Democracy is by definition competitive.

a.) It's perfectly competitive. People were given a choice between 2 candidates (excluding whoever else might have been on the ballot) and an overwhelming majority thought it was in their interests to support the Democrat over the Republican. This also happens to be true. There's nothing Republicans offer that could possibly be in their interests (or in the interests of 90%+ of the population.)

b.) Even going by your (incorrect) understanding of competitiveness, what's your exact definition? Does a group exclude themselves from democracy only if they vote 90%+ for a candidate? Or 80%+? Where do you draw the line?
a)False. Their culture deprives them of the individualism and critical thinking necessary for genuinely free decision making.

And theirs plenty that Republicans could do. Eliminate the abortion that is shredding untold numbers of black babies. Eliminate the minimum wage and other regulations that are hindering their access to employment. Protecting marriage, which is under threat in the black community more then anywhere else.

b)That's for legislatures to decide. But I'm pretty sure 100% is past the cutoff point.


That's clearly racist and illogical thinking.  But who cares about what you think the election results should be?  The 15th amendment and our civil rights laws exist and people can vote for whomever they want.  That's how the system works.  Why bother with all the racist sour grapes? 
Logged
So rightwing that I broke the Political Compass!
Rockingham
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 547


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #44 on: November 24, 2012, 12:15:10 PM »
« Edited: November 24, 2012, 12:20:27 PM by Romney/Ryan Rill Rin Rassachussets! »

Those are some top-notch arguments you've got there, Mr Rockingham.
Sigh. I'll try one more time:

SERIOUSLY BRUZ!?

Or do I need to state outright that I'm parodying the lunatics who've taken over a good chunk of the USA?

"Romney/Ryan Rill Rin Rassachussets!" signing out.
Logged
Franzl
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,254
Germany


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #45 on: November 24, 2012, 12:28:50 PM »

Those are some top-notch arguments you've got there, Mr Rockingham.
Sigh. I'll try one more time:

SERIOUSLY BRUZ!?

Or do I need to state outright that I'm parodying the lunatics who've taken over a good chunk of the USA?

"Romney/Ryan Rill Rin Rassachussets!" signing out.

Well, how is one supposed to know over the Internet? Assuming you don't, in fact, believe what you were saying.....there are so many people who do.

And people like that don't particularly surprise me on an American political forum.
Logged
So rightwing that I broke the Political Compass!
Rockingham
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 547


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #46 on: November 24, 2012, 12:36:21 PM »

Those are some top-notch arguments you've got there, Mr Rockingham.
Sigh. I'll try one more time:

SERIOUSLY BRUZ!?

Or do I need to state outright that I'm parodying the lunatics who've taken over a good chunk of the USA?

"Romney/Ryan Rill Rin Rassachussets!" signing out.

Well, how is one supposed to know over the Internet? Assuming you don't, in fact, believe what you were saying.....there are so many people who do.

And people like that don't particularly surprise me on an American political forum.
The INCREDIBLY subtle hint was in my name: "Romney/Ryan Rill Rin Rassachusetts!" Dear me, but I did think people would have picked it up as soon as I adopted that handle.

And what do you mean by "assuming"? I'm probably a great deal more leftist then you, bruz.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,609
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #47 on: November 24, 2012, 12:38:40 PM »

Thought it were obvious that it were an act?
Logged
So rightwing that I broke the Political Compass!
Rockingham
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 547


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #48 on: November 24, 2012, 12:40:13 PM »

Thought it were obvious that it were an act?
Then you're one of the bright ones, good job bruz.
Logged
SUSAN CRUSHBONE
a Person
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,735
Antarctica


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #49 on: November 24, 2012, 12:41:00 PM »

Those are some top-notch arguments you've got there, Mr Rockingham.
Sigh. I'll try one more time:

SERIOUSLY BRUZ!?

Or do I need to state outright that I'm parodying the lunatics who've taken over a good chunk of the USA?

"Romney/Ryan Rill Rin Rassachussets!" signing out.

Well, how is one supposed to know over the Internet? Assuming you don't, in fact, believe what you were saying.....there are so many people who do.

And people like that don't particularly surprise me on an American political forum.
The INCREDIBLY subtle hint was in my name: "Romney/Ryan Rill Rin Rassachusetts!" Dear me, but I did think people would have picked it up as soon as I adopted that handle.

Except that, y'know, some people actually believed that.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.066 seconds with 13 queries.