Trump is over the top with this one

[Bill Sloman]

On Monday, March 30, 2020 at 5:44:56 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:

On Sunday, March 29, 2020 at 12:50:53 PM UTC-7, Rick C wrote:
On Sunday, March 29, 2020 at 12:57:40 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in
news:1b3a86c2-6bfc-46fb-97a8-8e01d09631a2@googlegroups.com:

On Sunday, March 29, 2020 at 10:57:27 AM UTC-4, Winfield Hill
wrote:
Rick C wrote...

You would expect the feds to be making much noise ...

The Trump administration does not believe in transparency.

I guess they don't believe in winning elections either then. What
do I know? He is fucking this up horribly and his approval
ratings are UP!

Only according to Fox polls and your brain.

Damn. Some of you guys really need to learn to question your fact
gathering and the facts you gather.

I'm going to break my rule of ignoring your posts to see if this will make sense to you.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/

LOL! Are you talking about the same polls that said that Shrillary would win in a LANDSLIDE? Get your head out of your ass, you might see the light.

Nate Silver said that Hillary was three times more likely to win than Trump, but pointed out that this made the contest pretty close, and cited a recent football game when the winners had won against the same odds (as they would in one one in four of such events - that's what 3:1 means).

He definitely didn't predict any kind of landslide.

Hillary definitely won the popular vote, and Trump won the electoral college with a 77,000 vote margin spread over what turned out to be the three crucial states (where the Russians had put quite a lot of pro-Trump propaganda on social media).

It was a remarkably close-run thing, and the Russian intervention may have been decisive.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Tuesday, March 31, 2020 at 12:11:09 PM UTC+11, Tom Del Rosso wrote:

Tim Williams wrote:
"Tom Del Rosso" <fizzbintuesday@that-google-mail-domain.com> wrote in
message news:r5r9ma$uhh$1@dont-email.me...

<snip>

The neoliberal (both R and D, and most western countries) policy to
maintain compliant dictators or a state of war in the middle east, is
the direct cause of terrorist groups; nothing mysterious about that.

So if Obama allows the oldest Arab terrorist group, and a group that
attacked us before Al Queada did, to take over moderate Arab governments
then only identity politics explains why the right despises him.

The right hasn't been good at changing Arab governments. Dubbya's invasion of Irak did get rid of Saddam Husein, but that was a decidedly Pyrrhic victory.

The right may despise Obama for being less of a gung-ho half-wit, but that merely reiterate the fact that the right value form (which is simple enough for them to understand) over substance, which isn't.

--

Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Tom Del Rosso]

Tim Williams wrote:

"Tom Del Rosso" <fizzbintuesday@that-google-mail-domain.com> wrote in
message news:r5r9ma$uhh$1@dont-email.me...
Or they're obsessed about allowing the same Islamic brotherhood that
bombed the World Trade Center in 1993 to take over the Egyptian
government, and Isis to take Lybia and Iraq....

The hell did that come from?

"for some reason, the previous opposition is non-stop fodder for
right-wing pundits, regardless of what they've accomplished. But the
administration before that, or the current one, never seems to hold any
interest...funny. It's almost like they're obsessed about identity
politics."

That sounded like you were saying the right has no rational reason to
oppose the previous administration. I could have given other examples
but that's a good one.

But 1993, that'd be just on Bush's way out, so I guess you're saying
R's are to blame?

It was 2 days from the second anniversary of the Gulf War. Powell,
Scowcroft, Jim Baker are Republicans, yes, although nobody could tell
about Powell until he announced it. Sure I blame them for wanting to
leave Saddam Husein in power.

The neoliberal (both R and D, and most western countries) policy to
maintain compliant dictators or a state of war in the middle east, is
the direct cause of terrorist groups; nothing mysterious about that.

So if Obama allows the oldest Arab terrorist group, and a group that
attacked us before Al Queada did, to take over moderate Arab governments
then only identity politics explains why the right despises him.

 

[Flyguy]

On Monday, March 30, 2020 at 5:33:13 AM UTC-7, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Monday, March 30, 2020 at 5:44:56 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
On Sunday, March 29, 2020 at 12:50:53 PM UTC-7, Rick C wrote:
On Sunday, March 29, 2020 at 12:57:40 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in
news:1b3a86c2-6bfc-46fb-97a8-8e01d09631a2@googlegroups.com:

On Sunday, March 29, 2020 at 10:57:27 AM UTC-4, Winfield Hill
wrote:
Rick C wrote...

You would expect the feds to be making much noise ...

The Trump administration does not believe in transparency.

I guess they don't believe in winning elections either then. What
do I know? He is fucking this up horribly and his approval
ratings are UP!

Only according to Fox polls and your brain.

Damn. Some of you guys really need to learn to question your fact
gathering and the facts you gather.

I'm going to break my rule of ignoring your posts to see if this will make sense to you.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/

LOL! Are you talking about the same polls that said that Shrillary would win in a LANDSLIDE? Get your head out of your ass, you might see the light.

Nate Silver said that Hillary was three times more likely to win than Trump, but pointed out that this made the contest pretty close, and cited a recent football game when the winners had won against the same odds (as they would in one one in four of such events - that's what 3:1 means).

He definitely didn't predict any kind of landslide.

Hillary definitely won the popular vote, and Trump won the electoral college with a 77,000 vote margin spread over what turned out to be the three crucial states (where the Russians had put quite a lot of pro-Trump propaganda on social media).

It was a remarkably close-run thing, and the Russian intervention may have been decisive.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

The electoral college vote was NOT close 304 to 227. Shrillary didn't win ANYTHING; the total vote count is meaningless. If it were, Trump would have campaigned accordingly and won that, too. Who won the last popular vote for Prime Minister of Australia?

 

[whit3rd]

On Monday, March 30, 2020 at 6:53:47 PM UTC-7, Flyguy wrote:

> The electoral college vote was NOT close 304 to 227. Shrillary didn't win ANYTHING; the total vote count is meaningless.

False; the total vote count indicates public will. That's not meaningless.

 

[John Robertson]

On 2020/03/30 8:51 p.m., whit3rd wrote:

On Monday, March 30, 2020 at 6:53:47 PM UTC-7, Flyguy wrote:

The electoral college vote was NOT close 304 to 227. Shrillary didn't win ANYTHING; the total vote count is meaningless.

False; the total vote count indicates public will. That's not meaningless.

You misunderstand his position. The popular vote doesn't count if his
candidate did not win that. Winning just the electoral college proves
his candidate is a whinner.

John ;-#)#

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Tuesday, March 31, 2020 at 5:38:14 PM UTC+11, John Robertson wrote:

On 2020/03/30 8:51 p.m., whit3rd wrote:
On Monday, March 30, 2020 at 6:53:47 PM UTC-7, Flyguy wrote:

The electoral college vote was NOT close 304 to 227. Shrillary didn't win ANYTHING; the total vote count is meaningless.

False; the total vote count indicates public will. That's not meaningless.


You misunderstand his position.

We understand it well enough.

> The popular vote doesn't count if his candidate did not win that.

The fact that it doesn't influence the outcome doesn't make it meaningless - it's just that Flyguy is in denial about what it means.

> Winning just the electoral college proves his candidate is a winner.

And he prefers to count electoral college votes rather than pay attention to the state-by-state popular votes that determined the electoral college outcome, which were a whole lot closer than he's willing to think about.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Flyguy]

On Tuesday, March 31, 2020 at 12:48:46 AM UTC-7, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Tuesday, March 31, 2020 at 5:38:14 PM UTC+11, John Robertson wrote:
On 2020/03/30 8:51 p.m., whit3rd wrote:
On Monday, March 30, 2020 at 6:53:47 PM UTC-7, Flyguy wrote:

The electoral college vote was NOT close 304 to 227. Shrillary didn't win ANYTHING; the total vote count is meaningless.

False; the total vote count indicates public will. That's not meaningless.


You misunderstand his position.

We understand it well enough.

The popular vote doesn't count if his candidate did not win that.

The fact that it doesn't influence the outcome doesn't make it meaningless - it's just that Flyguy is in denial about what it means.

Winning just the electoral college proves his candidate is a winner.

And he prefers to count electoral college votes rather than pay attention to the state-by-state popular votes that determined the electoral college outcome, which were a whole lot closer than he's willing to think about.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

You are as archaic as Australian's monarchy. Why win a non-contest (popular vote) when the goal is to win the Presidency (electoral vote)? President Trump beat Shrillary DECISIVELY using half the resources (money) because he targeted his campaign. They were literally doing instantaneous cost/benefit monitoring of ad money while Shrillary sat at home and didn't campaign at all. President Trump didn't even bother to make campaign appearances in the left coast states and few in the New England states because this wouldn't have any impact on electoral votes. This strategy would have been totally different had the outcome been based on the popular vote. I have explained this to other libtards, but they simply can't get over the fact that they LOST! Well, GET OVER IT - if you don't you will LOSE AGAIN!

 

[Tim Williams]

"Tom Del Rosso" <fizzbintuesday@that-google-mail-domain.com> wrote in
message news:r5u5b7$dk9$1@dont-email.me...

That sounded like you were saying the right has no rational reason to
oppose the previous administration. I could have given other examples but
that's a good one.

Fallacy of hasty conclusion. "No rational reason" is very different from
"non-stop fodder". "Some" rational reasons would be expected. "Any"
[irrational] reason, no.

Remember when Obama wore a tan suit? Fox News remembers...

Of course, /any/ excuse is rational/ized/ by the in-group. it's very hard
to spot this distinction when you're on the inside.

So if Obama allows the oldest Arab terrorist group, and a group that
attacked us before Al Queada did, to take over moderate Arab governments
then only identity politics explains why the right despises him.

Fallacy of category error. Both parties (they're really just one party, the
identity part is to make you think there's two with meaningful differences
between them) are guilty of this. Obama did plenty of drone strikes sure.
But so has Trump. Not to mention GWB starting not just one but _two_ wars.

Both are guilty, one is merely guiltier than the other. No real
distinction.

History is already repeating itself; this November we will have the choice
between a serial rapist and a part-time rapist.
https://i.redd.it/n3im7oyng2p41.jpg

Tim

--
Seven Transistor Labs, LLC
Electrical Engineering Consultation and Design
Website: https://www.seventransistorlabs.com/

 

[whit3rd]

On Tuesday, March 31, 2020 at 9:17:14 AM UTC-7, Flyguy wrote:

> .... Why win a non-contest (popular vote) when the goal is to win the Presidency (electoral vote)? President Trump beat Shrillary DECISIVELY using half the resources (money)

Yeah, keep talking about money, and try to distract attention from the fewer votes.
Doesn't work for me, but who knows, SOMEONE might swallow it.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Wednesday, April 1, 2020 at 3:17:14 AM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:

On Tuesday, March 31, 2020 at 12:48:46 AM UTC-7, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Tuesday, March 31, 2020 at 5:38:14 PM UTC+11, John Robertson wrote:
On 2020/03/30 8:51 p.m., whit3rd wrote:
On Monday, March 30, 2020 at 6:53:47 PM UTC-7, Flyguy wrote:

The electoral college vote was NOT close 304 to 227. Shrillary didn't win ANYTHING; the total vote count is meaningless.

False; the total vote count indicates public will. That's not meaningless.


You misunderstand his position.

We understand it well enough.

The popular vote doesn't count if his candidate did not win that.

The fact that it doesn't influence the outcome doesn't make it meaningless - it's just that Flyguy is in denial about what it means.

Winning just the electoral college proves his candidate is a winner.
sinicure
And he prefers to count electoral college votes rather than pay attention to the state-by-state popular votes that determined the electoral college outcome, which were a whole lot closer than he's willing to think about.

You are as archaic as Australian's monarchy.

Australia is still a monarchy mainly because the form of republic we were offered was designed by the politicians involved to create retirement sinecures for themselves. Australian voters are cynical about thei politicians, not without cause.

> Why win a non-contest (popular vote) when the goal is to win the Presidency (electoral vote)?

Because it is the easiest way to win the electoral vote.

> President Trump beat Shrillary DECISIVELY using half the resources (money) because he targeted his campaign.

You probably should include what the Russians spent on helping his campaign.. The numbers aren't easily available - for some reason the Russians didn't declare themselves as Trump supporters and report what they'd spent on campaigning for him. If you weren't so terminally stupid you'd be dishonest in ignoring their contribution, but the rule is never attribute to malice anything that is equally explicable by stupidity.

> They were literally doing instantaneous cost/benefit monitoring of ad money while Shrillary sat at home and didn't campaign at all.

She didn't campaign at all while spending twice as much as Trump? Make up whatever it is you use instead of a mind.

> President Trump didn't even bother to make campaign appearances in the left coast states and few in the New England states because this wouldn't have any impact on electoral votes.

Sophisticated electors can recognise an egomaniac buffoon. Less sophisticated audiences can be more sympathetic.

> This strategy would have been totally different had the outcome been based on the popular vote.

Perhaps, but he wouldn't have won.

> I have explained this to other libtards, but they simply can't get over the fact that they LOST! Well, GET OVER IT - if you don't you will LOSE AGAIN!

It's a hypothesis. Not a particularly plausible one, but Flyguy does have to keep things very simple.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Flyguy]

On Tuesday, March 31, 2020 at 5:57:18 PM UTC-7, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Wednesday, April 1, 2020 at 3:17:14 AM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
On Tuesday, March 31, 2020 at 12:48:46 AM UTC-7, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Tuesday, March 31, 2020 at 5:38:14 PM UTC+11, John Robertson wrote:
On 2020/03/30 8:51 p.m., whit3rd wrote:
On Monday, March 30, 2020 at 6:53:47 PM UTC-7, Flyguy wrote:

The electoral college vote was NOT close 304 to 227. Shrillary didn't win ANYTHING; the total vote count is meaningless.

False; the total vote count indicates public will. That's not meaningless.


You misunderstand his position.

We understand it well enough.

The popular vote doesn't count if his candidate did not win that.

The fact that it doesn't influence the outcome doesn't make it meaningless - it's just that Flyguy is in denial about what it means.

Winning just the electoral college proves his candidate is a winner..
sinicure
And he prefers to count electoral college votes rather than pay attention to the state-by-state popular votes that determined the electoral college outcome, which were a whole lot closer than he's willing to think about..

You are as archaic as Australian's monarchy.

Australia is still a monarchy mainly because the form of republic we were offered was designed by the politicians involved to create retirement sinecures for themselves. Australian voters are cynical about thei politicians, not without cause.

OZ is a monarchy because the alternative was unacceptable? REALLY?? Notice that Sloman doesn't disagree that a monarchy is archaic, which it most certainly is. Yet he continues to criticize the most enduring example of a democratic republic. UNBELIEVABLE!!!

Why win a non-contest (popular vote) when the goal is to win the Presidency (electoral vote)?

Because it is the easiest way to win the electoral vote.

WRONG AGAIN! Shrillary PROVED that it was the easiest way to LOSE an electoral vote.

President Trump beat Shrillary DECISIVELY using half the resources (money) because he targeted his campaign.

You probably should include what the Russians spent on helping his campaign. The numbers aren't easily available - for some reason the Russians didn't declare themselves as Trump supporters and report what they'd spent on campaigning for him. If you weren't so terminally stupid you'd be dishonest in ignoring their contribution, but the rule is never attribute to malice anything that is equally explicable by stupidity.

I would also have to include all the money spent by the special interest groups that supported Shrillary. The money spent by the Russians is lost in the rounding error. Note that you didn't mention a figure.

They were literally doing instantaneous cost/benefit monitoring of ad money while Shrillary sat at home and didn't campaign at all.

She didn't campaign at all while spending twice as much as Trump? Make up whatever it is you use instead of a mind.

Shrillary never showed up once in some battle ground states. Her campaign calendar had no appearances for a week at a time. No wonder: she was fainting from her many medical issues.

President Trump didn't even bother to make campaign appearances in the left coast states and few in the New England states because this wouldn't have any impact on electoral votes.

Sophisticated electors can recognise an egomaniac buffoon. Less sophisticated audiences can be more sympathetic.

LOL! Then WHY did they elect Pres. Trump?

This strategy would have been totally different had the outcome been based on the popular vote.

Perhaps, but he wouldn't have won.

Yes, he would have, but that is irrelevant.

I have explained this to other libtards, but they simply can't get over the fact that they LOST! Well, GET OVER IT - if you don't you will LOSE AGAIN!

It's a hypothesis. Not a particularly plausible one, but Flyguy does have to keep things very simple.

No it is not - we are about to hold another election in seven months, but I guess you didn't get the memo. If you represent the sharpest mind the libtards have to offer Biden has ALREADY LOST!

 

[whit3rd]

On Tuesday, March 31, 2020 at 10:39:52 PM UTC-7, Flyguy wrote:

Biden has ALREADY LOST!

Why? Have all voters lost their free will, or is it only you that lost... something?

 

[Flyguy]

On Tuesday, March 31, 2020 at 10:52:15 PM UTC-7, whit3rd wrote:

On Tuesday, March 31, 2020 at 10:39:52 PM UTC-7, Flyguy wrote:

Biden has ALREADY LOST!

Why? Have all voters lost their free will, or is it only you that lost... something?

LOL! You aren't keeping up with current events, are you?

 

whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote in
news:2559ed20-9d8b-4370-bdee-bb97282c539d@googlegroups.com:

On Tuesday, March 31, 2020 at 10:39:52 PM UTC-7, Flyguy wrote:

Biden has ALREADY LOST!

Why? Have all voters lost their free will, or is it only you that
lost... something?

Mainly because they are going to try to tamper with the elections
again.

Note that the republican party operated states have all made laws
regarding required renewal of driver license and State ID cards. The
new ones were to e required to be obtained by October. That is not
possible even without the virus issue. The problem is that they also
are going to be using an ID reader at the polls the month following
the deadline, in early November. This is a direct manipulation
against minority voters.

Trump said that if voting were easy no republican would ever win
again. He admitted maipulating the election system.

We should demand full registration and voting by electronic means
and the delivery of absentee ballots to all requestors BEFORE the
election month. It is about fucking time to go paperless anyway.

<https://odaction.com/btc-votebymail/>

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Wednesday, April 1, 2020 at 5:53:03 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:

On Tuesday, March 31, 2020 at 10:52:15 PM UTC-7, whit3rd wrote:
On Tuesday, March 31, 2020 at 10:39:52 PM UTC-7, Flyguy wrote:

Biden has ALREADY LOST!

Why? Have all voters lost their free will, or is it only you that lost... something?

LOL! You aren't keeping up with current events, are you?

He probably not up to date with the delusions of extremely stupid right-wing nitwits. Who cares what half-wits imagine they know?

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Wednesday, April 1, 2020 at 4:39:52 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:

On Tuesday, March 31, 2020 at 5:57:18 PM UTC-7, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Wednesday, April 1, 2020 at 3:17:14 AM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
On Tuesday, March 31, 2020 at 12:48:46 AM UTC-7, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Tuesday, March 31, 2020 at 5:38:14 PM UTC+11, John Robertson wrote:
On 2020/03/30 8:51 p.m., whit3rd wrote:
On Monday, March 30, 2020 at 6:53:47 PM UTC-7, Flyguy wrote:

The electoral college vote was NOT close 304 to 227. Shrillary didn't win ANYTHING; the total vote count is meaningless.

False; the total vote count indicates public will. That's not meaningless.

You misunderstand his position.

We understand it well enough.

The popular vote doesn't count if his candidate did not win that..

The fact that it doesn't influence the outcome doesn't make it meaningless - it's just that Flyguy is in denial about what it means.

Winning just the electoral college proves his candidate is a winner.

And he prefers to count electoral college votes rather than pay attention to the state-by-state popular votes that determined the electoral college outcome, which were a whole lot closer than he's willing to think about.

You are as archaic as Australian's monarchy.

Australia is still a monarchy mainly because the form of republic we were offered was designed by the politicians involved to create retirement sinecures for themselves. Australian voters are cynical about their politicians, not without cause.

OZ is a monarchy because the alternative was unacceptable? REALLY??

That's the generally accepted opinion. We actually quite like Elizabeth II - she's apparently a wicked mimic - but the basic idea is nuts and we would have chucked it out if the politicians had come come up with a half-way acceptable alternative, but they didn't. We can wait. A few comic opera figures forming a theoretical top tier to our power structure isn't worth getting fussed about.

> Notice that Sloman doesn't disagree that a monarchy is archaic, which it most certainly is. Yet he continues to criticize the most enduring example of a democratic republic. UNBELIEVABLE!!!

Jame Arthur would explain to Flyguy that the USA isn't a democracy - the founding tax evaders would have equated that with mob rule. It has managed to look more like a democracy as the franchise got expanded since their time, but the people that own the country still run the country, so it is actually a plutocracy.

> > > Why win a non-contest (popular vote) when the goal is to win the Presidency (electoral vote)?

Because if enough people vote for you, you will win in every state - even the ones that spend least per head on education.

Because it is the easiest way to win the electoral vote.

WRONG AGAIN! Shrillary PROVED that it was the easiest way to LOSE an electoral vote.

Having the Russians campaigning against her didn't help. She'd been a bit too effective crimping their ambitions as when she'd been Secretary of State, and that made the Russians even more enthusiastic about backing Trump.

President Trump beat Shrillary DECISIVELY using half the resources (money) because he targeted his campaign.

You probably should include what the Russians spent on helping his campaign. The numbers aren't easily available - for some reason the Russians didn't declare themselves as Trump supporters and report what they'd spent on campaigning for him. If you weren't so terminally stupid you'd be dishonest in ignoring their contribution, but the rule is never attribute to malice anything that is equally explicable by stupidity.

I would also have to include all the money spent by the special interest groups that supported Shrillary. The money spent by the Russians is lost in the rounding error. Note that you didn't mention a figure.

How could I? The Russians didn't report what they'd spent. There are probably estimates buried somewhere in the Mueller report.

https://time.com/5565991/russia-influence-2016-election/

says millions of dollars, but nothing more specific.

They were literally doing instantaneous cost/benefit monitoring of ad money while Shrillary sat at home and didn't campaign at all.

She didn't campaign at all while spending twice as much as Trump? Make up whatever it is you use instead of a mind.

Shrillary never showed up once in some battle ground states. Her campaign calendar had no appearances for a week at a time. No wonder: she was fainting from her many medical issues.

Ho hum ...

President Trump didn't even bother to make campaign appearances in the left coast states and few in the New England states because this wouldn't have any impact on electoral votes.

Sophisticated electors can recognise an egomaniac buffoon. Less sophisticated audiences can be more sympathetic.

LOL! Then WHY did they elect Pres. Trump?

The way the electoral college is constructed gives the opinions of less sophisticated voters in smaller states more weight in selecting the president.
That was one of the bribes offered to smaller states by the founding tax evaders - a vert silly idea which no subsequent constitution has copied.

It's not mentioned in Alexander Hamilton's justification of the electoral college - he claimed it was designed to keep out demagogues like Trump, which it didn't.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._68

This strategy would have been totally different had the outcome been based on the popular vote.

Perhaps, but he wouldn't have won.

Yes, he would have, but that is irrelevant.

As is your claim about him being able to change his strategy, which is also implausible (like pretty much all your claims).

I have explained this to other libtards, but they simply can't get over the fact that they LOST! Well, GET OVER IT - if you don't you will LOSE AGAIN!

It's a hypothesis. Not a particularly plausible one, but Flyguy does have to keep things very simple.

No it is not - we are about to hold another election in seven months, but I guess you didn't get the memo. If you represent the sharpest mind the libtards have to offer Biden has ALREADY LOST!

What have I got to do with the Democrat campaign?

And you seem to have the delusion that you know what's going on, and can make value judgements about it. This is the Dunning-Kruger effect run wild.

You won't know about that, but it can be summarised as saying that stupider you are, the more convinced you are that you know exactly what's going on. You are remarkably stupid, and extremely dogmatic.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Flyguy]

On Wednesday, April 1, 2020 at 4:53:27 AM UTC-7, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Wednesday, April 1, 2020 at 4:39:52 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
On Tuesday, March 31, 2020 at 5:57:18 PM UTC-7, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Wednesday, April 1, 2020 at 3:17:14 AM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
On Tuesday, March 31, 2020 at 12:48:46 AM UTC-7, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Tuesday, March 31, 2020 at 5:38:14 PM UTC+11, John Robertson wrote:
On 2020/03/30 8:51 p.m., whit3rd wrote:
On Monday, March 30, 2020 at 6:53:47 PM UTC-7, Flyguy wrote:

The electoral college vote was NOT close 304 to 227. Shrillary didn't win ANYTHING; the total vote count is meaningless.

False; the total vote count indicates public will. That's not meaningless.

You misunderstand his position.

We understand it well enough.

The popular vote doesn't count if his candidate did not win that.

The fact that it doesn't influence the outcome doesn't make it meaningless - it's just that Flyguy is in denial about what it means.

Winning just the electoral college proves his candidate is a winner.

And he prefers to count electoral college votes rather than pay attention to the state-by-state popular votes that determined the electoral college outcome, which were a whole lot closer than he's willing to think about.

You are as archaic as Australian's monarchy.

Australia is still a monarchy mainly because the form of republic we were offered was designed by the politicians involved to create retirement sinecures for themselves. Australian voters are cynical about their politicians, not without cause.

OZ is a monarchy because the alternative was unacceptable? REALLY??

That's the generally accepted opinion. We actually quite like Elizabeth II - she's apparently a wicked mimic - but the basic idea is nuts and we would have chucked it out if the politicians had come come up with a half-way acceptable alternative, but they didn't. We can wait. A few comic opera figures forming a theoretical top tier to our power structure isn't worth getting fussed about.

Notice that Sloman doesn't disagree that a monarchy is archaic, which it most certainly is. Yet he continues to criticize the most enduring example of a democratic republic. UNBELIEVABLE!!!

Jame Arthur would explain to Flyguy that the USA isn't a democracy - the founding tax evaders would have equated that with mob rule. It has managed to look more like a democracy as the franchise got expanded since their time, but the people that own the country still run the country, so it is actually a plutocracy.

Why win a non-contest (popular vote) when the goal is to win the Presidency (electoral vote)?

Because if enough people vote for you, you will win in every state - even the ones that spend least per head on education.

Because it is the easiest way to win the electoral vote.

WRONG AGAIN! Shrillary PROVED that it was the easiest way to LOSE an electoral vote.

Having the Russians campaigning against her didn't help. She'd been a bit too effective crimping their ambitions as when she'd been Secretary of State, and that made the Russians even more enthusiastic about backing Trump.

President Trump beat Shrillary DECISIVELY using half the resources (money) because he targeted his campaign.

You probably should include what the Russians spent on helping his campaign. The numbers aren't easily available - for some reason the Russians didn't declare themselves as Trump supporters and report what they'd spent on campaigning for him. If you weren't so terminally stupid you'd be dishonest in ignoring their contribution, but the rule is never attribute to malice anything that is equally explicable by stupidity.

I would also have to include all the money spent by the special interest groups that supported Shrillary. The money spent by the Russians is lost in the rounding error. Note that you didn't mention a figure.

How could I? The Russians didn't report what they'd spent. There are probably estimates buried somewhere in the Mueller report.

https://time.com/5565991/russia-influence-2016-election/

says millions of dollars, but nothing more specific.

They were literally doing instantaneous cost/benefit monitoring of ad money while Shrillary sat at home and didn't campaign at all.

She didn't campaign at all while spending twice as much as Trump? Make up whatever it is you use instead of a mind.

Shrillary never showed up once in some battle ground states. Her campaign calendar had no appearances for a week at a time. No wonder: she was fainting from her many medical issues.

Ho hum ...

President Trump didn't even bother to make campaign appearances in the left coast states and few in the New England states because this wouldn't have any impact on electoral votes.

Sophisticated electors can recognise an egomaniac buffoon. Less sophisticated audiences can be more sympathetic.

LOL! Then WHY did they elect Pres. Trump?

The way the electoral college is constructed gives the opinions of less sophisticated voters in smaller states more weight in selecting the president.
That was one of the bribes offered to smaller states by the founding tax evaders - a vert silly idea which no subsequent constitution has copied.

It's not mentioned in Alexander Hamilton's justification of the electoral college - he claimed it was designed to keep out demagogues like Trump, which it didn't.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._68

This strategy would have been totally different had the outcome been based on the popular vote.

Perhaps, but he wouldn't have won.

Yes, he would have, but that is irrelevant.

As is your claim about him being able to change his strategy, which is also implausible (like pretty much all your claims).

I have explained this to other libtards, but they simply can't get over the fact that they LOST! Well, GET OVER IT - if you don't you will LOSE AGAIN!

It's a hypothesis. Not a particularly plausible one, but Flyguy does have to keep things very simple.

No it is not - we are about to hold another election in seven months, but I guess you didn't get the memo. If you represent the sharpest mind the libtards have to offer Biden has ALREADY LOST!

What have I got to do with the Democrat campaign?

And you seem to have the delusion that you know what's going on, and can make value judgements about it. This is the Dunning-Kruger effect run wild.

You won't know about that, but it can be summarised as saying that stupider you are, the more convinced you are that you know exactly what's going on. You are remarkably stupid, and extremely dogmatic.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Hey Slow Man, only dullards call something "archaic" and then hold up something even MORE archaic as a good example of being modern.

You are in no position to criticize the most emulated version of a democratic republic - you want socialism, the scourge of democracy.

You keep defending Sleepy Joe, so don't ask what you have to do with his campaign.

What I've noticed is that you keep repeating your tired, old, unimaginative insults - sounds like the shallow well ran dry.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Monday, April 6, 2020 at 4:55:59 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:

On Wednesday, April 1, 2020 at 4:53:27 AM UTC-7, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Wednesday, April 1, 2020 at 4:39:52 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
On Tuesday, March 31, 2020 at 5:57:18 PM UTC-7, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Wednesday, April 1, 2020 at 3:17:14 AM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
On Tuesday, March 31, 2020 at 12:48:46 AM UTC-7, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Tuesday, March 31, 2020 at 5:38:14 PM UTC+11, John Robertson wrote:
On 2020/03/30 8:51 p.m., whit3rd wrote:
On Monday, March 30, 2020 at 6:53:47 PM UTC-7, Flyguy wrote:

<snip>

And you seem to have the delusion that you know what's going on, and can make value judgements about it. This is the Dunning-Kruger effect run wild.

You won't know about that, but it can be summarised as saying that stupider you are, the more convinced you are that you know exactly what's going on. You are remarkably stupid, and extremely dogmatic.

Hey Slow Man, only dullards call something "archaic" and then hold up something even MORE archaic as a good example of being modern.

What would that be?

> You are in no position to criticize the most emulated version of a democratic republic - you want socialism, the scourge of democracy.

Democratic Socialism works fine. How is it supposed to be its own scrouge?

Idiots like you take communist government's claims to be "democratic" and "socialist" at face value, which makes you gullible twits. The international socialist movement threw them out as undemocratic back in 1871, but your sort hasn't noticed this even now.

Some parts of the US system have been emulated elsewhere - not all of them by any means - and others were never emulated at all. The electoral college does come to mind. The bits that have been copied were mostly bits that the US copied from even earlier political set-ups.

> You keep defending Sleepy Joe, so don't ask what you have to do with his campaign.

I don't have anything to do with his campaign. That's happening in you country, not mine.

> What I've noticed is that you keep repeating your tired, old, unimaginative insults - sounds like the shallow well ran dry.

But you can't come up with any examples, because you have to steal other people's insults and try and pass them off as your own.

There's no real need to insult you - your rhetoric shows you up as an obvious half-wit.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Flyguy]

On Monday, April 6, 2020 at 12:51:35 AM UTC-7, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Monday, April 6, 2020 at 4:55:59 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
On Wednesday, April 1, 2020 at 4:53:27 AM UTC-7, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Wednesday, April 1, 2020 at 4:39:52 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
On Tuesday, March 31, 2020 at 5:57:18 PM UTC-7, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Wednesday, April 1, 2020 at 3:17:14 AM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
On Tuesday, March 31, 2020 at 12:48:46 AM UTC-7, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Tuesday, March 31, 2020 at 5:38:14 PM UTC+11, John Robertson wrote:
On 2020/03/30 8:51 p.m., whit3rd wrote:
On Monday, March 30, 2020 at 6:53:47 PM UTC-7, Flyguy wrote:

snip

And you seem to have the delusion that you know what's going on, and can make value judgements about it. This is the Dunning-Kruger effect run wild.

You won't know about that, but it can be summarised as saying that stupider you are, the more convinced you are that you know exactly what's going on. You are remarkably stupid, and extremely dogmatic.

Hey Slow Man, only dullards call something "archaic" and then hold up something even MORE archaic as a good example of being modern.

What would that be?

You are in no position to criticize the most emulated version of a democratic republic - you want socialism, the scourge of democracy.

Democratic Socialism works fine. How is it supposed to be its own scrouge?

Idiots like you take communist government's claims to be "democratic" and "socialist" at face value, which makes you gullible twits. The international socialist movement threw them out as undemocratic back in 1871, but your sort hasn't noticed this even now.

Some parts of the US system have been emulated elsewhere - not all of them by any means - and others were never emulated at all. The electoral college does come to mind. The bits that have been copied were mostly bits that the US copied from even earlier political set-ups.

You keep defending Sleepy Joe, so don't ask what you have to do with his campaign.

I don't have anything to do with his campaign. That's happening in you country, not mine.

What I've noticed is that you keep repeating your tired, old, unimaginative insults - sounds like the shallow well ran dry.

But you can't come up with any examples, because you have to steal other people's insults and try and pass them off as your own.

There's no real need to insult you - your rhetoric shows you up as an obvious half-wit.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Your Ozzy monarchy, half-wit.

No, YOU are the gullible twit. Hell, you believe the bullshit being fed by the Chicomms.

Yes, you HAVE defending the brain-dead Biden.

You just keep repeating your own, tired, boring insults. That you don't even recognize that shows how much of a dullard you are.