War US about to test Hypersonic missile from Guam in show of force (1 Viewer)

[Nihilianth]

idk who gave these guys the go ahead cuz i didn’t vote on this shit. time for lynching again


that’s a good idea but ur retarded thinking democrats are the way to go. honestly we may need a revolution now that i’m thinking about it…

You're retarded if you think republikkkunts are ever going to vote for ranked choice, when your position is clearly that we need more options. "We need a revolution" is the context clue I'm using here.

Literally, the only way to get that, is with Ranked-choice. The only way to get Ranked-choice, is by voting in all the Democrats who have very clearly supported such an initiative.

 

[snagahbag]

You're retarded if you think republikkkunts are ever going to vote for ranked choice, when your position is clearly that we need more options. "We need a revolution" is the context clue I'm using here.

Literally, the only way to get that, is with Ranked-choice. The only way to get Ranked-choice, is by voting in all the Democrats who have very clearly supported such an initiative.

ur dumb as fuck. if u think dems are gonna help in anyway other than trying to limit our guns and give free money to illegals and criminals then ur definitely delusional. u must’ve forgot how dems and big tech was just in bed with each other silencing the truth. and big pharma… and just overall committing tyrannical treason against the united states of america. “republikkkans” aren’t shit either but i’m voting for them every single time before i vote for ur retarded brain dead president that’s in office now or anyone else that comes in the name democrats. how about agree to disagree and vote independent w me?

 

[Nihilianth]

ur dumb as fuck. if u think dems are gonna help in anyway other than trying to limit our guns and give free money to illegals and criminals then ur definitely delusional. u must’ve forgot how dems and big tech was just in bed with each other silencing the truth. and big pharma… and just overall committing tyrannical treason against the united states of america. “republikkkans” aren’t shit either but i’m voting for them every single time before i vote for ur retarded brain dead president that’s in office now or anyone else that comes in the name democrats. how about agree to disagree and vote independent w me?

That's fucking retarded. As I said, the only issue that matters is Ranked-choice. You either vote for Ranked-choice candidates, or you're stuck with one octogenarian president or another from one of the only two parties that will ever get elected.

 

[Dirlwanger]

These libtards are becoming more and more unbalanced

Vote Democrat. Here's why:

There is only one issue that matters. Only 1:

A ranked-choice voting system. Nothing else matters. Period.

Democrats have displayed more than a willingness to pass Ranked-choice voting systems. Vote for local Democrats who have pushed and voted for Ranked-choice. Get them up to he national level of government.

It's coming. It started in a few cities first. And now a lot of major American cities have it. It has now started rising to the state level. 5 states have passed it, and another are considering it. This means that Democrats who started at the bottom working for Ranked-choice, are now being elevated. We had one guy actually run for nomination for the Democratic Party for POTUS. And actually did fairly well. Andrew Yang.

Only vote for Democrats. No republikkkunts. And only vote for Democrats who are promoting and pushing for Ranked-choice. Become a single-issue voter and hyper-focused on that one single issue.

Fuck healthcare
Fuck criminal law
Fuck taxation
Fuck gun laws
Fuck abortion
Fuck book banning
Fuck the military spending.

Only vote for ranked-choice. Period. That's it. Nothing else. Everything else is a giant waste of time, because all that's going to happen, is the next party will take back control and reverse everything the previous party just did. It's just an endless ten is match that gets nowhere.

Cope

 

[CornHub]

Joe is the one that did that? Really? REALLY? 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

I simply quoted the bit that said a president can undo anything; and posted a quote from an article. The point which was made is it wasn't simply reversed.

I won't get into name-calling as I'll get carried away, but I also never said the war wasn't pointless, but you're dull to think it was impossible to begin destroying the equipment rather than arming an enemy force to the teeth.

Furthermore your rants about voting Democrat make you appear to support open borders, destabilization of our cities, deployment of National Guard due to lax security, etc.

Once these "migrants" start spilling into the countryside they'll be fucking target practice. Do you support using humans as target practice?

 

[Nihilianth]

I simply quoted the bit that said a president can undo anything; and posted a quote from an article. The point which was made is it wasn't simply reversed.

I won't get into name-calling as I'll get carried away, but I also never said the war wasn't pointless, but you're dull to think it was impossible to begin destroying the equipment rather than arming an enemy force to the teeth.

Furthermore your rants about voting Democrat make you appear to support open borders, destabilization of our cities, deployment of National Guard due to lax security, etc.

Once these "migrants" start spilling into the countryside they'll be fucking target practice. Do you support using humans as target practice?

JFC, I never even USED those words. You sounding like dirlwanker. Can't even address what was actually said.

For the 5th time now, I said very specifically, you're a retard if you want to vote independant, rather than vote for a Ranked-choice candidate. Only the Democrats have candidates willing to pass ranked-choice legislation.

Also for the 5th time now, I have said that no issue matters, except getting Ranked-choice passed at the national level. Without it, all we keep doing to changing the same issues back and forth, over and over and over again. Its a senseless waste of time.

Vote for Ranked-choice candidate. Then we get to see what Americans REALLY want.

 

[CornHub]

JFC, I never even USED those words.

I never said Biden negotiated with the Taliban, so eat shit hypocrite.

If you're telling people to vote Democrat, you support what I stated you support - which is rednecks using non-English speakers as target practice when they try to break into their 2001 Dodge whatever the fuck for the 0.48¢ sitting on their dashboard because of the current Democrat ideology allowing them free entry into the country.

"Fuck Gun Laws", says the guy spouting "Vote Democrat"

Seriously what a fucking conundrum you are

 

[Dirlwanger]

JFC, I never even USED those words. You sounding like dirlwanker.

I'm always in you mind.... 😂

 

[Nihilianth]

I never said Biden negotiated with the Taliban, so eat shit hypocrite.

If you're telling people to vote Democrat, you support what I stated you support - which is rednecks using non-English speakers as target practice when they try to break into their 2001 Dodge whatever the fuck for the 0.48¢ sitting on their dashboard because of the current Democrat ideology allowing them free entry into the country.

"Fuck Gun Laws", says the guy spouting "Vote Democrat"

Seriously what a fucking conundrum you are

I never even MENTIONED Biden! What. The. FUCK are you going on about!? I said nothing about gun laws or immigration! All I said was that no other issues matter. Only Ranked Choice voting. "Ranked Choice" is the ONLY thing I even mentioned in this fucking conversation!

And you have the nerve to say that I'M the "conundrum"?

You can't even address a single word I even wrote. It's all as hominems, strawmans and red herrings. Ad homs are fine, IF you actually stick to the god damn topic!

Jesus Christ, you ARE like dirlwanker.

ETA: The only person I even mentioned anywhere in this thread was ANDREW YANG. I'm the only one in this forum that doesn't vote for octogenarians!

 

[Dirlwanger]

Jesus Christ, you ARE like dirlwanker.

You're my bitch... 😆

 

[CornHub]

ETA: The only person I even mentioned anywhere in this thread was ANDREW YANG. I'm the only one in this forum that doesn't vote for octogenarians!

Nah, I replied to you saying a president can simply undo what the last one did, then you defended Biden for pulling out. You're full of shit. You previous replies do contribute to your total argument, not sure if you realize that or not. On this note, you absolutely did mention gun laws, perhaps you're experiencing an early onset of Alzheimer's.

It's obvious we were going to create a power vacuum, you're literally fucking inbred if you think leaving the way we did was the best possible outcome.

 

[Nihilianth]

Nah, I replied to you saying a president can simply undo what the last one did, then you defended Biden for pulling out. You're full of shit. You previous replies do contribute to your total argument, not sure if you realize that or not. On this note, you absolutely did mention gun laws, perhaps you're experiencing an early onset of Alzheimer's.

It's obvious we were going to create a power vacuum, you're literally fucking inbred if you think leaving the way we did was the best possible outcome.

I thought that was a different thread.

But in any case, the only thing I even said about gun laws was:

"Fuck gun laws."

I also said

"Fuck abortion"

And several other items as social issues that keep getting hit back and forth like a god damn ping pong ball.

All of that in the context of promoting Ranked Choice. And mentioned Andrew Yang, who ran against Hillary and Bernie for the 2016 democratic nomination.

Yang was the very first Ranked-choice candidate to actually have a shot at the White House. AND he was only 40 years old at the time.

As I keep fucking saying over and over and over again:

Nothing else matters other than passing Ranked-choice!

And if you are saying vote for indepenants, even MORE reason to vote for Ranked-choice candidates from the Democratic party!

If republikkkunts start supporting ranked choice, I'd be saying exactly the same thing. But republikkkunts do NOT support ranked choice voting. Not anywhere in the nation that I am aware of. Only Democrats and other minor party candidates do. And of all parties not named "Republikkkunt," only the Democrats have a chance of actually DOING it. As they have in every major US city, and even 5 states at the state level! They even had one presidential hopeful!

I don't give two shits about gun laws, abortion, healthcare, military spending. I only care about giving other parties a chance at winning real elections. To ACTUALLY see what the American people actually vote FOR. Rather than keep seeing what they vote AGAINST.

 

[CornHub]

Nothing else matters other than passing Ranked-choice!

Okay, okay.

This would have been cooler BEFORE they began importing voters by the millions.

---

I will add that I also thought you meant throwing all of that shit out of the window, which is why I was rather fucking confused as to what your exact point was.

 

[CornHub]

^

Fuck healthcare
Fuck criminal law
Fuck taxation
Fuck gun laws
Fuck abortion
Fuck book banning
Fuck the military spending.

 

[Solomon Kane]

And? A really effective message would be to just fire a missile at the target IN China.
No sabre-rattling - just a decisive military strike. With the promise of a fuck tonne more unless China backs down.

Yep...... technically Taiwan is the REAL China (or it used to be) when the Communist Rebels seized power, they forced the regonised Chinese government into exile in 1949. So long as there exists anything proclaiming itself to be Chinese that the Communist party cannot control, they will want it - either to be controlled by them, or stamped out. And with the Kuomintang being under US protection, the Chinese can do nothing but wait until the US loses military strength, or the will to intercede...

Yeah, the game for them to continue to "want" and nothing more.

 

[Ravishing Rick Rude]

What are we even flexing for? We are a nation of faggots and queers. We kill our babies. Not a single country has any respect let alone fear for our doomed nation. We are Babylon and we will serve as a warning...

Mate it's the same up here in Canada , we're so fucking gay we got Disneyland jealous

 

[snagahbag]

That's fucking retarded. As I said, the only issue that matters is Ranked-choice. You either vote for Ranked-choice candidates, or you're stuck with one octogenarian president or another from one of the only two parties that will ever get elected.

buddy they sold YOU on that. nobody else is convinced on that bullshit. u act as if politicians aren’t the biggest backstabbing lying pieces of shit that walk the planet. u may wanna reevaluate bucko, seems the news has got to ur head.

 

[Nihilianth]

Okay, okay.

This would have been cooler BEFORE they began importing voters by the millions.

---

I will add that I also thought you meant throwing all of that shit out of the window, which is why I was rather fucking confused as to what your exact point was.

"BEFORE they began importing voters by the millions."

Dude, there hasn't been a single year since the Pilgrims stepped foot in Massachusetts that immigrants have NOT come to what is now this country. Not even to mention that immigrants don't even vote! Yeah, yeah. I know. There's always an excuse for every single actual fact. You'll just deny it and give incorrect reasons that have been debunked a million times already. But immigrants don't vote.

No. What I am saying, is that those issues don't even matter anymore. The next administration and the next Congress will just come in and undo everything the previous administration and Congress just did. It's all a huge waste of time, since it's all just a numbers game.

State politicians get to draw up their own districts to get their own representatives elected to Congress. The democrat candidate for POTUS always wins the national popularity contest. The republikkkunt candidate sometimes win the electoral college (which itself is bogus. And NO. The EC was NOT meant to give some voters greater voting power than others! That's what the Senate was specifically designed to do!)

The House of Representatives was designed to give more power to the large states due to their population size, with the smallest states guaranteed 1 representative. It was MEANT to be proportional! What the founders of the Constitution had no idea would happen, was the constant growth of this country both in physical area, and especially in population. Or rather, they had no idea the sheer disproportional population growth of some states over others. To make matters worse, it was in....I believe in 1912?....Where Congress passed legislation that limited the size of the House specifically to 435 members, and that's where it has stayed ever since. And so, year by year, the power of the larger states is becoming more and more diluted.

As for POTUS, he was originally elected by the Senate. But the founders quickly realized that wasn't going to work by the election of 1800. And so, they amended the Constitution to have the electors elect the president and his VP. The POTUS election was meant to be proportional in the same manner as the House of Representatives.

Also, the electors were meant to remain INDEPENDANT of the popular vote; even WITHIN THEIR OWN STATE!

In other words, the electors are NOT supposed to be bound by the results in their own states! The entire POINT of the electoral COLLEGE was to have SMART people vote for POTUS. All the capitalized words are meant for emphasis.

The founders were very clear and very specific on this. They feared populist leaders. They also feared the influence of the Pope with the election of religious leaders. It was written about in the Federalist Papers

I haven't even gotten to the math games IRT to "strategic first past the post" or "winner-take-all" election systems and the extreme bias this introduces. It isn't the POLITICIANS that are corrupt. THEY aren't the ones electing themselves to office. It only FEELS corrupt, because we are stuck having to vote strategically AGAINST someone. Rather than voting FOR someone. And therein lies all the confusion:

The wording that is frequently used:

"I voted FOR so-and-so."
The news / media - left, right, center, up, down.....virtually ALL media:

"The [insert type of voters] voted FOR..."

That's uncorrected wording in a winner-take-all election system! The vast majority of us are NOT voting FOR anyone! We are ONLY voting AGAINST someone.

The majority of individual politicians actually try to do what they promise they will do while on campaign. And that's where the SECOND problem sets in:

Identity politics!

"You're a republikkkunt."
"I'm a Democrat."

You think I MUST ALWAYS support ALL of what the Democratic Party sets out as an overall agenda for the party. That's far from the case!

I'm a raging social liberals, and slightly right-leaning fiscally. There is no party for that. Not even the Green Party, since they are completely liberal all the way around.

The Democrats are far more conservative fiscally than I am. The Green Party is far more liberal fiscally than I am. I even voted for Bush. Twice!

I even registered as a Republikkkunt prior to the 2016 primaries specifically to vote against Trump. That was the year I had come to realize that's what voting is in a winner take all system. You're voting AGAINST someone. Not FOR someone. That's why everyone thinks that politicians are corrupt and paid off. They think they're voting FOR A PARTY. Rather than voting AGAINST AN INDIVIDUAL. They become confused when their choice on the ballot doesn't do exactly what they want the party to do, and so, they think that politicians is corrupt.

Also, see the election of 1912. I won't explain that here. Also the election of 1948. Both elections tell the story of what happens when you vote for a candidate you love, rather than vote against the candidate you hate. Both elections also tell the story of how the parties switched platforms.

There is also a math issue at hand as well, especially when you only have two major parties, and for the legislature (Congress) in particular. Mathematical probabilities. When you have one party controlling the House, that only means that more of their seats are up for election. They have more chances to lose more seats than they do in gaining seats. And with only one other party in contention due to strategic voting, guess what happens? There is only one other alternative. I YAWN at the "red wave" "blue wave" bullshit that everyone goes on about. OF COURSE there's going to be a [insert color] wave! Mathematically, there is no other option.

Give us ranked choice voting or quit crying about only having one real choice.

 

[CornHub]

There hasn't been a single year since the Pilgrims stepped foot in Massachusetts that immigrants have NOT come to what is now this country. Not even to mention that immigrants don't even vote!

Yes, obvious. The recent influx over the past few years is clearly different. There's a strategic game at play that's capitalizing on the things you're explaining to support ranked-choice, but in short - the Democratic party has allowed this. That is how it is viewed.

Black and white, that's all it takes. Shut out people like you who see a grey area using the media machine.

In short I'll end by saying you have studied US elections more than I, but it comes down to my pessimism versus your optimism. You think it can be fixed, I'm stockpiling. Hard to build a bridge between the two.

---

Only after adding that the influx is relevant in the election after this because they'll be legal by then.. think further ahead.

 

[Nihilianth]

Yes, obvious. The recent influx over the past few years is clearly different. There's a strategic game at play that's capitalizing on the things you're explaining to support ranked-choice, but in short - the Democratic party has allowed this. That is how it is viewed.

Black and white, that's all it takes. Shut out people like you who see a grey area using the media machine.

In short I'll end by saying you have studied US elections more than I, but it comes down to my pessimism versus your optimism. You think it can be fixed, I'm stockpiling. Hard to build a bridge between the two.

---

Only after adding that the influx is relevant in the election after this because they'll be legal by then.. think further ahead.

I appreciate that you actually read my post and responded in kind. Very rare in this forum, so thank you.

There still more yet I'd like to say, and I'll try like hell to keep it as brief as possible.

There have only been a handful of elections that actually were "historical." That actually did matter. And we really have t had one since 1948. (Arguably, the election of the JFK / LBJ ticket is up there.) Though, JFK and LBJ got too much credit for the civil rights acts. It actually really started with NIXON. Almost nobody knows that! Nixon is the one that worked like HELL behind the scenes to really push the first of the civil rights legislation not seen since Reconstruction. He's the one responsible for the Civil Rights Act of 1958, he had a lot more to do with the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1968 than the assassination of JFK and the following LBJ administration did. Nixon did all the dirty ground work, dealing with all the Congresscritters to get their signatures to pass them. The Democrats ran with Watergate and destroyed Nixon's legacy. He was not the crook history makes him out to be. He was a champion of the rights of minorities, and gets no credit for it.

Anyway, I started by explaining that we haven't had a truly "historical" election since the 1960s at the latest. All you hear on every single media outlet since the establishment of the 24 hour news cycle (Thanks, Rupert fuckin' Murdoch!) is the extreme embellishment that...:

"OmG tHiS iS tHe MosT iMpOrtAnT eLeCeCtiOn EvVvVvVEeEEerrrrRRRRR!!!!" And you WILL hear that later on this year as well. Starting in June, and ramping up by August. That's all bullshit-mongering.

WHats going to happen is this:

voter turnout: Somewhere below 60%. Might even be as low as 50%. We have two octogenarians facing off against one another. One is a fascist who can't form coherent sentences, and the other is a stroke victim with a speech impediment that everyone thinks can't form coherent sentences.

For the Senate, there are 20 Republikkkunt seats up for election vs. just 13 for Democrats.

Democrats currently have 48 seats to Republikkkunts with 49.

THis means that Ds will automatically retain 35 seats. And Rs automatically will only retain 29.

Mmathematical probabilities says that better than 90% chance Democrats WILL retake the Senate. That's without any sort of analysis beyond what I had just written above, without even looking up to see which states are up for election!

Out of the 33 seats up for election, Democrats will probably take 16 and Rs will probably take 17.

Which means....

Democrats: 52 seats.
Republikkkunts: 46 seats.
Indepentans always manage to somehow take and/or keep 2 seats. Indy politicians vote along with Democrats something like 82% of the time. So most legislation in the Senate will be 54 - 46.

If Trump is elected, none of his crap will pass the Senate. It'll be a waste of fucking time.

You can do the same with the house of Representatives. All 435 seats are up for election. Rs have 219 seats. DS have 213.

RS and Ds will be closely split down the middle. Mathematically, Democrats should pick up another seat or two. Repubplikkunts should lose a seat or two.

The only reason this happens:

Because when a senate seat held by a Republikkkunt is up for election, the only party to really challenge that seat is a Democrat. And vice-versa.

Now if we had a voting system that gives all the other parties a much better chance at winning seats, instead of the seat likely flipping to a Democrat, it'll be more of a toss-up between hopefully 3 or 4 other parties. And the local voters WILL get a candidate that ACTUALLY reflects on them!

This gives the added bonus that it's much harder for all the talking head "analysts" to influence voters by making sensationalized news stories about how "POPULAR!" the republikkkunts is vs the democrat! The pre-election polls will hopefully be far less accurate!

A less accurate ability to predict elections, makes all the candidates uncomfortable for getting and/or retaining their jobs. And they SHOULD be! No elected officials should be confident of winning an election to national government. The best way to be behden to us voters, is by being afraid that there are half a dozen other candidates vying for that position.

Just like with a sports team. A first baseman's job in the MLB is never secure. There are 4 or 5 other players all working their asses off to get the previous starter fired. This lights a fire under the previous starter's ass to keep working his ass off to retain his position.

This creates a NATURAL high turnover rate. All these people out here talking about trying to pass a restriction on the number of times a politician can keep getting elected. They doing it all backasswards! Like I said above in this thread:

Fuck that!

Pass a Ranked-choice voting system that gives a lot more candidates a better shot than just two main parties. It ensures a higher turnover rate, less job security, forces the politicians to ACTUALLY pay attention to who voted for them and why, and actually work for them!

A politician who consistently does a good job, WILL and SHOULD keep getting elected. Why the hell would we, as a country, want to restrict actual real talent? Not all politicians are bad or evil. There really is some talent and some real experience, and our government needs to retain that talent and experience.

More parties also means more politicians with real compromising skills will land their jobs. Because instead of relying on the brute force of all the other party candidates behind them, now they have to actually get together with other parties to form "coalitions" with other parties. That means they actually HAVE to compromise. In order to get the votes they need or want, they have to be able to negotiate for them among many different other ideas. They will prepare to sponsor a bill from another party, if that party sponsors their bill.

This has YET ANOTHER benefit that bills won't have all of these convoluted red herring "riders" that have jackshit to do with the bills.

Now. I havent even touched on explaining exactly WHY a ranked choice voting system would increase our options and a winner take all system results in two parties.