MAGAThread XX: A Journal of the Plague Year

[Alvecia]

...Do you actually think the amount of signs correlates to who the winner is

It simply does. There's no denying a ground-swell of public opinion when you see one.

Unless, of course... there's been vote-rigging all over the place. A number of cities are very notorious for this lack of correlation, such as Chicago and Detroit, and practically everywhere in California.

The only thing the amount of signs correlates to is how many people can be arsed to buy a sign.

[Esalia]

In itself, a tacit admission of voter fraud, which I hear is pretty ripe in Canada.

Remember why Quebec's not a free country?

...Do you actually think the amount of signs correlates to who the winner is

Clearly signs are the only measure of how likely a given candidate is to win, and if the most represented candidate doesn't win, there must be fraud.

Or something. I'm not sure how DP1 is connecting these dots here.

[Debate Proxy 1]

...Do you actually think the amount of signs correlates to who the winner is

Signs that they have personally seen are apparently the only evidence that counts.

Me and everyone reading me, that is.

[Diarcesia]

...Do you actually think the amount of signs correlates to who the winner is

It simply does. There's no denying a ground-swell of public opinion when you see one.

Unless, of course... there's been vote-rigging all over the place. A number of cities are very notorious for this lack of correlation, such as Chicago and Detroit, and practically everywhere in California.

There is such a thing as a "vocal minority".

[Jerzylvania]

Maybe like... The Donald lost a bet with Jeffrey on the Super Bowl 25 years ago. An expensive bet he couldn't cover but evil Jeff insisted... yadda yadda yadda ...but Trump is such an honest man and so... and then he told his... yadda yadda yadda ...but it was her idea to make payment to Jeff so... yadda yadda yadda ...and the whole thing was her fault, not the President's. One must remember she was a Democrat then.



I tried my best, used the most potent damaging tale i could devise. Meme proofed well. But alas it's tame compared to some of the Qanon shit floating in the wingnut toilets out there.

I would love to hear the Trumpets say he's prolife after that. Although Its hard to believe anyone or any media.

Hmm.
Well.. perhaps he could be Pagan, after all.

[Debate Proxy 1]

...Do you actually think the amount of signs correlates to who the winner is

Clearly signs are the only measure of how likely a given candidate is to win, and if the most represented candidate doesn't win, there must be fraud.

Or something. I'm not sure how DP1 is connecting these dots here.

That, and when the opposing party engages in wide-spread social media censorship and violence against those they disagree with.

[Debate Proxy 1]

It simply does. There's no denying a ground-swell of public opinion when you see one.

Unless, of course... there's been vote-rigging all over the place. A number of cities are very notorious for this lack of correlation, such as Chicago and Detroit, and practically everywhere in California.

There is such a thing as a "vocal minority".

A real majority sees no need to suppress the opinions of people on social media. It's just not how election winners behave.

[Esalia]

...Do you actually think the amount of signs correlates to who the winner is

It simply does. There's no denying a ground-swell of public opinion when you see one.

Unless, of course... there's been vote-rigging all over the place. A number of cities are very notorious for this lack of correlation, such as Chicago and Detroit, and practically everywhere in California.

Allow me to introduce you to the idea that not everyone is enthusiastic and open about who they intend to vote for, and anecdotes are not in fact representative of an entire country of 300-something million people.

[Jedi Council]

Signs dont vote. I have never seen a sign vote.

Honestly, I've worked in three elections now, in each one the amount of signs was hardly correlated to who actually won.

It's why most campaigns focus on actual voter out reach and not just plastering their candidates name everywhere.

In itself, a tacit admission of voter fraud, which I hear is pretty ripe in Canada.

Remember why Quebec's not a free country?

Signs dont vote.

Let me dumb this down for you.

If there are 100 citizens in a town, and 30 of them are hardcore political partisans who are willing to put up signs, and 70 are more generic, not-thinking-about-politics every-day voters, we can expect to see 30 signs on elections day.

With me so far?

Now if of those 30 die hard politicos, 20 are on the Blue team, and 10 are on the Red team, we can expect to see 20 blue signs and 10 red signs.

Still good? Ok.

Now, come election day, we can make the assumption that those 20 blue signed homes voted for the blue team. We can also assume those 10 red signed homes voted for the red team. What about the other 70 voters?

Now, lets say team Blue only played to their base, and only talked to their own voters, those who already had signs. The Red team tried to reach out to those voters who were not uber-partisan.

Therefore, come election day, with 20 vote for blue team ostensibly in the bank, and 10 votes for the red team logged as well, the remaining 70 voted 50 for red and 20 for blue.

The final result would then be 60 votes for the Red team and 40 votes for the Blue team.

So the Red team wins, even though it had less signs.

Now, please, for the love of God, since I have laid it out as I might do for a second grader, tell me you understand this concept.

[Kowani]

...Do you actually think the amount of signs correlates to who the winner is

It simply does. There's no denying a ground-swell of public opinion when you see one.

Unless, of course... there's been vote-rigging all over the place. A number of cities are very notorious for this lack of correlation, such as Chicago and Detroit, and practically everywhere in California.

have a nice day

[Albrenia]

There is such a thing as a "vocal minority".

A real majority sees no need to suppress the opinions of people on social media. It's just not how election winners behave.

Social media companies aren't the election winners. So what does that have to do with anything?

Signs are not the sole determining factor of anything other than which base is more likely to buy virtue signalling signs.

You lost fair and square, stop whining or get evidence. Signs and Twitter putting 'this is bullshit' on Trump's tweets are not evidence.

[Alvecia]

It simply does. There's no denying a ground-swell of public opinion when you see one.

Unless, of course... there's been vote-rigging all over the place. A number of cities are very notorious for this lack of correlation, such as Chicago and Detroit, and practically everywhere in California.

Allow me to introduce you to the idea that not everyone is enthusiastic and open about who they intend to vote for, and anecdotes are not in fact representative of an entire country of 300-something million people.

According to my eyeballs, only about 300 people voted this election, so I don't know where these extra 70+ million are coming from.
Clearly some fraudulent voting going on.

[Debate Proxy 1]

In itself, a tacit admission of voter fraud, which I hear is pretty ripe in Canada.

Remember why Quebec's not a free country?

Signs dont vote.

Let me dumb this down for you.

If there are 100 citizens in a town, and 30 of them are hardcore political partisans who are willing to put up signs, and 70 are more generic, not-thinking-about-politics every-day voters, we can expect to see 30 signs on elections day.

With me so far?

Now if of those 30 die hard politicos, 20 are on the Blue team, and 10 are on the Red team, we can expect to see 20 blue signs and 10 red signs.

Still good? Ok.

Now, come election day, we can make the assumption that those 20 blue signed homes voted for the blue team. We can also assume those 10 red signed homes voted for the red team. What about the other 70 voters?

Now, lets say team Blue only played to their base, and only talked to their own voters, those who already had signs. The Red team tried to reach out to those voters who were not uber-partisan.

Therefore, come election day, with 20 vote for blue team ostensibly in the bank, and 10 votes for the red team logged as well, the remaining 70 voted 50 for red and 20 for blue.

The final result would then be 60 votes for the Red team and 40 votes for the Blue team.

So the Red team wins, even though it had less signs.

Now, please, for the love of God, since I have laid it out as I might do for a second grader, tell me you understand this concept.

Then look at all the Trump voters getting suppressed and censored for opinions.

Not how winners behave. A real winner would find that incredibly counter-productive.

[Jedi Council]

Allow me to introduce you to the idea that not everyone is enthusiastic and open about who they intend to vote for, and anecdotes are not in fact representative of an entire country of 300-something million people.

According to my eyeballs, only about 300 people voted this election, so I don't know where these extra 70+ million are coming from.
Clearly some fraudulent voting going on.

My polling station was empty on election day! Why is my MP getting more than 1 vote?!

[Jedi Council]

Signs dont vote.

Let me dumb this down for you.

If there are 100 citizens in a town, and 30 of them are hardcore political partisans who are willing to put up signs, and 70 are more generic, not-thinking-about-politics every-day voters, we can expect to see 30 signs on elections day.

With me so far?

Now if of those 30 die hard politicos, 20 are on the Blue team, and 10 are on the Red team, we can expect to see 20 blue signs and 10 red signs.

Still good? Ok.

Now, come election day, we can make the assumption that those 20 blue signed homes voted for the blue team. We can also assume those 10 red signed homes voted for the red team. What about the other 70 voters?

Now, lets say team Blue only played to their base, and only talked to their own voters, those who already had signs. The Red team tried to reach out to those voters who were not uber-partisan.

Therefore, come election day, with 20 vote for blue team ostensibly in the bank, and 10 votes for the red team logged as well, the remaining 70 voted 50 for red and 20 for blue.

The final result would then be 60 votes for the Red team and 40 votes for the Blue team.

So the Red team wins, even though it had less signs.

Now, please, for the love of God, since I have laid it out as I might do for a second grader, tell me you understand this concept.

Then look at all the Trump voters getting suppressed and censored for opinions.

Not how winners behave. A real winner would find that incredibly counter-productive.

You did not address my point, nor say you understood it. I really hope you did, I would hate to think that the US education system is so poor that you could not grasp the argument a toddler could understand. But i'm not holding my breath

Whether or not its how "real winners" behave is moot. Some people are sore winners. Trump surely was in 2016.

[Albrenia]

This is just getting pathetic now. Now we're supposed to believe there's fraud because social media companies are banning people for calling for revolution.

[Debate Proxy 1]

A real majority sees no need to suppress the opinions of people on social media. It's just not how election winners behave.

Social media companies aren't the election winners. So what does that have to do with anything?

Signs are not the sole determining factor of anything other than which base is more likely to buy virtue signalling signs.

You lost fair and square, stop whining or get evidence. Signs and Twitter putting 'this is bullshit' on Trump's tweets are not evidence.

You get evidence.

I posted mine, and you have yet to cite any from third-party sources.

They don't just stop an entire vote count in Pennsylvania when there's nothing shady going on, and I showed the sources regarding that. Not even from pro-Trump sources alone, but from hostile papers that slipped up too and couldn't keep their lies straight.

[Alvecia]

Then look at all the Trump voters getting suppressed and censored for opinions.

Not how winners behave. A real winner would find that incredibly counter-productive.

You did not address my point, nor say you understood it. I really hope you did, I would hate to think that the US education system is so poor that you could not grasp the argument a toddler could understand. But i'm not holding my breath

Whether or not its how "real winners" behave is moot. Some people are sore winners. Trump surely was in 2016.

To no-one's surprise, turns out he's a sore loser as well.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Oh... and "signs don't vote", I should add? That is just gaslighting extraordinaire when crooks are just terrified of losing power.

Signs don't vote.

Look out your front door: 2 Trump signs, one of them yours.
Drive to the shops: 15 Trump signs, 4 Biden signs
Drive to work: 41 Trump signs, 9 Biden signs

The pattern is holding up well. Trump should win the state!

[Kowani]

Social media companies aren't the election winners. So what does that have to do with anything?

Signs are not the sole determining factor of anything other than which base is more likely to buy virtue signalling signs.

You lost fair and square, stop whining or get evidence. Signs and Twitter putting 'this is bullshit' on Trump's tweets are not evidence.

You get evidence.

I posted mine, and you have yet to cite any from third-party sources.

They don't just stop an entire vote count in Pennsylvania when there's nothing shady going on, and I showed the sources regarding that. Not even from pro-Trump sources alone, but from hostile papers that slipped up too and couldn't keep their lies straight.

Like I said last time you claimed this, the count wasn't stopped. The Court told the GOP no.

[Neutraligon]

Social media companies aren't the election winners. So what does that have to do with anything?

Signs are not the sole determining factor of anything other than which base is more likely to buy virtue signalling signs.

You lost fair and square, stop whining or get evidence. Signs and Twitter putting 'this is bullshit' on Trump's tweets are not evidence.

You get evidence.

I posted mine, and you have yet to cite any from third-party sources.

They don't just stop an entire vote count in Pennsylvania when there's nothing shady going on, and I showed the sources regarding that. Not even from pro-Trump sources alone, but from hostile papers that slipped up too and couldn't keep their lies straight.

The failure of the Trump lawyers to show any fraud, and only winning one case where they wanted to be closer is evidence against your claims. Hell they have in sworn testimony admitted they have no evidence for fraud. And no, you have not provided evidence.

[Jedi Council]

Social media companies aren't the election winners. So what does that have to do with anything?

Signs are not the sole determining factor of anything other than which base is more likely to buy virtue signalling signs.

You lost fair and square, stop whining or get evidence. Signs and Twitter putting 'this is bullshit' on Trump's tweets are not evidence.

You get evidence.

I posted mine, and you have yet to cite any from third-party sources.

They don't just stop an entire vote count in Pennsylvania when there's nothing shady going on, and I showed the sources regarding that. Not even from pro-Trump sources alone, but from hostile papers that slipped up too and couldn't keep their lies straight.

They stopped it because observers were not allowed to get too close to the ballots because of COVID restrictions. The court order was never questioning the integrity of the ballots themselves.

They then continued with the count.

[Debate Proxy 1]

Then look at all the Trump voters getting suppressed and censored for opinions.

Not how winners behave. A real winner would find that incredibly counter-productive.

You did not address my point, nor say you understood it. I really hope you did, I would hate to think that the US education system is so poor that you could not grasp the argument a toddler could understand. But i'm not holding my breath

Whether or not its how "real winners" behave is moot. Some people are sore winners. Trump surely was in 2016.

That the people get censored is clear evidence that even a child can see that Biden isn't the winner, and that that sea of signs is a truthful barometer in this case.

Indeed, it is in most cases, except in cities and states where there's long histories of systematic election fraud. Winning parties don't engage in censorship.

[Jedi Council]

You did not address my point, nor say you understood it. I really hope you did, I would hate to think that the US education system is so poor that you could not grasp the argument a toddler could understand. But i'm not holding my breath

Whether or not its how "real winners" behave is moot. Some people are sore winners. Trump surely was in 2016.

That the people get censored is clear evidence that even a child can see that Biden isn't the winner, and that that sea of signs is a truthful barometer in this case.

Indeed, it is in most cases, except in cities and states where there's long histories of systematic election fraud. Winning parties don't engage in censorship.

You cant just run away from your signs argument because it was disproven, and then hop on the "bUt tHe CeNsOrShIp" train.

Though I have a feeling that you may be indulging in these conspiracy theories for the same reason many others do; to gain a sense of intellectual and moral superiority when there is in fact none to be had.

[Neanderthaland]

You did not address my point, nor say you understood it. I really hope you did, I would hate to think that the US education system is so poor that you could not grasp the argument a toddler could understand. But i'm not holding my breath

Whether or not its how "real winners" behave is moot. Some people are sore winners. Trump surely was in 2016.

That the people get censored is clear evidence that even a child can see that Biden isn't the winner, and that that sea of signs is a truthful barometer in this case.

Indeed, it is in most cases, except in cities and states where there's long histories of systematic election fraud. Winning parties don't engage in censorship.

Take a break man. Go outside, watch a move, do something other than this.