2020 US General Election Thread VII: Summer of Discontent

[Cannot think of a name]

I respect the anti American view you expressed below just fine, but it doesn’t cease being a declaration that the first amendment was a mistake:

I did not express any anti American views
Dude we are not here to agree with each other. We are here to share our different economic, political and social views.

Debate them. That means more than just going "I LIKE CAKE". You...you are going "I LIKE CAKE." It's not debating, it's telling us something you like. If someone goes, "Like, cake is fattening and makes a terrible meal." someone who is here to actually have a conversation, debate and defend their ideas, would say, "Au contrare my friend. Cake has grains, milk, and eggs in it. It's just breakfast in a delicious stack." and then the person they're debating with might say, "Kind of questionable to pull a bit from the guy you're pulling from, isn't it?" and then you'd say, "The veracity of a fact does not change if someone of ill character also says it. The fact remains that eggs, milk, and grains do exist both in a traditional American breakfast and in cake" and so on.

That's not what you do. You come here and go, "I LIKE CAKE!" and then someone will say, "cake is not really a meal" and you go "LOL ATTACK CAKE IS GREAT" which is the kind of response a chatbot would give. If you just want to post your ideas and 'respect everyone's right to disagree'...why, that's social media my friend. But here, we just kind of got use to people actually defending their ideas. Except you. You don't do that. Instead you take these giant steaming craps in the middle of these threads and grind them to a halt while someone takes on the Sisyphean task of trying to explain to you once again how to have a normal fucking conversation.

[San Lumen]

I understand that. But let’s not be duplicitous - if you hate free speech and want to ban forms of speech you don’t like, don’t beat around the bush. Own it. Say free speech and the first amendment was a mistake and we should repeal it so we can ban forms of speech we don’t like. Like flag burning.

Ive said more than a few times that id like to put the 1st amendment through a shredder.

May I ask why? What do you have against, freedom of speech, press, assembly and free expression of religion?

[Greater Miami Shores]

I did not express any anti American views
Dude we are not here to agree with each other. We are here to share our different economic, political and social views.

Debate them. That means more than just going "I LIKE CAKE". You...you are going "I LIKE CAKE." It's not debating, it's telling us something you like. If someone goes, "Like, cake is fattening and makes a terrible meal." someone who is here to actually have a conversation, debate and defend their ideas, would say, "Au contrare my friend. Cake has grains, milk, and eggs in it. It's just breakfast in a delicious stack." and then the person they're debating with might say, "Kind of questionable to pull a bit from the guy you're pulling from, isn't it?" and then you'd say, "The veracity of a fact does not change if someone of ill character also says it. The fact remains that eggs, milk, and grains do exist both in a traditional American breakfast and in cake" and so on.

That's not what you do. You come here and go, "I LIKE CAKE!" and then someone will say, "cake is not really a meal" and you go "LOL ATTACK CAKE IS GREAT" which is the kind of response a chatbot would give. If you just want to post your ideas and 'respect everyone's right to disagree'...why, that's social media my friend. But here, we just kind of got use to people actually defending their ideas. Except you. You don't do that. Instead you take these giant steaming craps in the middle of these threads and grind them to a halt while someone takes on the Sisyphean task of trying to explain to you once again how to have a normal fucking conversation.

You posted a lot there to comment on. Short answer, I don't tell anyone I am right and you are wrong like they do to me all the time on all issues. Which is what I do and what they do.

[San Lumen]

Debate them. That means more than just going "I LIKE CAKE". You...you are going "I LIKE CAKE." It's not debating, it's telling us something you like. If someone goes, "Like, cake is fattening and makes a terrible meal." someone who is here to actually have a conversation, debate and defend their ideas, would say, "Au contrare my friend. Cake has grains, milk, and eggs in it. It's just breakfast in a delicious stack." and then the person they're debating with might say, "Kind of questionable to pull a bit from the guy you're pulling from, isn't it?" and then you'd say, "The veracity of a fact does not change if someone of ill character also says it. The fact remains that eggs, milk, and grains do exist both in a traditional American breakfast and in cake" and so on.

That's not what you do. You come here and go, "I LIKE CAKE!" and then someone will say, "cake is not really a meal" and you go "LOL ATTACK CAKE IS GREAT" which is the kind of response a chatbot would give. If you just want to post your ideas and 'respect everyone's right to disagree'...why, that's social media my friend. But here, we just kind of got use to people actually defending their ideas. Except you. You don't do that. Instead you take these giant steaming craps in the middle of these threads and grind them to a halt while someone takes on the Sisyphean task of trying to explain to you once again how to have a normal fucking conversation.

You posted a lot there to comment on. Short answer, I don't tell anyone I am right and you are wrong like they do to me all the time on all issues. Which is what I do and what they do.

Do you have anything to say other than canned answers? Its beyond tiresome at this point.

[Greater Miami Shores]

You posted a lot there to comment on. Short answer, I don't tell anyone I am right and you are wrong like they do to me all the time on all issues. Which is what I do and what they do.

Do you have anything to say other than canned answers? Its beyond tiresome at this point.

Your canned post response to me is also tiresome.

[San Lumen]

Do you have anything to say other than canned answers? Its beyond tiresome at this point.

Your canned post response to me is also tiresome.

No I dont give canned responses. I actually debate

[Greater Miami Shores]

Your canned post response to me is also tiresome.

No I dont give canned responses. I actually debate

We strongly disagree. You are the one who posted to me many times, I am entitled to my own opinions but not to my own facts, that is not debating. It proves my point.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Ive said more than a few times that id like to put the 1st amendment through a shredder.

May I ask why? What do you have against, freedom of speech, press, assembly and free expression of religion?

Damn, assembly. I knew there was something else I forgot to give government the power to infringe.

Double damn, 38 states have ratified it already. Can't go back to Congress, they're wised up now and will see I'm trying to ban them from assembling. Ah well, I guess banning them from speaking to each other will get the job done.

[Thermodolia]

Ive said more than a few times that id like to put the 1st amendment through a shredder.

Government may infringe on freedom of speech, of the press and of religion any time it damn well pleases. Anyone whether a citizen or not who harms the US flag in any way, will be subject to the death penalty.

Glorious

[Thermodolia]

Your canned post response to me is also tiresome.

No I dont give canned responses. I actually debate

Press X to doubt

[Cannot think of a name]

Debate them. That means more than just going "I LIKE CAKE". You...you are going "I LIKE CAKE." It's not debating, it's telling us something you like. If someone goes, "Like, cake is fattening and makes a terrible meal." someone who is here to actually have a conversation, debate and defend their ideas, would say, "Au contrare my friend. Cake has grains, milk, and eggs in it. It's just breakfast in a delicious stack." and then the person they're debating with might say, "Kind of questionable to pull a bit from the guy you're pulling from, isn't it?" and then you'd say, "The veracity of a fact does not change if someone of ill character also says it. The fact remains that eggs, milk, and grains do exist both in a traditional American breakfast and in cake" and so on.

That's not what you do. You come here and go, "I LIKE CAKE!" and then someone will say, "cake is not really a meal" and you go "LOL ATTACK CAKE IS GREAT" which is the kind of response a chatbot would give. If you just want to post your ideas and 'respect everyone's right to disagree'...why, that's social media my friend. But here, we just kind of got use to people actually defending their ideas. Except you. You don't do that. Instead you take these giant steaming craps in the middle of these threads and grind them to a halt while someone takes on the Sisyphean task of trying to explain to you once again how to have a normal fucking conversation.

You posted a lot there to comment on. Short answer, I don't tell anyone I am right and you are wrong like they do to me all the time on all issues. Which is what I do and what they do.

Yes, everyone else debates. You take steaming craps in the middle of threads. There. I shortened it for you.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Your canned post response to me is also tiresome.

No I dont give canned responses. I actually debate

I agree you do. You're not the best debater, but you're polite and you have persistence.

Something I admit to lacking. When I start losing my temper I just walk away ... as mods have advised me to do.

[Greater Miami Shores]

No I dont give canned responses. I actually debate

I agree you do. You're not the best debater, but you're polite and you have persistence.

Something I admit to lacking. When I start losing my temper I just walk away ... as mods have advised me to do.

Ok, I agree and admit I sound like a broken record, and thank you for the nice comments. I like to think all of us as NS Friends.

[Cisairse]

https://www.270towin.com/2020-simulation/

Do this as many times a you want, I couldn't get a Trump win, can you?

Edit: I got ONE!

lmao the first simulation I ran, Biden won TX, GA, and OH.

President Infinity is still the optimal simulator imo

EDIT:

Uh he won TX, GA, and OH, but not FL. Profound

edit2:



you hate to see it

[Greater Miami Shores]

https://www.270towin.com/2020-simulation/

Do this as many times a you want, I couldn't get a Trump win, can you?

Edit: I got ONE!

lmao the first simulation I ran, Biden won TX, GA, and OH.

President Infinity is still the optimal simulator imo

EDIT:

Uh he won TX, GA, and OH, but not FL. Profound

edit2:



you hate to see it

I love this simulation - Biden 233, Trump 305, but it should have been Biden 204, Trump 334, 305 + 29 Florida = Trump 334

[Cisairse]

this one scares me

[Greater Miami Shores]

(Image)

this one scares me

I love both of them, But I know and I understand they scare you.

[Cisairse]

(Image)

this one scares me

I love both of them, But I know and I understand they scare you.

I'm not sure if you'd like a 265-273 outcome, either. Sure Trump is the nominal winner, but that means that only four of his electors need to cast faithless ballots to send the election to the House of Representatives; there were seven faithless electors in '16 (5 from Clinton, 2 from Trump), so in a situation where a contingent election is actually possible this is really, really likely.

A contingent contingent election is chaos. There's no way to know how it would play out, or who would end up president.

[Greater Miami Shores]

I love both of them, But I know and I understand they scare you.

I'm not sure if you'd like a 265-273 outcome, either. Sure Trump is the nominal winner, but that means that only four of his electors need to cast faithless ballots to send the election to the House of Representatives; there were seven faithless electors in '16 (5 from Clinton, 2 from Trump), so in a situation where a contingent election is actually possible this is really, really likely.

A contingent contingent election is chaos. There's no way to know how it would play out, or who would end up president.

According to this source and other sources I have seen:
https://www.thoughtco.com/what-happens- ... llege-6730

Each state (house of Reps) is only given one vote, no matter how many representatives it has. The winner will be the one who wins 26 states. The House has until March 4th to decide on the president.

On the other hand, the Senate would decide on the new Vice President. Each Senator would get one vote, and the winner would be the one who received 51 votes.

I read on this NS site, Republicans have more state votes than Democrats to elect President Trump. I don't know if this is true, but I think it is.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

There's going to be hundreds of 270-to-win maps before election time.
And they're rather quickly becoming uninteresting to me.

Could I politely suggest you people spoiler the 270-to-win images?

[Greater Miami Shores]

There's going to be hundreds of 270-to-win maps before election time.
And they're rather quickly becoming uninteresting to me.

Could I politely suggest you people spoiler the 270-to-win images?

I understand what you are saying, I don't like doing this game, but if the Mods allow it, I love to see the maps and Pics Pro or con without the spoilers.

[Cisairse]

I'm not sure if you'd like a 265-273 outcome, either. Sure Trump is the nominal winner, but that means that only four of his electors need to cast faithless ballots to send the election to the House of Representatives; there were seven faithless electors in '16 (5 from Clinton, 2 from Trump), so in a situation where a contingent election is actually possible this is really, really likely.

A contingent contingent election is chaos. There's no way to know how it would play out, or who would end up president.

According to this source and other sources I have seen:
https://www.thoughtco.com/what-happens- ... llege-6730

Each state (house of Reps) is only given one vote, no matter how many representatives it has. The winner will be the one who wins 26 states. The House has until March 4th to decide on the president.

On the other hand, the Senate would decide on the new Vice President. Each Senator would get one vote, and the winner would be the one who received 51 votes.

I read on this NS site, Republicans have more state votes than Democrats to elect President Trump. I don't know if this is true, but I think it is.

You are correct that it is true right now. However, that may not be true post-November. Dems are expected to pick up a handful of seats, and that will likely be enough to at least cause a few states to become "ties", resulting in a VERY unpredictable contingent election.

[Greater Miami Shores]

According to this source and other sources I have seen:
https://www.thoughtco.com/what-happens- ... llege-6730

Each state (house of Reps) is only given one vote, no matter how many representatives it has. The winner will be the one who wins 26 states. The House has until March 4th to decide on the president.

On the other hand, the Senate would decide on the new Vice President. Each Senator would get one vote, and the winner would be the one who received 51 votes.

I read on this NS site, Republicans have more state votes than Democrats to elect President Trump. I don't know if this is true, but I think it is.

You are correct that it is true right now. However, that may not be true post-November. Dems are expected to pick up a handful of seats, and that will likely be enough to at least cause a few states to become "ties", resulting in a VERY unpredictable contingent election.

Interesting.

[Blargoblarg]

Your canned post response to me is also tiresome.

No I dont give canned responses. I actually debate

I think my irony meter just broke.

[Kannap]

If someone owns their own flag, they reserve the right to burn it. Your logic is what gave us the Alien and Sedition Acts.

I looked it up, we are not talking about the same subject. The US Flag and the 4th of July should be respected.

Nah, they shouldn't