Total posts: 4,920
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
We are illegally in Syria.
Why would legality matter to the US who controls most of the military power in the west?
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Are you suggesting that cumming into the gravy is a societal norm?Nonetheless I did define quite eloquently how cum was quite obviously better than piss, given the probably purpose of the act.
The first sentence you are talking about cum in gravy. The second you are talking about cum being better than piss. Do you not see the difference in what you are talking about thus making it two different things I have to argue against? What I am trying to say is these two sentences don't follow from each they are separate points. They are similar but don't follow.
I am not suggesting cumming into gravy is a societal norm.
Could you quote your eloquence?
What do you mean with "given the probably purpose of the act"?
Created:
-->
@sadolite
Have you ever made an intellectual statement? I haven't heard it so why are you making the distinction here?Do you really think it is not a joke? That I am making a serious intellectual statement? I think it's funny how you are analyzing it. That's funnier than the joke itself.
Created:
-->
@sadolite
Guess whenever I can't defend myself I'll say it is a joke. I thought you would be fishing for lies to spew but guess that is only when it comes to politics not philosophy. Noted.
Created:
-->
@sadolite
Literally shows you don't know what you are talking about."The study of philosophy can never yield concrete answers" Sure it can. For example: It's better to cum in the gravy than piss in the salad.
Better has to be defined. You are literally appealing to societal norms not making a claim outside of it.
Created:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Well, the issue is that not many presidents have been super fiscally conservative, except a few like Coolidge. Many lower taxes, but then refuse to lower spending. That is half conservative but completely irresponsible.
Should I take anyone who calls themselves fiscally conservative serious? If no why?
Created:
-->
@bmdrocks21
When was the last fiscally conservative president?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Swagnarok
Not sure why you're going out of your way to be such a butt to a random guy who did nothing to you.
So you saying dumb stuff and me calling you out on it makes me a butt? Okay.
That all sounds good on paper, but there are relevant considerations. For example, attempts by governments to fix prices have often been the cause of serious problems down the road, such as shortages. In addition, the heightened prices could be caused by institutional barriers as opposed to a failure of the free market. I haven't studied up on the subject at any great length, though of course other people (i.e. Republican senators) have and shape policy accordingly.
Your counter my claim was I don't know.
The Democratic Party has emerged as the party that hates whites, hates men, and hates Christians.
Nancy Pelosi is white and Catholic while being successful in the Democratic party. You sure you know what you are talking about?
Biden is the leading front runner so I have pretty much negated all of what you said.
They and their newsmedia propaganda arm have chosen to take up increasingly belligerent, radical, violent, and exclusionary rhetoric against these same groups, and a government thoroughly dominated by them would have the means to adopt a frightening agenda of wanton bigotry against American citizens and emerge as a lawless terrorist regime. I know this because I gobble up as much NYT, WashPo, The Atlantic, The Guardian, etc. as I can. These are the leading and most "venerable" Left-Wing mouthpieces in the country; one can safely assume that what they say today shapes how the party will act tomorrow. And what I see when I read their material tells me that they respect nothing but power, that these people are so unfathomably evil that if they were allowed to assume total control of the government tomorrow it would spell the end of the America I've been lucky enough to spend my entire life living in.
If you want to jerk yourself off. I can recommend a few sites but if you actually want to support your claims with links then go right ahead as in things that the left lied about.
You can use it offline, sure. But from my experience, only for a little while. If I spend too long offline, it starts to demand that I "verify" my account subscription by (you guessed it) going back online. If I don't (or can't), it eventually shuts me out and I can't use it anymore.That is to say, I did not "lie". Far from it. I was speaking from my own quite real experiences dealing with the software.
? Still do not know what you are talking about. I know it is not Word because I can open files and save files while also editing them without them asking for the internet. Also guess you can literally say "my own quite real experiences" negate what I say even though I can literally use the same thing and report a different more accurate experience given there own site advertises you to be able to do the very things that you don't say. If it was a problem you can sue them for false advertising. Link. You must be worse than you think since I don't even think you know what Word is to think you need an internet connection to open, save and edit files.
Companies have enough power over our lives that if they get together and de facto collude to deny any (meaningful) career opportunity to someone because they said or wrote something unpopular, then that might as well be state action against said individual.
Companies only have that power because people are giving that power. If you don't like that persuade other people to take away their power as well. If you can't then tough luck. Beg the government to step in and help you. Meaningful as in be apart of left leaning institutions? Sorry that the trash that comes out of conservatives mouth will not be tolerated by left wingers. Who would've thought, the anti-gay, racist, anti-trans rhetoric would actually be taken seriously? Maybe it is because they actually care about the issue because it personally impacts them and the people who do decide to make a joke about it don't understand until their career is ruined. Twitters has rules dedicated to these issues. Don't expect them to add an exception like if they are a conservative then these rules don't apply.
How would you like if your own opinions were arbitrarily considered "beyond the pale" and people considered that it was "justified" to systematically exclude you from employment because of them?
Guess I have to adjust what I say. I never knew there was more than 1 word I can say instead oh wait I can. You literally think it is a death sentence if you can't say the n-word. It is not, chill. There is plenty of other ways to insult other people on Twitter.
You think it's alright because the other side is "bad". Who are you to decide that? Do we have freedom of speech and expression or don't we?
The other-side do not hold Twitter or other social media sites so guess who decides to institute the rules? The left. Please if you had the power I promise you wouldn't be defending as in sticking up for the left.
Freedom of speech is actually not a thing. You can't shout a fire in a crowded theater if there is no fire. You can't express your freedom to kill someone. There are rules that infringe on freedom. Just one means you are not free to do what you like. You are bound by rules.
In addition, you have no sense of scale. Even if X statement was objectively wrong to make, exclusion to the degree I've described is usually going to be far, far disproportionate to the original offense. I presume you're someone who's opposed to our system of mass incarceration, and yet you're supporting ostracizing those people who aren't perfect angels and who have, at some point in their lives prior, said something regrettable?
Who said I agree with what I said? I didn't. I merely expressed what is going on.
To this I say as much as I think people are redeemable there is a line to be drawn when enough is enough and people shouldn't tolerate other people just because they can change in the future. If someone kills someone well they should be jailed and rehabilitated. If someone cheats on you it isn't on you to literally forgive them and be with them.
Am I not allowed to have an opinion on whether contemporary music has gone downhill or not?
No because music is subjective and for you to claim otherwise shows your stupidity. There is no objective measurement to music only your personal tastes, that is shaped through the course of your life. Other people have different pasts and that changes the way they view music. It all comes to people like different kinds of music because of that.
I'm just commenting on the quality of a product from my point of view.
Quality implies to something the other-side can agree on as an objective measurement. I haven't seen it apart from well 80s songs didn't suck because I couldn't remember ones that did.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Swagnarok
Was there such thing called the internet back then? You know the very thing that facilities the rise of the so-called "media-induced paranoia". The internet is just a tool like any other. It is about how people use it. If there is this paranoia it is only a representation of the people who consume and create the content. If you are saying problems weren't so heightened like what it was back in the day please take into consideration the increasing population the growth of communication.Our politics have devolved into large-scale baboon turd flinging contests and a whole world of media-induced paranoia is literally at our fingertips wherever we go.
10 years ago many basic, even lifesaving medicines were more affordable than they are now.
Shame that the US doesn't have medicare for all but it isn't the Democrats stopping this from occurring. I wonder who is at fault and who the very person who said this closely aligns too. I am going out on a hunch and say by you complaining about this you are a hypocrite given you closely align to the Republican party that removed Obama care and gave nothing better in return.
IN ADDITION, modern Microsoft Word just completely sucks d*ck whereas the version 10-15 years ago was pretty much immaculate, the occasional frozen screen aside (and that was more of a hardware error). You just bought it once, installed it onto your desktop, and you were good to go as long as the device itself still worked. Nowadays if you lose wi-fi then that goes caput even if you're not using it online.
False I just loaded up Word right now with my wifi off and it worked. With the increase in technology there will be cases that things just don't get fixed. It only really matters if it hurts their bottom line. A problem with using word currently is that it takes a while to load Word but since people still buy it they are not going to fix it. That is the problem. At least point out actual problems instead of making stuff up.
Also, the fact that it requires internet access to use means Microsoft now presumably has a record of every edit ever made to any such document. I'm not sure whether I even own the rights to whatever I type on there.
It doesn't require an internet access. Stop lying.
Also, Windows XP had such an easy user interface compared to most devices now. On my Google Chromebook I can't edit or print anything I download. If it's possible to do that I don't know how, whereas it should be rather intuitive and straightforward. Heck, when I delete stuff on my Chromebook I don't even know if it's actually been deleted. Most of the time it doesn't look like it has been so.
Easy is subjective. Who prints? Literally getting scammed. Video about why it is one.
We now live in an era where if back in 2010 you were an edgy sh*tposter teen who posted a racist joke somewhere on the internet, a joke that in itself did no harm to anyone and was meant in good fun, you could lose your job over it 9 years later as an adult. Journalists can incite a social media mob against someone, destroy that person's life, and then not face any consequences whatsoever for doing so.
Lol who would've thought times change and people just progressively become more left and they decide to collectively group and remove awful people from platforms they like being on? Cry me a river.
Please show me the 9 years as an adult example.
Also, at work the radio's constantly playing garbage that came out recently. Mainly country, but also some synthpop.Like what on earth are these people supposed to be? The best and brightest musicians of 2019?"Just wait...a minute...to take...the time...the clock...is ticking...something something...all you have to do is wait...a minute..."Show me a song from the 80s that wasn't at least tolerable.
Who would've thought music wasn't aimed at you? I did. Eventually I will dislike the latest music but at least I understand why it is the case. Money.
Created:
Posted in:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tejretics
cool
Who do you thank on this site or are they all from DDO?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@LordLuke
Predicted answer: Time-consuming and/or don't really see how difficult it is to quote individually.
More than likely time-consuming and in that time you should be able to get used to the system so the change would actually be useless for you and existing users.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SirAnonymous
"Sounds good. However, doing all that would require not being lazy, so I won't run for office."
You basically said it sounds good specifically about the presidency but will not run. What else do you need to say for it to be pro DA presidency?
I'm in the don't know section. I only asked what the president would do, not expressed support.
Guess you meant what thou shall not be named said sounds good not the idea? Can you be more clearer next time?
It is like basically saying what is murder? I reply murder is unlawful killing. You say sounds good. So you are for it would be an obvious response no?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
As soon as people get a little regular agriculture going, assholes from the hinterlands always show up calling for kings and walls and temples.
We all are not going to be farmers. Sometimes we just have to move on and you know live in the 21st Century. I take "kings and walls and temples" as something more developed than farmers. I don't really see the point of being a developing country.
Fuck off to any who seek to impose their unearned authority over our little tribe. We have no need or want for increased executive power.
Did someone pay you to say this or are you shilling for free?
"We" is poorly used since I think only 3 people on this thread have come to oppose this oromagi, Discipulus_Didicit. Dr.Franklin
The people who support it are: thett3. thou shall not be named, Singularity, SirAnonymous, RationalMadman, armoredcat, Vaarka, Bullish, bmdrocks21, Imabench,
So basically even if the don't know say no there will still be more people for it.
Against 3/17
Pro 10/17
Don't know 4/17
Created:
Posted in:
Should Hong Kong be independent from China? I think they should. It's what the locals want.
Why use the word "locals"?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SirAnonymous
I couldn't find a source that listed the total number of crimes committed with a gun. All of the ones I found said how many crimes of specific categories were committed with guns. From what I gathered, it was at least 300,000-400,000, likely more.
Alright fine lets talk about what was stated in your link.
Do you agree with this:
"Firearm-related injuries and deaths have devastating health consequences for individuals, families, and communities. In addition to these individual, familial, and community effects, public mass shootings have huge consequences for the larger society as it attempts to respond to such tragedies. All these events occur in the context of a civil society that has millions of guns lawfully owned by citizens who use them for protection, hunting, sport, or work. There are also an unknown number of guns in the hands of criminals and others who are prohibited by law from possessing them."
Do you agree with this
"Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million (Kleck, 2001a), in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008 (BJS, 2010)"
Do you agree with this:
"The variation in these numbers remains a controversy in the field. The estimate of 3 million defensive uses per year is based on an extrapolation from a small number of responses taken from more than 19 national surveys. The former estimate of 108,000 is difficult to interpret because respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use."
If you're concerned about bias, 538 is owned by ABC and rated as center left by Media Bias Fact Check. I highly recommend you read the whole article. It provides clear evidence showing that gun bans don't reduce murder rates.
Okay. Your claim is guns bans don't reduce murder rates. Your previous link didn't support this instead excluded important information but I will read this one as well.
Off-topic but you did bring it up. Leah is former atheist turned catholic and doesn't have a wiki. Carl is well I don't have enough information. To this I say Fox having Shepard Smith is an outlier to the right leaning organisation. Leah alone discredits this being a left leaning authored read so I reject it.
"But mass shootings still account for only a small fraction of the roughly 8,000 gun murder incidents in the U.S. each year."
Read the first quote that I gave earlier and do tell me how this person doesn't lack nuance.
"Did Australia and Great Britain’s reforms prevent mass shootings? It’s hard to say, simply because mass shootings are relatively rare."
If we look at this link we find out the last mass shooting was in 1996. Now this might not mean firearms act worked but something did for the UK to literally have no mass shooting in 24 years when the US had one in December 10 2019.
"It’s hard to calculate how many would have been expected without a ban."
Literally no one uses a counter-factual because no one can test it. The more I read the more it looks like this person doesn't know what she is talking about.
"In parts of Great Britain, there isn’t strong evidence the ban and buyback saved lives. After the new gun law was implemented in 1996, the number of crimes involving guns in England and Wales kept rising through the 1990s, peaking in 2003 and 2004 before subsiding. The post-2004 drop is hard to credit to the buyback and possibly occurred because of an increase in the number of police officers. It’s possible that any effect of the ban, positive or negative, was swamped by other factors affecting gun violence. There has been one notable mass shooting in Great Britain since the law was passed, making it hard to judge whether the law has been a success in that respect."
All that Leah gave here was conjecture. Nothing to support her claims only possibilities.
"Reuter and Mouzos only had a few years of post-ban data to judge, but last month, a more recent study of Australia’s gun buyback program published in the Journal of the American Medical Association still found only muted results."
Muted results? Here is a quote from the link: "In the 18 years before the ban, there were 13 mass shootings, whereas in the 20 years following the ban, no mass shootings occurred, and the decline in total firearm deaths accelerated." 13 to 0 is a big decrease because mass shootings are small plus there has been no mass shootings. That is not muted results.
That's a valid point, but it can't explain the increase in murder rate following the ban. The fact that the guns didn't go out of circulation immediately can only explain why the murder rate didn't immediately drop. It can't explain why the murder rate rose after the ban, so that point is still unaddressed.
There wasn't an increase. Look at your graph it was trending down as in a decrease in gun related deaths. Please look at your link.
I only linked it because I found it vaguely funny that HuffPo would even acknowledge that there was a gun control policy that didn't work.
A medication might not work but it doesn't mean we throw out medication entirely. We just need to find one that works.
Yes, I'm aware of that. However, the differences between the past and present UK are still much smaller than the differences between the UK and the US.
You can still compare. You can compare apples and oranges as both fruits with different tastes like how you can compare UK and US are both developed countries with different gun-related deaths.
Yes, but that is exactly the problem. They aren't similar. The murder rate in the UK was lower than the US murder rate before they banned guns. That's why it's useless to compare them. Yes, their murder rate is lower than ours, but that can't be linked to their gun bans because it was lower to begin with.
So we can only compare things if they are exactly the same?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
ive cited articles that have doctors verify things that look like miracles. these things happen all the time to theists. you have to choose to remain ignorant to say otherwise. i can't even talk about these things with you in an advanced way, cause you are still stuck not knowing that 1+1 = 2.read the damn book. he cites peer reviewed science, you just can't deal with it and choose to remain ignorant,
Remember that you are a hack that didn't argue against the core of my message. Stuck projecting and being delusional when all I wanted to see was a scientist to peer review the good doctor's conclusion but alas you can't deliver and reject science you know the very thing you accept before the conclusion. Guess you don't care about science only if it conforms to your worldview. Spoken like a true anti-intellectual.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
It is better to be a slave to God than a slave to the passions.But if slave is too offensive of a word for you, I can also go with willing partaker of the divine nature.
lol
Guess sucking God's dick doesn't give you pleasure then why do you do it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
I have seen them and none of them are proof only that you are willing to believe in things which you have no knowledge of. You instead decide to reject science as a ways to observe the world and choose whatever confirms your biases. Don't expect me to have the same standard.if you search through my topic posts you'll see i've posted about things that look like miracles
dr long's book that i mentioned cites plenty of peer reviewed articles and studies
His conclusion requires to be peer-reviewed, has it been peer-reviewed? No it hasn't.
It is like me saying look at all these peer-reviewed sources and my conclusion is God doesn't exist. The problem of course is that my conclusion is not peer reviewed only the sources. The good doctor is doing a disservice to anyone in the field if he is actually citing peer-reviewed studies in order to bolster his conclusion in a form of a book instead of presenting his findings to be peer-reviewed.
the book is full proof.
Do present a scientist peer-reviewing his book as in something he couldn't be bothered to do himself instead exploit his standing as the good doctor to sell books.
that you choose to remain ignorant, stupid, and have a hardened heart.... is your problem. you might want to work on that
Am I the ignorant one who chooses to throw out science whenever it doesn't conform to what I believe? Oh wait that is you. The projection is real with this one.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I disagree but at least you have made it clear you don't disagree with my assessment. Your a slave to God.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
So basically against science since it has found no link to healing to praying but you still believe it to be the case?miracles. sometimes something like someone's retina or optic nerve heals itself after they pray. this sort of stuff doesn't happen to atheists.
What does this got to do with atheists? Why are you trying to always ridicule the other-side instead of presenting a good argument for your side? It is almost as if the argument was be pretty weak without ridicule. It would be even weak if people noticed this.
Your argument is: Miracles exist.
My question: How do we prove this to be the case?
My guess of what you will say: Here is a link not verified by a science but I choose to believe it to be the case.
My answer: Okay so you don't have proof only anecdotes to support a worldview. It must be really difficult to believe in something so flimsy that you literally have to fish for anecdotes to make your belief hold anything.
Just a quick Google search his work hasn't been peer-reviewed so don't expect me to believe in something that wasn't even checked by others to see if it was correct. Who knew that this person would rather make money off of theists instead of actually providing ground-breaking evidence to science. It is almost as if he knows how little his evidence holds and instead chose to lie about what his book was about which was theist propaganda.near death experiences. there's just way too much good science behind this to write it off. see dr jeffrey long's book 'evidence of the afterlife' for a good start on that topic.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Can't really speak like a person with free will act like a literal slave to God.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Is it historical record that she did bad or she spent a large amount of time in California?It's a matter of historical record, not an opinion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
You couldn't either. I guess you are making fun of my deficiency even though you have it as well.
If God exists, I hope whenever God does make an ant God doesn't half ass it and give it no legs. Would be a really nice thing to do to not create creatures capable of physically deficiency. Shame that God just had to make people blind, deaf and other deficiencies.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
If she did do that it was a poor tactic. Elections are won by swing states.Hillary spent a large amount of campaign time in California to raise money. Trump never once went to California, so we have the predictable outcome of Hillary raising more money and winning Califonia by over 3 million votes. And losing the heartland.
Created:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Bernie the incel vote. lolGained the sexist vote from that one!
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
In what way is this relevant? Trump has like a 90% approval rating on the right.
Did you know Trump literally won because of the swing states? All that democrats need to do is appeal to swing voters. Literally don't even know what occurred in 2016 even though I have used that as an example multiple time here. The "90% approval rating on the right" is irrelevant.
If you pick a shitty neo-liberal it wont and trump will win.
If you pick a shitty dem-soc who agrees with the label of socialist then the democrats have lost if he is the facing against Trump.
Biden will lose the states because he was part of the government that made them want trump in the 1st place.
Biden appeals to the swing states and that is how you win. Swing states won't accept self-identified socialist Bernie because of the labeling he uses. Biden is Obama's VP which is a lot easier to sell than Bernie. No one cares about policy so please stop bringing it up, they only care about how their side can win. Swing voters are literally the best bet not because they care about policy. If you persuade them that their interests are more close to the Democrats than Trump the Democrats win.
People vote on whether or not their lives got better.
Nope. I have countless examples of poor right wingers voting against their own interests by not voting Democrats for healthcare. Lol this is far from the truth. It is party over rationale.
People vote on whether or not they will be dragged into a war.
Evidence that people are going to drafted or they care about foreign policy.
Neo-Liberalism is a massive failure for most of the country. Hillary was heavily involved in creating the system that fucked over much of the country. No one particularly cared about her so alot of people just stayed home which let trump win.
Lol neo-liberalism has helped more than it has hindered but here you are literally ridiculing it. I would love to see the facts on the negatives outweighing the positives.
again, the right are going to lie about anyone and everyone. They will do it to sanders, they would do it to Biden. So if everyone is going to be lied about, it is not a useful factor to take into account for picking a candidate.
So Bernie the almighty doesn't transcend right-wing lies but you still think he will do good in the meme debates? Okay.
please provide evidence that polling companies have adjusted for this. That link is for the US Census Bureau, not a polling company. I was using it to show you what weighting was since you seemed to be unaware.
They had adjusted it in the 2016 polling which is why it was correct so don't expect me to provide evidence of something that is not even questionable they are wrong about.
Higher than average youth turnout rate
Your link shows an increase in 2016 but were the polls wrong? No.
Bernie beat his polling by several points in alot of states in the primary.
No he didn't. Those were swing states meaning they could've gone either way.
Are you looking for the polling that shows bernie has the large majority of support with younger voters?
Sure
There was record high turnout in 2018. Not in 2016. Hilary was a shitty candidate. Voter turnout was like a 20 year low.
2012 Voting turnout: 54.9%
2016 Voting turnout: 55.7%
20 year low??? Literally beat last years so it is not even right for the first 4 years.
2016 Voting turnout: 55.7%
20 year low??? Literally beat last years so it is not even right for the first 4 years.
lol so you put out polling that is completely useless, then attack me for daring to question polling.
You literally cherrypicked data do you want me to do so as well?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Guess God likes to half-ass his work.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
look at the bible. do you see error? of course there is. so if God is real, the bible must not be error free.think of all the saints and other sources that were inspired. were any of them perfect? no. so it's the way things are, that there's inspiration and not perfection. only God is perfect. his creation is not.
Okay but what do you have to show that God exists when we are so imperfect?
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
He is largely immune or at least resistant to alot of the attacks that trump has/would use.
This is irrelevant because only one needs to stick for it to be memed on. Basically saying well Bernie can't die from a heart attack and I am saying it only takes one life threatening occurrence for him to die.
Being a "socialist" is basically meaningless at this point because as far as the republicans are concerned everyone is a socialist. He isn't part of the establishment so he isn't part of the "swamp". He appeals to the same anger against the establishment that made trump win so he is actually much better positioned to win over voters who otherwise would stay home.
There is two ways this can go:
1) Trump doesn't even use that insult.
2) He does use it and Bernie will agree to it and literally lose majority of the right . Race over Trump wins.
2020 is going to be an election about turnout. You can't convert trump's base. You can only make sure you turn out more of your own base. The people who would turn out for biden are the same, if not less, people who turned up for hilary. We know that doesn't work. We need to appeal to people who want change.
People who voted for Trump wanted change. He won because of the swing states. Your statement makes no sense when all he has to do is win those swing states because they are not diehard Trump supporters because the states could've gone to Hillary or Trump.
hillary didn't lose because of conspiracy theories. Hilary lost because most of the country didn't really care about her. She wasn't going to change much or fix anything. She was going to continue the same neo-liberal policies that have been screwing over poor people for decades. She couldn't get people to turn up to vote.
Evidence? She lost because Trump was more appealing. Trump was more to blame on his victory than Hillary. Hillary could've done nothing wrong and still the right would've found something wrong about her. "neo-liberal policies" don't matter when people don't vote based on policies. What world are you living in?
He's not going to fix anything because he was integrally involved with breaking them. Sanders can get new voters and young people to turn up and vote, biden cant.
What does fixing got to do when they can lie about him unless of course Bernie the almighty transcends right wing lies? Do say that before I know how deluded you are.
but in a cycle where youth turnout has had record highs and some of the candidates are extremely popular among young people, this method under counts youth because based on previous cycles, the stats say they don't turn up to vote.
This is false. They have already adjusted for this. They realize voter turnout is on the increase between 18-29 year olds. Your own links shows them this data. All they got to do is to see that data.
Here is your link.
Just read it. If they were able to accurately poll Hillary V Trump they can do so now because if you haven't heard there was "record highs" in 2016 as well.
See answer above explaining weighting.
Still want an answer to this "nor are they going to vote for Bernie. "
You would also need to explain why the polls were right with Hillary V Trump even though that also showed a positive trend as in an increase among 18-29 years old voters unless of course that you haven't thought that through.Because neither candidate was more popular with young people
What are you even saying? I am saying even though there was "record highs" during the 2016 election the polls accurately predicted what would occur. Are you saying young people weren't a factor in the race if so why would Bernie win now when he didn't beat Hillary?
I did. Hilary was not particularly liked by young voters.
Evidence. I literally have data to say 55% of young people voted for Hillary over Trump which had 37% voting for him.
Another link.
Under this would have the data points about her appealing to young voters more than Trump.
"A few key data points that show this is a real, honest-to-goodness thing:"
lol you asked for proof that bernie has a history of doing better than his polling. I provided examples where he did better than his polling. now you want to move the goal posts.
Moving the goalposts when you are cherrypicking data? Okay. Lets not take into account there was 26% undecided in the Marrill Poll which only translated too only 0.3% only voting neither when it was finished.
Do you want me to cherrpick states that Bernie didn't do better than the polls or do you accept that you are cherrypicking?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
i believe the bible is only inspired, not infallible or inerrant
So basically God kinda sorta did stuff to the Bible but didn't really make sure it was without error? Okay.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
I'm not sure I understand your point. He is still quite on top of his game. Biden on the other hand is clearly declining.
We are discussing how people would fair against Trump. Do you actually think Bernie will do good against Trump?
What do you mean if very little happens? An election is going to happen. Things will absolutely change between now and the election.
I meant before the election.
You basically just accepted my point. It is much easier to attack Biden because he has an abysmal record. Trump will attack whoever the nominee is. It is much easier to attack someone with so many terrible things in their record.
"might".
You keep saying it would be easier to attack Biden but haven't explained why. Record doesn't matter when Hillary lost the meme debate because of her conspiracy theories. That is a clear example of a candidate as in Hillary still had the right wing lie and make stuff up to have people like Trump to use that against her. Why make the claim that Bernie would do better when they can just lie about him as well?
Voter turnout among the 18-29 age range was up 79% in the 2018 midterms over 2014. The recent trends suggest younger voters are much more likely to turn out than in previous cycles. This means that the weighting under values them.
Any proof that the polls are unfairly polling or am i supposed to believe that? All that you proved is that the 18-29 age group of voting went up. Not polls are under-valuing them nor are they going to vote for Bernie. You would also need to explain why the polls were right with Hillary V Trump even though that also showed a positive trend as in an increase among 18-29 years old voters unless of course that you haven't thought that through.
If young people were such a factor overlooked why were the polls right about Hillary V Trump?Because young people didn't like hilary. Hilary was a corporatist, neo-liberal.
You didn't answer my question. You literally gave a reason that Hillary is disliked not that the polls were wrong or right about Hillary. Are you going to answer the question?
The Wisconsin polling mostly put bernie at around 45%. He got 56.6% of the vote.Iowa polling had him around 44%, he got 49.5% of the vote.Arizona Polling put him at like 25%, he got 41.4% of the vote.
I don't accept your averages but what I do accept is the link that shows that Wisconsin, Iowa and Arizona were all swing states. To find this out simply look at the map on right and see those states and you will find out they were labelled "Shared states (statistically tied)" which is basically another word for swing states. The polls accounted Bernie possibly winning because it could've swung in either direction. The only one that wasn't a swing state was Arizona.
For Arizona they said Hillary would win and she did. A swing state is difficult to tell who would win which is why it is called a swing state.
If you do not know what a swing state is here is a link and quote:
"In American politics, the term swing state (or battleground state) refers to any state that could reasonably be won by either the Democratic or Republican presidential candidate by a swing in votes. These states are usually targeted by both major-party campaigns, especially in competitive elections."
Created:
Republicans have called every democrat a socialist. When literally everyone is on the receiving end of the same "slur" then it loses all meaning. They would certainly use it against everyone in the democratic field right now.As for old, Sanders is still sharp as a tack. Trump isn't a whole lot younger either.
So Bernie is somehow going to be good in the meme game since he is still sharp?
If there were an election between Biden and Trump next month, that polling would be super useful. but there isn't. Polling data about a hypothetical matchup long before a campaign starts is irrelevant.
It is still useful. I don't think there is a lot that can change if very little happens. Sure something extreme like a market crash can occur which will almost certainly give the victory to Democrats but I don't think it will happen.
So in your opinion, it makes no difference if one candidate has a huge amount of terrible things they have done and the other hasn't? They are 100% the same in their chances against trump? That makes no sense.
Another great good faith interpretation. I am saying no matter who they are they will still be attacked by Trump. It might be easier to attack Biden but it doesn't mean Trump will find it difficult to attack Bernie.
Polling companies weight their polls towards the people they consider most likely to vote. This is usually older people who voted in the previous elections cycles. This group favors Biden more than sanders. They weight against younger people and new voters because they consider them less likely to vote. In cycles where no one is actually trying to appeal to those groups, that is a viable strategy. But since Sanders has wide appeal and energy among those groups he gets much better turn out from them. This is why he consistently did better than the polling suggested he would in 2016. That is why he is likely to beat the polling by a few points this time as well.
This is not an odd phenomenon that you use past data to measure future occurrences. You are literally riding on the hope that new voters will arise and also vote for Bernie. Do you have any data to support this and a polling company who has this data?
If young people were such a factor overlooked why were the polls right about Hillary V Trump?
Is sanders going to do 10-15% better than the polls say, no probably not. But 2-5% better is likely. In some areas he beat the polling by 13-15% in 2016 though.
Show me data on this.
thanks for the heads up.
I thought you knew that already.
If you are ironically saying that just read this,
Mopac: "What we mean by "God" with a capital "G" is The Ultimate Reality.
If this is disputed, then I don't believe in the god you are talking about either.
If you say there is no ultimate reality, then you are expressing the position of nihilism, which discredits you as a total crank."
If it wasn't clear already he is literally using a counter-factual which can no way be measured to provide the existence of his preferred deity. Now this argument alone doesn't go into favor of the Christian God but I am sure he can literally say all other Gods are wrong so there is only one God. This is also not an argument it is literally preaching. He even admits he wants to teach people not in anyway validate what he says.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
<br>But for sanders, he will call him a socialist and say he is old. But those aren't great attacks.
Why are they not great attacks?
But I would say the large majority of them were lies.
Keep this in mind when answering the above question.
Indeed. An intellectual wouldn't throw out facts that are completely irrelevant. You may as well pull polling from the 1970's to try to predict the election.
So polling data is irrelevant? Gotcha. I guess this is how Bernie wins by literally not even talking about the very thing that accurately predicted the Hillary V Trump presidency race. Okay intellectual.
Did i say the polls were wrong about hillary?
Okay.
This isn't true. He wouldn't attack Butigieg on being too old. He would say that about Sanders. You can look at the candidate's faults to see how they can be attacked. For Biden that list is extremely long and damaging. Trump would have his pick of attacks that would work because there are so many terrible things to choose from Biden's past.
It only takes one for it to stuck. Sure he can't attack him on being young but there is still stuff he can attack Bernie on. Good faith effort on representing what I said into Trump will attack Pete on being too old.
Polls show Biden and sanders in a dead heat in Iowa. Since Sanders typically does a few points better that polls suggest for reasons I have already explained (but will explain again if you want), this means he has a good shot of winning.
Biden is currently winning. I didn't accept that the polls are wrong so plz tell me how the polls are wrong about Bernie.
Polls also show Sanders within 1 point of biden in New Hampshire. Again, since he regularly does a few points better that polls suggest, that puts him in a good spot to win too.
Above.
Polls, if you include one from over a month ago, say Biden has a 5 point lead in nevada. Without the poll from a month ago it's more like 3. That is also a good opportunity for bernie to win.
Literally fishing for positive things about Bernie. Biden is also winning in this one.
fair enough. I was trying to show him that things can have similar names and similar characteristics but be very different.
Just for the future. Mopac is literally the embodiment of someone impossible to change. The more you talk to him the more time you are wasting your time on someone who is not willing to concede anything. Sure he does have good points but his justifications for his worldview are well bad.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
communism and democracy both include votes for the leader, so they must be the exact same system by your incredibly simplistic world view. I guess you just love communism.
How do you know this when literally no country ever can be considered communist?
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
most of the field would be better. They don't have a record about being wrong about most major issues or ruining the lives of potentially millions of people.
Why does that matter when Trump can literally use anything to attack you on?
Are you saying those conspiracy theories about Hillary were correct?
But your facts are almost entirely irrelevant.
Lol. Spoken like a true anti-intellectual.
It's like if i did a study of people who had never eaten jelly beans and asked them their favorite flavor of jelly bean. The answer would be irrelevant because they don't know the answer yet. Polling a theoretical candidate who hasn't been publicly vetted against a known quantity (trump) is not useful a year in advance. The public are not aware of his record yet.
In reality not in your fantasy world the polls were right about Hillary. This only works if they were wrong. They weren't wrong.
I meant he has the worst chance of beating trump due to the previously mentioned list (the mental decline, his abysmal record, the millions of lives he has ruined etc).
How so you don't have facts only assumptions on what Trump will attack him on? Bearing in mind Trump will attack anyone on anything.
He still has a solid chance of winning the nomination. Although Sanders is now close enough that he has a serious shot at winning.
Poll?
Created:
-->
@WaterPhoenix
Personally I don't look at polling too much, I mean trump was supposed to lose by like a huge amount but it was the other way around.
Please look at those polls again it was decided based on the swing states. You must be talking of predictions. Polling were not wrong.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
This is under the assumption someone else is better?So people look at biden today and think well he was obama's VP, he can't be that bad. But if he won and all the dirt starts being used against him, that will change.
We were having a conversation about biden when you chimed in about his polling. The logical inference was that you were also talking about biden. I interpreted your message to mean you thought Biden has the best chance of winning, when it is the exact opposite. I was explaining why biden has the worst chance of beating trump.
There is a difference between fact and conjecture. You gave conjecture when I gave facts. See the difference? You literally inference an entirely new area and you constantly do it.
to mean you thought Biden has the best chance of winning, when it is the exact opposite
Polls have him winning on the democrats side. Do you have polls to state otherwise?
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
Like how the snapshot before 2016 election had literally swing states deciding who wins and that happened. What is your point?That polling is a snap shot of right now
And every candidate on the stage is too afraid of looking mean to point out Biden's many, many flaws. Do you think trump is going to be afraid to do that? No, trump is going to rip Biden a new one and the shots are going to land because they are true, or at the least they have enough truth in them to stick.Biden can't beat trump once the knives come out and his closet full of shitty things starts coming out. Not to mention his very obvious mental decline. Trump will run circles around Biden.
I was talking about polling yet you just can't help yourself but attack Biden? What is your problem?
Created:
-->
@WaterPhoenix
And that's why I support biden as a candidate, because he'll definitely lose to trump.
Polling as him as the best chance at beating Trump. You best bet is to support a women Warren or a gay man Pete. It should be obvious why polling has them losing, it doesn't take a genius to figure it out when I have already told you what I think are the main reasons.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
Biden is "currently" winning.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
Biden is currently winning.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
How does that answer the question apart from Bernie said he didn't is enough?
Do you have a source for the stuff preferably more objective one?
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
Is this false as in Bernie said woman couldn't win?The media released a baseless smear of bernie over the last few days. Members of warren's team leaked a story to the media (almost certainly with Warren's blessing) that bernie had told her in a private meeting that a woman couldn't win. They then spent the whole day the story came out refusing to comment fueling the media to keep reporting it. Warren eventually came out and said it was true. The point of all of this is to try to smear Sanders as some kind of chauvinist.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Pinkfreud08
It is my background. Just found this forum and searched up stuff and found this. Wasn't even saved and now it is.
Gives me Prey2 vibes or Fallout but cyberpunk not post-apocalyptic. That would be cool but different. Hopefully there is no VATS so that Bethesda have an actual reason for making a functional combat system. Fallout 4 was the best in the series but it could be better.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SirAnonymous
Yes. According to the CDC, there are 500,000-3,000,000 defensive gun uses per year.(The link leads to the relevant chapter of the study)
So how about the data on the offensive gun uses per year so that we can compare the two?
Does the same link have that data if not don't you think it is problem that you brought up a link that doesn't even compare the two instead only talks about defensive gun uses per year?
I could be more pedantic but I'll stick to this.
Yes. Here is a source describing how homicide rates went up in the UK after their 1997 gun ban until they began increasing the number of police officers.
Please read this:
"162,000 pistols and 700 tons of ammunition and related equipment were handed in by an estimated 57,000 people – 0.1% of the population, or one in every 960 persons.[79] At the time, the renewal cycle for FACs was five years, meaning that it would take six years for the full reduction of valid certificates for both large-calibre and .22 handguns bans (because certificates remained valid even if the holder had disposed of all their firearms). On 31 December 1996, prior to the large-calibre handgun ban, there were 133,600 FACs on issue in England and Wales; by 31 December 1997 it had fallen to 131,900. The following year, after the .22 handgun ban, the number stood at 131,900. On 31 December 2001, five years after the large calibre ban, the number had fallen to 119,600 and 117,700 the following year.[40] This represents a net drop of 24,200 certificates. Comparable figures for Scotland show a net drop of 5,841 from 32,053 to 26,212 certificates,[80] making a GB total net drop of 30,041. However, while the number of certificates in England and Wales rose each year after 2002 to stand at 126,400 at 31 March 2005 (due to a change in reporting period), those in Scotland remained relatively static, standing at 26,538 at 31 December 2005."
Basically these laws take time to implement. 2005 was when this wiki stops talking about this would likely be the end of the firearms act of 1997. If we look at the graph you gave it was on the decrease after the law. We can see this by simply adding a dot to 2005 and ending it where your graph ends. If we use a ruler to draw a line in between the dots we see a negative trend. This can be caused by external factors that weren't the firearms act which your site claims here "The homicide and firearm homicide rates only began falling when there was a large increase in the number of police officers during 2003 and 2004.". Meaning your own source can't be used for evidence given they missed out this important data and instead gave data that would suit their narrative. If it wasn't clear this site is heavily biased, it is literally marketing pro-gun books on the site. This is not an independent site more so fueled by an audience of pro-gun advocates. Both of these easily point to this site can't be trusted for giving reliable data given they are profiting on pro-gun advertising and missing really key data. If this was an objective source it would've shown the information about how long the firearms acts occurred. Even though they missed out information the graph stills goes into the favor of the opposite which shows a decrease in homicide or firearm homicide rate.
Here is another source that found that a gun control policy failed to reduce homicide rates. It isn't very useful because it only discusses one policy, but I find it funny that HuffPo would even publish this.
I don't really know what this is referring to so I'll ignore it. If you really want me to argue against it I will.
That's why I provided the source comparing pre-ban UK to post-ban UK. It's more useful to compare countries to themselves because it eliminates all the previously mentioned variables.
Don't you understand the laws have changes and people have changed during that time in the UK as well? Meaning your claim that we can't compare America to the UK is not really good because the UK has radically changed as well?
Isn't the idea of comparisons to compare similar things? American gun deaths vs UK gun deaths. The two things don't have to be the same in order to have a comparison. You can still compare without something being exactly the same.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Laws don't equal harm reduction, you do understand that right?there are over 22000 gun laws, an ar ban etc etc but a few more laws will fix the problem?
There is always the data on the law which provides that conclusion but maybe that went right over your head.
criminals do harm, I'm in favor of reducing criminals, thus reducing harm
Okay so you don't actually care about reducing harm. You just going to ping this on a group like a populist does. Instead of actually realizing criminals were once "law abiding-citizens" so we should seek to find out what changed them but to you don't not even care about that well I guess you don't want to reduce harm.
an accurate question would be are you in favor or reducing harm or just gun harm?
An accurate question would be do you actually know what you are talking about or is the same pirate who echoes talking points without knowing what he says?
Created: