Favorite new first lady pictures.

[RandomGuy]

attack Trump all day long, but dragging his family in for ridicule is bush league.

Mea culpla. Drachen got the point I was trying to make, which was one of hypocrisy.

I have gotten it out of my system. Stooping to Darrin/Ducks level was fun to troll the normal trolls. Important only to make a couple of minor points.

The next four years will offer so much more, and better ammunition to point out Republican policy/rhetorical failures.

[RandomGuy]

People vote privately and speak publicly. What evangelicals or any other individuals think privately and do publicly are likely not the same. You have to be mindful of who is ready to vote you off the island on a secret ballot.

Apt analogy, as we now have a reality show society, run by a reality TV star. Welcome to the country the Republican party has been striving for. One party, with a majority of the country disenfranchised. It just took enough lies to make it happen, who would have thought?

That said, it is time for Democrats to start making some sense to white people who don't live in cities. Given how impoverished the Republican party is when it comes to working policy ideas, it won't take much to tip that balance.

[TeyshaBlue]

Disenfeanchised?
Obama wins and its the will of the people. Trump wins and its disenfranchisement. Holy .

[DMC]

Apt analogy, as we now have a reality show society, run by a reality TV star. Welcome to the country the Republican party has been striving for. One party, with a majority of the country disenfranchised. It just took enough lies to make it happen, who would have thought?

That said, it is time for Democrats to start making some sense to white people who don't live in cities. Given how impoverished the Republican party is when it comes to working policy ideas, it won't take much to tip that balance.

The majority of the country is white. They are never disenfranchised. They just didn't get their favorite election year video game character. Those who cared about it the most voted the most. It's not an ongoing process, it ended already.

In losing years dems really care about the EC. In winning years it's all good.

[RandomGuy]

Disenfeanchised?
Obama wins and its the will of the people. Trump wins and its disenfranchisement. Holy .

Not what I am saying at all, and something of a strawman.

Please try again, you are, and can do, better, unlike some others here.

[DMC]

Disenfeanchised?
Obama wins and its the will of the people. Trump wins and its disenfranchisement. Holy .

popular vote

[DMC]

Not what I am saying at all, and something of a strawman.

Please try again, you are, and can do, better, unlike some others here.

Says the guy who dragged Trump's wife into the argument as if she ran for office.

[RandomGuy]

In losing years dems really care about the EC. In winning years it's all good.

Agreed. The perennial loser's call to abolish the EC is both predictable, and pointless on both sides.

[TeyshaBlue]

Not what I am saying at all, and something of a strawman.

Please try again, you are, and can do, better, unlike some others here.

You used the term disenfranchised....not me.

[RandomGuy]

popular vote

Here is something to think about though.

Democrats, as a whole, tend to vote a rates less than Republicans.

Let's do some math.

Given: Policy A

Group #1, oppose Policy A
100 people voting at a rate of 35% means 35 votes.

Group #2, support Policy A
36 votes for people voting at a rate of 50% means how many people support policy A?

What does this say in general about this population's overall viewpoint of Policy A?

[TeyshaBlue]

I guess whomever loses could call themselves disenfranchised.... But that's not exactly the correct usage.

[RandomGuy]

You used the term disenfranchised....not me.

dis·en·fran·chise
ˌdisənˈfran(t)SHīz/
verb

deprived of power; marginalized.

Most governorships are GOP https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ates_governors
Most state legislatures are GOP https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...e_legislatures
Senate is GOP
House is GOP
Executive branch is GOP

Does this meet the above given definition regarding Democrats in the US in general? Why or why not?

[tlongII]

I think I figured out who Bonnerific is.

[DMC]

Here is something to think about though.

Democrats, as a whole, tend to vote a rates less than Republicans.

Let's do some math.

Given: Policy A

Group #1, oppose Policy A
100 people voting at a rate of 35% means 35 votes.

Group #2, support Policy A
36 votes for people voting at a rate of 50% means how many people support policy A?

What does this say in general about this population's overall viewpoint of Policy A?

Since there is more than one population to consider, because of the EC, your analogy is bad. States have voting rights. People do not. Popular vote is an illusion created by media. It only matters inside the state, not between states. It's not the United State of America. The word "States" is plural for a reason.

[rmt]

Here is something to think about though.

Democrats, as a whole, tend to vote a rates less than Republicans.

Let's do some math.

Given: Policy A

Group #1, oppose Policy A
100 people voting at a rate of 35% means 35 votes.

Group #2, support Policy A
36 votes for people voting at a rate of 50% means how many people support policy A?

What does this say in general about this population's overall viewpoint of Policy A?

All it means is that it was in the hands of group 1 and they have no one to blame but themselves.

[RandomGuy]

Quote Originally Posted by RandomGuy
Here is something to think about though.

Democrats, as a whole, tend to vote a rates less than Republicans.

Let's do some math.

Given: Policy A

Group #1, oppose Policy A
100 people voting at a rate of 35% means 35 votes.

Group #2, support Policy A
36 votes for people voting at a rate of 50% means how many people support policy A?

What does this say in general about this population's overall viewpoint of Policy A?

Since there is more than one population to consider, because of the EC, your analogy is bad. States have voting rights. People do not. Popular vote is an illusion created by media. It only matters inside the state, not between states. It's not the United State of America. The word "States" is plural for a reason.

Not really what I asked. I didn't ask you to comment on the aptness of the analogy. We can get to that later.

This is what is meant by "talking past" people. You completely ignored the point I was making, and talked about something else.

Do you think people talking past each other are really communicating? If not, do you think that is constructive?

[rmt]

dis·en·fran·chise
ˌdisənˈfran(t)SHīz/
verb

deprived of power; marginalized.

Most governorships are GOP https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ates_governors
Most state legislatures are GOP https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...e_legislatures
Senate is GOP
House is GOP
Executive branch is GOP

Does this meet the above given definition regarding Democrats in the US in general? Why or why not?

The Democrats have no one else to blame but themselves. If they had come out and voted, there wouldn't have been such a landslide. Why do you think there was this result?

[RandomGuy]

Quote Originally Posted by RandomGuy
Here is something to think about though.

Democrats, as a whole, tend to vote a rates less than Republicans.

Let's do some math.

Given: Policy A

Group #1, oppose Policy A
100 people voting at a rate of 35% means 35 votes.

Group #2, support Policy A
36 votes for people voting at a rate of 50% means how many people support policy A?

What does this say in general about this population's overall viewpoint of Policy A?

All it means is that it was in the hands of group 1 and they have no one to blame but themselves.

Not really what I asked. I didn't ask you to comment on the potential moral failings of one group. We can get to that later. I have thought a few steps ahead of you on that one, and will take you to some conclusions you won't like about that either.

This is what is meant by "talking past" people. You completely ignored the point I was making, and talked about something else.

Do you think people talking past each other are really communicating? If not, do you think that is constructive?

[DMC]

Quote Originally Posted by RandomGuy
Here is something to think about though.

Democrats, as a whole, tend to vote a rates less than Republicans.

Let's do some math.

Given: Policy A

Group #1, oppose Policy A
100 people voting at a rate of 35% means 35 votes.

Group #2, support Policy A
36 votes for people voting at a rate of 50% means how many people support policy A?

What does this say in general about this population's overall viewpoint of Policy A?




Not really what I asked. I didn't ask you to comment on the aptness of the analogy. We can get to that later.

This is what is meant by "talking past" people. You completely ignored the point I was making, and talked about something else.

Do you think people talking past each other are really communicating? If not, do you think that is constructive?

I don't comment on bad analogies.

[RandomGuy]

Do you think people talking past each other are really communicating? If not, do you think that is constructive?

I don't comment on bad analogies.

Again, not really the question I asked.

This is what is meant by "talking past" people. You completely ignored the point I was making, and talked about something else.

Do you think people talking past each other are really communicating? If not, do you think that is constructive?

[DMC]

The Democrats have no one else to blame but themselves. If they had come out and voted, there wouldn't have been such a landslide. Why do you think there was this result?

Plus if they had the right to vote they weren't disenfranchised. They just declined.

[RandomGuy]

Time's up.

I have work to do. Thanks for the discussion, such as it was. See you in a few hours.

[DMC]

Do you think people talking past each other are really communicating? If not, do you think that is constructive?



Again, not really the question I asked.

This is what is meant by "talking past" people. You completely ignored the point I was making, and talked about something else.

Do you think people talking past each other are really communicating? If not, do you think that is constructive?

><))))))))>

I don't follow red herrings either.

[RandomGuy]

Plus if they had the right to vote they weren't disenfranchised. They just declined.

dis·en·fran·chise
ˌdisənˈfran(t)SHīz/
verb

deprived of power; marginalized.

Most governorships are GOP https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ates_governors
Most state legislatures are GOP https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...e_legislatures
Senate is GOP
House is GOP
Executive branch is GOP

Does this meet the above given definition regarding Democrats in the US in general? Why or why not?

[RandomGuy]

><))))))))>

I don't follow red herrings either.

Not really a red herring. I was merely trying to politely re-direct you to a way of communicating that was constructive, with the intention of completing my point.

If I cannot get an honest answer from you when I ask questions, so that we can find out what we are talking about and some agreement on terms and important ideas, that makes it impossible to have constructive conversations.

Google the term a bit, do some reading, and see if what I did really cons utes a red herring. Your posts fit the pattern much more than mine, something you would see if you analysed it a bit.