Liberal Forum

maineman » 07 Oct 2024, 1:50 pm » wrote: ↑

07 Oct 2024, 1:50 pm

Oh, I can too, but I know that, for the foreseeable future, America is going to have a president that is either a Republican or a Democrat.  And I understand math.  I know that, in American politics, any vote not cast for the runner-up is mathematically identical to a vote cast for the winner.   So...   tell me:  who are you voting for next month?

It is not mathematically equivalent to casting a vote for the winner. It simply removes a potential vote from the pool that could have gone to another candidate.

Vegas » 07 Oct 2024, 1:54 pm » wrote: ↑

07 Oct 2024, 1:54 pm

It is not mathematically equivalent to casting a vote for the winner. It simply removes a potential vote from the pool that could have gone to another candidate.

of course it is.  It has exactly the same effect.  If the winner gets 99 votes and the runner-up gets 97, three third-party votes, if cast for the runner up, would give him or her the victory.  If not, 102-97 is the exact same outcome as 99-97

maineman » 07 Oct 2024, 2:20 pm » wrote: ↑

07 Oct 2024, 2:20 pm

of course it is.  It has exactly the same effect.  If the winner gets 99 votes and the runner-up gets 97, three third-party votes, if cast for the runner up, would give him or her the victory.  If not, 102-97 is the exact same outcome as 99-97

Who said anything about a third party? An abstention means that the total number of votes cast is reduced by one, but it doesn't affect the margin between candidates. If the election is close, abstentions can play a significant role by not contributing to the vote tally of any candidate.Technically, an abstention is a neutral action—it neither adds to the winner's total nor detracts from the runner-up's. Its impact depends on how many people abstain and the margin of the race.

maineman » 07 Oct 2024, 1:50 pm » wrote: ↑

07 Oct 2024, 1:50 pm

Oh, I can too, but I know that, for the foreseeable future, America is going to have a president that is either a Republican or a Democrat.  And I understand math.  I know that, in American politics, any vote not cast for the runner-up is mathematically identical to a vote cast for the winner.   So...   tell me:  who are you voting for next month?

And what MAKES that future "foreseeable"? You just made a sophist argument for why men should go against their own conscience. 

You act as if the reason that it "is this way" is some external force, and not your own lack of moral character.  You act as if the duopoly puppeteering is forced on you by its efficacy against your neighbors - all while you are admitting it is effective because of YOU. YOU are that bad neighbor that empowers a bankrupt duopoly to coerce us into voting for one of its two fake wings. 

I cannot say what others may be bullied into, but I can assure you that I will not be bullied by kamalala's satanism into voting for the orange menace. Not even if I lived in a swing state - which I did in 2016 when I refused to vote for trump.

maineman » 07 Oct 2024, 2:20 pm » wrote: ↑

07 Oct 2024, 2:20 pm

of course it is.  It has exactly the same effect.  If the winner gets 99 votes and the runner-up gets 97, three third-party votes, if cast for the runner up, would give him or her the victory.  If not, 102-97 is the exact same outcome as 99-97

That is ****. It assumes the withheld vote would have gone (was somehow owed?) to the losing candidate in that equation. That assumption is based on vapidity and false sophism. 

Voting is sacred. Profaning it is craven. 

Cannonpointer » 07 Oct 2024, 2:42 pm » wrote: ↑

07 Oct 2024, 2:42 pm

That is ****. It assumes the withheld vote would have gone (was somehow owed?) to the losing candidate in that equation. That assumption is based on vapidity and false sophism. 

Voting is sacred. Profaning it is craven.

His mathematical aptitude is as impressive as @Blackvegetable 's aptitude. 

I wouldn't expect much. 

Vegas » 07 Oct 2024, 2:24 pm » wrote: ↑

07 Oct 2024, 2:24 pm

Who said anything about a third party? An abstention means that the total number of votes cast is reduced by one, but it doesn't affect the margin between candidates. If the election is close, abstentions can play a significant role by not contributing to the vote tally of any candidate.Technically, an abstention is a neutral action—it neither adds to the winner's total nor detracts from the runner-up's. Its impact depends on how many people abstain and the margin of the race.

again... my statement was;

  "in American politics, any vote not cast for the runner-up is mathematically identical to a vote cast for the winner."   

An abstention is not a vote cast for anyone.

Cannonpointer » 07 Oct 2024, 2:42 pm » wrote: ↑

07 Oct 2024, 2:42 pm

That is ****. It assumes the withheld vote would have gone (was somehow owed?) to the losing candidate in that equation. That assumption is based on vapidity and false sophism. 

Voting is sacred. Profaning it is craven.

If there are three choices on the ballot...  A vote not CAST for the runner up is mathematically equivalent to a vote CAST for the winner.  A vote CAST for a third  party candidate is just such vote.  An abstention is not a CAST vote.  The voter, by definition, ABSTAINS from casting a vote.
 

maineman » 07 Oct 2024, 3:40 pm » wrote: ↑

07 Oct 2024, 3:40 pm

If there are three choices on the ballot...  A vote not CAST for the runner up is mathematically equivalent to a vote CAST for the winner.  A vote CAST for a third  party candidate is just such vote.  An abstention is not a CAST vote.  The voter, by definition, ABSTAINS from casting a vote.

A vote for someone you do not like is mathematical proof that you're a weak dick sucker and a not man. 

It shows you use Jethro math and that you are the aught that needs to be carried. 
 

Cannonpointer » 07 Oct 2024, 7:45 pm » wrote: ↑

07 Oct 2024, 7:45 pm

A vote for someone you do not like is mathematical proof that you're a weak dick sucker and a not man. 

It shows you use Jethro math and that you are the aught that needs to be carried.

Someone I do not LIKE?   LIKE?

Wait...what???

LIKE????????

Like, like in high school I really liked Jan Williams, like?

Like,  like FaceBook like?

Anyone who votes for someone seeking to represent them in our democratic republic based upon whether or not they LIKE them is pathetic. 
 

maineman » 07 Oct 2024, 8:33 pm » wrote: ↑

07 Oct 2024, 8:33 pm

Someone I do not LIKE?   LIKE?

Wait...what???

LIKE????????

Like, like in high school I really liked Jan Williams, like?

No, dissembling fruitcake.

Not like highschool like.

And notice I used the word like twice in this sentence ^, and it meant very different things. So your pretense that the word like has only one meaning signals your desperation. You want us to believe that you were a navel orificer, and this is your level of standing and delivering? Seizing on the word like and pretending that its usage was in the context of a high school student's crush?

Did you think anyone would fall for something like that?

maineman » 07 Oct 2024, 8:33 pm » wrote: ↑

07 Oct 2024, 8:33 pm

Like,  like FaceBook like?

No. Not like facebook like.

Oh, look - AGAIN I used the word like twice. AGAIN it meant different things in each of the two usages.

maineman » 07 Oct 2024, 8:33 pm » wrote: ↑

07 Oct 2024, 8:33 pm

Anyone who votes for someone seeking to represent them in our democratic republic based upon whether or not they LIKE them is pathetic.

Anyone who hides behind semantics is unworthy of our confidence that he was genuinely an officer in the military.

What horse do you like in the third race, fruity?
Do you like this guy for the crime, detective?
What flavor of ice cream do you like best, Cletis?
Have you ever seen the like of this level of panty dancing?
Do you like any of the candidates for this office?
You're forced to dance around the issue - what is that like for you?
 

Cannonpointer » 07 Oct 2024, 8:43 pm » wrote: ↑

07 Oct 2024, 8:43 pm

No, dissembling fruitcake.

Not like highschool like.

And notice I used the word like twice in this sentence ^, and it meant very different things. So your pretense that the word like has only one meaning signals your desperation. You want us to believe that you were a navel orificer, and this is your level of standing and delivering? Seizing on the word like and pretending that its usage was in the context of a high school student's crush?

Did you think anyone would fall for something like that?

No. Not like facebook like.

Oh, look - AGAIN I used the word like twice. AGAIN it meant different things in each of the two usages.

Anyone who hides behind semantics is unworthy of our confidence that he was genuinely an officer in the military.

What horse do you like in the third race, fruity?
Do you like this guy for the crime, detective?
What flavor of ice cream do you like best, Cletis?
Have you ever seen the like of this level of panty dancing?
Do you like any of the candidates for this office?
You're forced to dance around the issue - what is that like for you?

My honest opinion is that America will not survive a second term of Donald Trump if he crams Project 2025 down our throats.

And I would believe that even if I really liked the guy.

maineman » 07 Oct 2024, 8:56 pm » wrote: ↑

07 Oct 2024, 8:56 pm

My honest opinion is that America will not survive a second term of Donald Trump if he crams Project 2025 down our throats.

And I would believe that even if I really liked the guy.

Precisely what about project 2025 threatens the government of the United States?
 

Cannonpointer » 07 Oct 2024, 8:57 pm » wrote: ↑

07 Oct 2024, 8:57 pm

Precisely what about project 2025 threatens the government of the United States?

It doesn't threaten the government itself.  It simply threatens the government's ability to be something other than an authoritarian religious regime designed to make America a white, Christian, male-dominated nation.

maineman » 07 Oct 2024, 9:06 pm » wrote: ↑

07 Oct 2024, 9:06 pm

It doesn't threaten the government itself.  It simply threatens the government's ability to be something other than an authoritarian religious regime designed to make America a white, Christian, male-dominated nation.

How.
 

Cannonpointer » 07 Oct 2024, 9:08 pm » wrote: ↑

07 Oct 2024, 9:08 pm

How.

Have you read it? (of course not)

It proposes a complete ban on abortions without exceptions
It proposes a ban on birth control
It proposes teaching Christian beliefs in public schools
​​​​​​​It proposes banning African American studies at all levels of education 
​​​​​​​It proposes  banning books and curricula about slavery 
​​​​​​​It proposes ending birthright citizenship 

I could go on.

and on and on and on and on and on

I tell ya what.  YOU read it, and then you get back to me...until then, shut your pie hole.
 
 
 

maineman » 07 Oct 2024, 9:21 pm » wrote: ↑

07 Oct 2024, 9:21 pm

Have you read it? (of course not)

This^ effeminate dig would imply that you have.

And you haven't. PBS has, though. And PBS says you are simply parroting propaganda like the girl you have become.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/f ... nald-trump

maineman » 07 Oct 2024, 9:21 pm » wrote: ↑

07 Oct 2024, 9:21 pm

It proposes a complete ban on abortions without exceptions

So the scholars at PBS, who have READ IT, are lying; and you - who have not read it - are telling the truth?

maineman » 07 Oct 2024, 9:21 pm » wrote: ↑

07 Oct 2024, 9:21 pm

It proposes a ban on birth control

Perhaps you should read it, or stop prattling about it.

maineman » 07 Oct 2024, 9:21 pm » wrote: ↑

07 Oct 2024, 9:21 pm

0
It proposes teaching Christian beliefs in public schools

Can you quote that section?

maineman » 07 Oct 2024, 9:21 pm » wrote: ↑

07 Oct 2024, 9:21 pm

​​​​​​​It proposes banning African American studies at all levels of education 
​​​​​​​It proposes  banning books and curricula about slavery 
​​​​​​​It proposes ending birthright citizenship 

I could go on.

and on and on and on and on and on

And you likely will - without naming your sources, in disagreement with FRIENDLY fact checkers, in a very clear signal that you are relying on even FRIENDLIER fact checkers than leftist PBS.

maineman » 07 Oct 2024, 9:21 pm » wrote: ↑

07 Oct 2024, 9:21 pm

I tell ya what.  YOU read it, and then you get back to me...until then, shut your pie hole.

You are the one making claims about it - you CLEARLY have the greater obligation to read it, or shut YOUR pie hole about it. YOU brought it up, I simply questioned why you were saying the (now debunked by a source friendly to your political persuasion) **** that you were saying.

maineman » 07 Oct 2024, 9:21 pm » wrote: ↑

07 Oct 2024, 9:21 pm

I tell ya what.  YOU read it, and then you get back to me...until then, shut your pie hole.

I particularly enjoyed this part. A guy making claims that are easily proved false about a plan he clearly never read, insisting that someone making no claims whatsoever shut up about it.           

Like old Chunk always said, NHB brings out the true character of a fella. I'm an intellectual bully and a profane son of a bitch.

You're just a bitch.     

Cannonpointer » 07 Oct 2024, 9:33 pm » wrote: ↑

07 Oct 2024, 9:33 pm

This^ effeminate dig would imply that you have.

And you haven't. PBS has, though. And PBS says you are simply parroting propaganda like the girl you have become.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/f ... nald-trump

So the scholars at PBS, who have READ IT, are lying; and you - who have not read it - are telling the truth?

Perhaps you should read it, or stop prattling about it.

Can you quote that section?

And you likely will - without naming your sources, in disagreement with FRIENDLY fact checkers, in a very clear signal that you are relying on even FRIENDLIER fact checkers than leftist PBS.

You are the one making claims about it - you CLEARLY have the greater obligation to read it, or shut YOUR pie hole about it. YOU brought it up, I simply questioned why you were saying the (now debunked by a source friendly to your political persuasion) **** that you were saying.

You, sir, are quite energetic.  
 

Sumela » 07 Oct 2024, 9:36 pm » wrote: ↑

07 Oct 2024, 9:36 pm

You, sir, are quite energetic.

Zeroing in on liars energizes me.