Want to rant about rightwings and conservatives? This is your thread.

[alhoon]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/two-reaso...131211578.html

What the


I cannot believe it. I am talking about the position of that statistician idiot. How can you be an anti-intellectual scholar?!
The things I read in there are beyond belief. The number crunching seems correct but the hypothesis... oh, God. And then the conclusions. It is downright despairing.

"Biden’s chances of winning the four battleground states in question, the analysis says, were “less than one in a quadrillion.”
+
"Charles J. Cicchetti, [...] arrived at the minuscule probability by purporting to use the results of the 2016 election as a backstop. His flawed reasoning was this: If Biden had received the same number of votes as Hillary Clinton did in 2016, he wrote, a victory would have been all but impossible."


So, if Biden received 65,853,514 votes and Trump received his 2020 tally, 74,222,484 votes, I.e. winning the national vote by 8.5M votes, it would have been 1/10^15 for Biden to win?
Reaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaally?!?! How groundbreaking!
Now, if only Biden had not received 81M votes instead of 66M votes, that argument would hold water.

Sure, it is nice to know the chance to win in that case. Perhaps Mr Ciccheti should also grace us with an answer to "If Trump received as many votes as he did in 2016 and Biden received as many votes as he did in 2020, what is the chance for a Trump victory?"


But the hilarity doesn't stop there:
"Cicchetti also wrote that votes counted earlier in the process and votes counted later favored different candidates, and that there was “a one in many more quadrillions chance” that votes counted in the two time periods were coming from the same groups of voters."
OH REAAAAAAAAAAAALLY?!?!?!
You mean that there's very strong evidence that Democrats voted by mail more than Republicans?

Who would have thought!?!?!?!?


Really groundbreaking conclusions here that can be surmised as:
- If Biden has received 14M less votes, he would have lost.
- Democrats voted by mail more than Republicans.


And that's a reason to go to the court.

[Sir Adrian]

I do not understand why so-called conservatives love to take the stupid side of arguments and defend it with their lives. The other side is clearly down the road to "sexomarxist" insanity, in terms of politics, with mermaid queen-kings and watnot, why not present a common sense alternative instead of idiotically opposing everything and anything they say, even when they are clearly correct, just because of who said it.

"Democrats believe in covid so clearly I must say it is not real". "Democrats support better healthcare, clearly I must oppose this while slowly dying because I cannot afford to have my gall stones removed". "Democrats ecourage wearing masks and social distancing, so clearly I must not even though a city's worth of people died in 8 months" And the examples can continue.


Why not cherrypick the best ideas from the other side and run with them on a human decency and common sense plaform. You'd win every election ever.

[mishkin]

The other side is clearly down the road to sexomarxist insanity, in terms of politics, with mermaid queen-kings and watnot,

Are you complaining about the straw man that conservatives have created or do you really think "the left" (socialist parties in europe and the democrats in the usa) is really those staunch Marxists for LGTBI rights?

[alhoon]

Are you complaining about the straw man that conservatives have created or do you really think "the left" (socialist parties in europe and the democrats in the usa) is really those staunch Marxists for LGTBI rights?

We're not talking about the Socialist parties in Europe, USA, Asia, Africa and Oceania. We're talking about the annoying 2%.

[Sir Adrian]

And sadly the annoying 2% control democrat politics through sheer vitue of being extremely vocal, and the other side is very eager to engage them.

Modern politics is becoming a battle between the stupid and the insane.

Are you complaining about the straw man that conservatives have created or do you really think "the left" (socialist parties in europe and the democrats in the usa) is really those staunch Marxists for LGTBI rights?

1. You cannot compare the European left-wing and the american "left-wing". American politics does not have a left-wing in the real sense, and the democrats would be to the right of Europe's national liberal parties. They're called left-wing in america because the alternative is even further to the right.

2. I'm talking about woke culture and the insanity it preaches. The last DNC featured, and hailed as a hero, a person with clear psychological issues who held a speech about a world without police and how great that would be. But now that you've brought it up, 20 years ago it was LGB, then it was LGBT, 5 years ago it was LGBTQ, 2 years ago it was LGBTQI. Now it's LGBTQIA, and P is campaigning hard to be attached there as well. The wokesters are now considering mental diseases as "brave and wonderfull minorities".

[mishkin]

let's see if I understand you. Are you saying that a ridiculous minority (in terms of size) Marxist and pro LGTBI dominates the fight against the conservatives? that this minority (2% of what btw) has more influence than political parties established in the system?

[Love Mountain]

let's see if I understand you. Are you saying that a ridiculous minority (in terms of size) Marxist and pro LGTBI dominates the fight against the conservatives? that this minority (2% of what btw) has more influence than political parties established in the system?

To be fair, mainstream Democrats hardly fight Republicans on anything. The main opposition to GOP's "stimulus" is a "Marxist" Senator from Vermont, Bernie Sanders. As far as I can tell, every other Dem bent over and let the GOP take us from 3 trillion, to 2.2 trillion, to 1.8 trillion, to less than 980$ billion.

In that last article you can also read about eternal trump stooge, Republican freshman Senator from Missouri Josh Hawley, question why we are helping big corporations over regular people. Nice "virtue signaling" Josh.

Also, according to Bernie Sanders, a part of the 900$ billion proposed by GOP, is actually left over money from the CARES Act. So in reality, we are only passing like 300-400$ billion in new money? This is a bad joke, and either Democrats are really bad at negotiating (which I very much believe), or they are stalling for Georgia Runoff results. And hey, if you're gonna stall, stall on the 3$ trillion instead of letting the GOP Nickle-and-Dime you to less than 500$ billion. This is absurd.

[alhoon]

Modern politics is becoming a battle between the stupid and the insane.

Yeap.
This is a thread about the stupid. The other thread is about the insane although both alt-rights and ultra-progressives have both. But Far-rights/alt-rights/hardcore conservatives have more stupidity than insanity and the progressives have more insanity than stupidity.

[mishkin]

Yeap.
This is a thread about the stupid. The other thread is about the insane although both alt-rights and ultra-progressives have both. But Far-rights/alt-rights/hardcore conservatives have more stupidity than insanity and the progressives have more insanity than stupidity.

It would be great if you explained what you're talking about. who of us progressives are insane and why.

[Muizer]

Yeap.
This is a thread about the stupid. The other thread is about the insane although both alt-rights and ultra-progressives have both. But Far-rights/alt-rights/hardcore conservatives have more stupidity than insanity and the progressives have more insanity than stupidity.

With the caveat that politically speaking 'the insane' are not in charge of the Democratic party, whereas 'the stupid' are in control of the Republican party.

[alhoon]

With the caveat that politically speaking 'the insane' are not in charge of the Democratic party, whereas 'the stupid' are in control of the Republican party.

The stupid indeed have much more control over the Republican party than the Insane have of the Democrat party nowdays with Trump & Co. But this is not just about USA.
In UK for example, the stupid do not have as much control of the Conservatives and ... they are not that stupid. But man, they do have a lot of stupid people there. I mean, there are literally a ton of stupid conservatives that think the EU should give them the Brexit deal they want, just because they wanted it.
Guess what poophead: It is better in the EU than outside. You can't have all the benefits and none of the responsibilities.

In much of the Eastern Europe, with lower GDPs and thinner social web and resources to protect the farmers... the stupid fight the scientific community on climate change. Not just switching out of coal that is dirt cheap but dirty, which I can understand since they need power and the clean renewables are more expensive, but also when it comes to agriculture! Climate change, depleting water levels, salinization of the water reserves, desertification threaten Eastern Europe's economies and the stupid still pretend everything is peachy - and when it isn't, they blame the immigrants.

[sumskilz]

In UK for example, the stupid do not have as much control of the Conservatives and ... they are not that stupid. But man, they do have a lot of stupid people there. I mean, there are literally a ton of stupid conservatives that think the EU should give them the Brexit deal they want, just because they wanted it.

I know nothing about what is actually happening, I don't follow it, but asking for way more than is reasonable is a very common negotiation tactic, so that you can fall back to better than you were likely to get otherwise, and still look like you really compromised.

[Cope]

The stupid indeed have much more control over the Republican party than the Insane have of the Democrat party nowdays with Trump & Co. But this is not just about USA.
In UK for example, the stupid do not have as much control of the Conservatives and ... they are not that stupid. But man, they do have a lot of stupid people there. I mean, there are literally a ton of stupid conservatives that think the EU should give them the Brexit deal they want, just because they wanted it.
Guess what poophead: It is better in the EU than outside. You can't have all the benefits and none of the responsibilities.

In much of the Eastern Europe, with lower GDPs and thinner social web and resources to protect the farmers... the stupid fight the scientific community on climate change. Not just switching out of coal that is dirt cheap but dirty, which I can understand since they need power and the clean renewables are more expensive, but also when it comes to agriculture! Climate change, depleting water levels, salinization of the water reserves, desertification threaten Eastern Europe's economies and the stupid still pretend everything is peachy - and when it isn't, they blame the immigrants.

This is much more a Europhilic caricature than a reality. Would it be too much to ask you to name a prominent Anglo-Eurosceptic who has suggested that the EU will cave to all of the UK's objectives simply because the UK demanded it?

[alhoon]

This is much more a Europhilic caricature than a reality. Would it be too much to ask you to name a prominent Anglo-Eurosceptic who has suggested that the EU will cave to all of the UK's objectives simply because the UK demanded it?

No, but I can think of many that thought the UK would be able to get better deals outside the EU than within. Many English Euroskeptics really pushed the narrative that UK will fare better outside the EU trading easily but controlling their borders.
I could understand "Trade will take a hit but we will have more national sovereignty" but that was often not the narrative. Instead, a many prominent Euroskeptic politicians were peddling crap like "Whaaaaaat?!? You expect us to STILL abide by EU rules to trade with EU!? And if we want the trade then we need to give free access to EU nationals?! But... wanting to bypass the EU rules was the reason we left, buttholes!"
Reaaaally? Then perhaps you shouldn't have left, stupid.

The main reason there's no deal at the 11th hour is because England refuses to acknowledge that they WILL NOT get as good deals outside the EU than within, that things will be WORSE for UK when it comes to trade with the EU. Yes, they have better control of their own country and they don't bow down to Brussels.
But they shouldn't expect the benefits of being in the Union either. Thinking their economy will not take a hit and their products won't face tarriffs was... stupid.

[Cope]

No, but I can think of many that thought the UK would be able to get better deals outside the EU than within. Many English Euroskeptics really pushed the narrative that UK will fare better outside the EU trading easily but controlling their borders.
I could understand "Trade will take a hit but we will have more national sovereignty" but that was often not the narrative. Instead, a many prominent Euroskeptic politicians were peddling crap like "Whaaaaaat?!? You expect us to STILL abide by EU rules to trade with EU!? And if we want the trade then we need to give free access to EU nationals?! But... wanting to bypass the EU rules was the reason we left, buttholes!"
Reaaaally? Then perhaps you shouldn't have left, stupid.

The main reason there's no deal at the 11th hour is because England refuses to acknowledge that they WILL NOT get as good deals outside the EU than within, that things will be WORSE for UK when it comes to trade with the EU. Yes, they have better control of their own country and they don't bow down to Brussels.
But they shouldn't expect the benefits of being in the Union either. Thinking their economy will not take a hit and their products won't face tarriffs was... stupid.

This, again, is more a Europhilic caricature than a reality. There is no particular reason why the UK can’t have bilateral trade agreements with the EU without being a member state (see Switzerland, Norway and Canada for obvious examples).

Given that the UK has a large trading deficit with the EU, it can unilaterally remove tariffs on European imports to protect its domestic consumers in the event of a WTO scenario. If the EU wants to sabotage its biggest export market by insisting on a so-called “level playing field” (which in this case is code for protectionism), it is free to do so. In theory, any potential export losses on the UK’s side can be recovered by striking FTAs with countries outside the EU which account for a much larger share of global wealth.

[Donny Crane]

Alhoon we have negotiated a number of deals already that are as good as with the EU despite claims it would take years if not decades to do so. The idea that the EU is some super negotiator as opposed to an inferior one due to its bifurcated decision making structure has been proven a nonsense.

[alhoon]

This, again, is more a Europhilic caricature than a reality. There is no particular reason why the UK can’t have bilateral trade agreements with the EU without being a member state (see Switzerland, Norway and Canada for obvious examples).

Given that the UK has a large trading deficit with the EU, it can unilaterally remove tariffs on European imports to protect its domestic consumers in the event of a WTO scenario. If the EU wants to sabotage its biggest export market by insisting on a so-called “level playing field” (which in this case is code for protectionism), it is free to do so. In theory, any potential export losses on the UK’s side can be recovered by striking FTAs with countries outside the EU which account for a much larger share of global wealth.

There's no particular reason why the UK can’t have bilateral trade agreements with the EU without being a member state but don't expect those deals to be better than the same bilateral trade agreements from within the EU. After all, there was no reason the UK should have those good deals.
Again, getting out of the Union and expecting all the benefits of being inside with none of the responsibilities is selfish and the politicians that peddled that were peddling stupid ideas.

Alhoon we have negotiated a number of deals already that are as good as with the EU despite claims it would take years if not decades to do so. The idea that the EU is some super negotiator as opposed to an inferior one due to its bifurcated decision making structure has been proven a nonsense.

I never said there wouldn't be some deals that are as good as within the EU, nor I think the EU is a good negotiator. I was just explaining that "let's get out of the EU and expect all the benefits as if we were within" is a foolish idea pushed by stupid politicians.


Don't get me wrong: I am not saying that Brexit was stupid. Perhaps the benefits of being outside would be greater than the drawbacks of cutting the cord.
What is stupid is to expect that there will be only benefits and no drawbacks. What is stupid is to think that a no-deal Brexit would be better than a structured exit.

And what is dangerously stupid is what some stupid conservative politicians are doing: risking a no-deal brexit because they can't stomach some of the drawbacks.
Conservative politician, you were shouting from the rooftops about leaving the EU would be good. Own it and accept that there are drawbacks you have lied about. Don't be stupid.
You got out, as you wanted. Perhaps the right choice. Now suck it up and accept the EU has no reason to give you everything you ask for. You will have to compromise and get a deal on the table because the alternative is a no-deal Brexit. If you prefer a no-deal Brexit over a bad deal? Own it.
Don't pretend the EU has to give you a good deal because you decided for your country to leave.

As UK doesn't have to do a bad deal for the UK and may prefer no-deal over a bad deal... The EU doesn't have to do a bad deal for the EU either! The EU may prefer a no-deal Brexit over a bad deal for the EU.
The EU doesn't owe the UK any deal. If the EU gives the UK good deals is only because those deals would be good for the EU too.

[Donny Crane]

one big rant to say its believable that biden received that many more votes than obama...its also not believeable trump got more but your certainty is hilarious for its dishonesty.

[alhoon]

one big rant to say its believable that biden received that many more votes than obama...its also not believeable trump got more but your certainty is hilarious for its dishonesty.

Does this refer to me? Because I made a big rant to say that it's believable that Biden received that many more votes than Obama and that it's also believable Trump got more votes than he did in 2016.

[Gaidin]

That's not really that special though. That's just a function of the sheer number of voters and the general percentage split not favoring one candidate more than it should've. So, with the sheer number of people that voted, they both blew any past president out of the water for sheer voter count, but percentages line up fairly well.

The conspiracy nature of the "FRAUD FRAUDSTER FRUUDAADUD NOW!!" rants is more about how when someone like Trump repeats that he can't lose when he gets 75 million votes 30 times a day, well, there's a reason commercials work. When you put stuff on repeat and start repeating it, idiots remember it.

But, hey, the other side can still have relatively the same amount, but yes, more votes. Trump beat any other presidential candidate in history. Except the other one he was running against. Which is the one he should've worried about. Not Obama. Get over it.