Bucket Guild | FUBU BH Forums

FFFFFFFFFFFFFFF I KNOW

I want to die. As is my Skins losing (to lolcarolina) wasn't bad enough.....

[✔] [item]Thunderfury, Blessed Blade of the Windseeker[/item] (Three)
[✔] [item]Sulfuras, Hand of Ragnaros[/item] (Two)
[✔] [item]32837[/item] & [item]32838[/item]
[✔] [item]Thori'dal, the Stars' Fury[/item]
[✔] [item]46017[/item]
[✔] [item]49623[/item] (Two)
[✔] [item]71086[/item]

I don't see any point in bringing either point up if you already realize those two things are a problem. The biggest problem with "<insert group here> is doing it, too" is that eventually it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Both sides have been accusing the other of cheating for so long that everyone assumes that "the other guy" actually is cheating and they cheat just to stay competitive.




I've tried not to be part of "Team Nice Google," and I think 'cognitive dissonance' needs to stop being used (not just here) just like certain other phrases that have become idiotic by repetition and misuse ('false equivalence' comes to mind).




Aestu being as predictable as the tides isn't my fault, and neither is your attention deficit disorder.



Rome wasn't burned in a day.



I'm not sure how showing an ID is a "senseless barricade," since you have to have one for so many other important transactions you need to make, like opening a bank account. I agree with those who argue that if IDs are required they need to be easy (and free) to acquire.



I'm not going to argue that republicans are blameless. There was a republican election volunteer/worker about an hour south of here that got caught throwing voter registrations in the trash. However, since this is not the only internet cesspool I swim in, I've been noticing a steady uptick stories, especially about Romney owning voting machines or some such thing, in the last two months.

In the end, it doesn't really matter who wins since a victory for President Obama is going to be like every bad camp song ever: "same song, second verse, a little bit louder and a whole lot worse," and Romney probably isn't going to be much better. Either way, we're going to be stuck with another four years of no compromise idiocy (for which both parties are responsible), excessive spending/borrowing, and wars in countries with weird names.

USD: RG3 hates Obama and threw the game yesterday. That totally jinxes the whole Redskins Election Voodoo thing.

Your Pal,
Jubber

AKA "The Gun"
AKA "ROFeraL"

World Renowned Mexican Forklift Artiste

Don't worry, Obama won some other equally ridiculous rules:

http://www.policymic.com/articles/18210 ... ere-is-why

It's okay, ridiculous rules is how every republican has won ever. I don't understand how it's okay for the person who wins the popular vote doesn't take the presidency. It doesn't make sense in our hurr durr democracy!

[✔] [item]Thunderfury, Blessed Blade of the Windseeker[/item] (Three)
[✔] [item]Sulfuras, Hand of Ragnaros[/item] (Two)
[✔] [item]32837[/item] & [item]32838[/item]
[✔] [item]Thori'dal, the Stars' Fury[/item]
[✔] [item]46017[/item]
[✔] [item]49623[/item] (Two)
[✔] [item]71086[/item]

You'll have to ask the founding fathers...but isn't the story basically "we want to protect ourselves against people being too dumb and voting like idiots"?

I don't think it worked, but I thought that was the idea.

Considering when our founding fathers put the rules together, only white landowning males could vote, I'm pretty sure the current voting rules got ironed out later on.

Yeah but the theory was the same I thought.

Edit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta ... al_college



So I guess it's more "well the popular vote determines congress, so we don't want people to have absolute power over the presidency"

Because an unchecked majority is a very dangerous thing to the minority.

That has nothing to do with the reasons for the Electoral College. The EC wasn't designed to protect the few from the many, it was designed to protect the many from themselves. It was local government in action: don't try to understand what President you should vote for, instead, vote for some respectable figure member of the local gentry, who will then choose a candidate for you.

Predictably, it didn't work.



Madison was talking about bicameral legislature not EC

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

Hmm that wiki article makes it confusing as the section begins on the theory.

In any case, it seems my first instinct was correct - the founding fathers thought people were too stupid.

...

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

No. Not stupid.

It's more like they felt the common people hadn't *drunk the royal nectar* and therefore didn't have the education and enculturation to understand big problems, or the personal wealth and responsibility to lead with authority.

It's a way of thinking that has no place in the modern era, and very hard for modern people to understand. You really have to look at it from the standpoint of who these people were and how they were educated. How they saw their relationship with society.

They were classically educated British aristocrats, and they saw the world from that point of view.



The FFs believed in this not on the basis of "being successful" but old-world aristocracy. They would have hated the idea of "being successful" as a basis for political power, or, even worse, moral worth.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaius_Marius
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_cromwell

Understand these two men and you understand the FFs and why they implemented the EC and Senate

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

If the polls of the last week or so and the exit polling doesn't match the reality of the vote, here's a possible reason why:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... rialPage_h

If Barack Obama's re-election campaign ends in failure, you can expect to hear a lot about a man named Tom Bradley.

Bradley, who died in 1998, was a five-term mayor of Los Angeles, serving from 1973 until 1993. In 1982 he ran to succeed California's then-Gov. (also now-Gov.) Jerry Brown. Polls showed Bradley leading, but he lost narrowly to the Republican nominee, Attorney General George Deukmejian. Bradley lost again, this time by a landslide, in a 1986 rematch.

Thirty years later, the first Deukmejian-Bradley contest is remembered for having produced the idea of the "Bradley Effect." This was a hypothesis, or a legend, that aimed to explain why the polls erred in predicting a Bradley victory. It proposed that for racial reasons a significant number of voters told pollsters they were for Bradley (who was black) but voted for Deukmejian (who is white).

The Bradley Effect has been invoked in several other elections since, most notably the 1989 contests for governor of Virginia and mayor of New York. Black Democrats Douglas Wilder and David Dinkins, respectively, won those races, but they underperformed relative to late polls.

Whether the Bradley Effect hypothesis is true is a matter of considerable dispute. The secret ballot makes it untestable, and the polls might have been wrong because of bad methodology (bias in sampling or weighting) or just ordinary statistical error. In the case of pre-election polls, it may be that enough voters simply changed their minds before Election Day.

Whether or not there was a Bradley Effect in 1982, no one argues there was one in 2008, when black Democrat Barack Obama handily defeated white Republican John McCain. But this time around, with Obama leading Romney only narrowly in most polls, and trailing in others, the idea has been revived. Here's contrarian Californian Mickey Kaus, a grudging Obama supporter:

Voters who were genuinely enthusiastic about Obama in 2008–and therefore told pollsters they were voting for him and voted for him–might have second thoughts in 2012, but be reluctant to express them for fear of either seeming cruel (to a pol they tend to like personally) or racist (last hired, first fired!). . . .
You'd think this would be a possibility pundits would take seriously right around . . . now. At the least it will give them something to talk about.
We'd note that this column raised the possibility that something like the Bradley Effect was inflating Obama's "likability" ratings, but that was last December so it's ancient history. Now, it is lefties, preparing to apportion blame in the event of an unfavorable outcome tomorrow, who are alighting on the Bradley Effect.

Among them is former Enron adviser Paul Krugman, in an especially weird post on his New York Times blog. Krugman opens by inveighing against the Financial Times for publishing a headline describing the presidential contest as being "on a knife's edge." That is "deeply misleading," Krugman contends, because accredited scientist Nate Silver has declared that Obama is the prohibitive favorite.

But Krugman spends roughly half his post vindicating the FT by noting arguments against that proposition:

As Nate says, it's definitely possible that the polls are systematically wrong. The obvious ways they could go wrong, cell phones and Latinos, favor Obama rather than Romney; but maybe pollsters are overcompensating for these factors, or maybe there's a large Bradley effect distorting poll responses. Reporting about these possibilities would be interesting.
Reporting on a Bradley Effect would present quite a challenge, since it would entail finding voters who tell reporters that they deceived pollsters and confirming their honesty. One can, however, do a little analytical musing about the possibility of a Bradley Effect.

What's important to understand is that for the left, the Bradley Effect is not only an analytical construct but a moral one. Stephen Kaus, a doctrinaire San Francisco Democrat, made this clear the other night, tweeting to brother Mickey and yours truly (quoting verbatim): "Can you braniacs explain why the Bradley effect isn't out and out racism. Bubba can't pull the lever for blk guy."

Thus belief in the Bradley Effect is a consolation prize for the left: If Obama loses, it reinforces their sense that racism is alive and well in America--and that they, who reject it, are better than most Americans.

But even if the Bradley Effect exists, construing it as indicating racism makes no sense. Stephen Kaus's formulation--"Bubba can't pull the lever for blk guy"--begs the question. To a doctrinaire lefty, it is axiomatic that many Republican voters are motivated by racism. It's safe to surmise Kaus believes that is true both of Romney voters who tell pollsters their true intent and of those who tell pollsters they are voting Democratic. Is there any reason to think it is more likely to be true of the latter group than of the former?

If anything, intuition suggests the opposite. Imagine a focus group of white Mississippians in 1946 in which participants are asked their opinions of Sen. Theodore Bilbo. None of them will vote against Bilbo, since he is running unopposed, but they express varying degrees of enthusiasm about his racist ideas. Wouldn't you assume that those who openly and strongly support them are the most racist, while those who are reticent or express reservations are the least?

Of course, America in 2012 is not Mississippi in 1946. White supremacy was prevalent there and then and is stigmatized here and now. The hypothetical Bradley Effect voter is operating within the context of that stigma. He falsely tells pollsters that he is voting for the black Democrat because he feels either guilty or ashamed to be voting for the white Republican.

The guilty Bradley Effect voter is one who has internalized the axiom that it is racist to vote Republican. That is, he agrees with Stephen Kaus.

The ashamed Bradley Effect voter does not think it is racist to vote Republican but is averse to the harsh judgment of those who do. That is, he is intimidated by people who think like Stephen Kaus. (Another term for this phenomenon is "social acceptability bias").

This column is a Bradley Effect skeptic. We doubt that such guilt and fear are a major source of bias in election polls. But if they are, that wouldn't demonstrate that liberal suppositions about race in America are true, only that they are influential.

Your Pal,
Jubber

AKA "The Gun"
AKA "ROFeraL"

World Renowned Mexican Forklift Artiste

Just because you don't like something and hear it all the time doesn't make it any less true.
It just means you're a loser: you prefer to get mad rather than get better.

Anyway, I don't get it. You think the media is totally biased towards the left yet you believe something just because it's written on a page.

Then you go into conniptions when people call you brainwashed and uneducated because you believe anything you read off Pravda, which is literally all you know.

The premise of the WSJ editorial is that the final vote is going to be something vastly different than what polls, statistics and common sense would indicate. Imagine that, the most ridiculously pro-corporate, anti-American propaganda paper pushing for Romney. Corroborates my impression that Romney will simply steal the votes he knows he can't win. The right-wing media is already bracing for the inevitable.


BUT BUT BUT THE DEMS CHEAT TOO ACORN SPENT MONEY ON WHORES SO ROMNEY CANT CHEAT BECAUSE A DEM CHARITY EMBEZZLED MONEY TO SPEND ON WHORES

Also, I'm saddened, but perhaps shouldn't be surprised, no one bothered to read/analyze the two historical figures I cited as being responsible for the unusual configuration of our government.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.