Jump to content
270soft Forum

My final 50 state-by-state prediction Trump/Clinton/Johnson/Stein/Mcmullin


TheMiddlePolitical

Recommended Posts

17 minutes ago, Patine said:

"Regressive and intolerant," especially as words applied to academic and social progress, are vastly more applicable to those of conservative rather than liberal leanings. There are still Republicans in Congress or State Governor's Mansions who not only believe weather patterns haven't changed at all in the past two decades, but believe the world was created around 5000 or so years ago, that dinosaurs co-existed with early humans, that evolution is a "vicious lie," and that economic, political, and social set-ups that objectively failed miserably and were unsustainable and utterly unviable decades or even a century or two ago will magically start working today, even though all economic, political, and social pillars of society have moved even FURTHER away from them.

I get that you're in the bubble. One day you'll wake up and realize it. Until then, enjoy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, vcczar said:

The university can be a secular priesthood at times.

University, media, tech companies, etc. Basically every company or group which controls the flow of information in the 21st century is left leaning.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, VanMav said:

University, media, tech companies, etc. Basically every company or group which controls the flow of information in the 21st century is left leaning.

What do you think would be a constructive way that right-leaning individuals or groups could gain control of some of that information? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know. 

I certainly think these two as choices for president show the current system has failed. Maybe democracy is irredeemable. Maybe it isn't. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, VanMav said:

I don't know. 

I certainly think these two as choices for president show the current system has failed. Maybe democracy is irredeemable. Maybe it isn't. 

Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you actually say that this system has produced better outcomes?

 

@patine you're insistence on the "correct" way of thinking proved my point.  I don't like Trump. I don't much care for the idea of either of them as President. But you're pretending like Trump will be the devil and Clinton will be okay. There's no evidence to suggest it, but the collective wisdom has told you so. So you go with it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, VanMav said:

Can you actually say that this system has produced better outcomes?

 

@patine you're insistence on the "correct" way of thinking proved my point.  I don't like Trump. I don't much care for the idea of either of them as President. But you're pretending like Trump will be the devil and Clinton will be okay. There's no evidence to suggest it, but the collective wisdom has told you so. So you go with it.

You're putting words in my mouth. I have never ONCE praised Hillary Clinton, said she was better than Trump (just different in her flaws), or that I believed either candidate winning would be anything but a disappointment at best or a disaster at worst. Also, what many people don't seem to be realize (or have blinded themselves to the fact of) is that Clinton is not very liberal, and Trump is not very conservative. Both are, in fact, much more in line with Nixon - unethical, corner-cutting, lying centrist "crooks."

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, VanMav said:

Just the other day you informed us you were burning a Trump thing in protest. Why not a Clinton one too?

Because Trump is a BIT more agregious in my mind, and more unstable and unpredictable. That doesn't mean I at all like Clinton, though, and the Guy Fawkes Day tradition is one effigy, as a rule. Also, Trump is more annoying as a public persona. That being said, I'm glad I don't have to choose between voting for one of the two, throwing away my vote, or not voting, and I feel, in both cases, either of their presidencies paralyzed by an uncooperative Congress would, in this case, be somewhat of a relief.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Patine said:

"Regressive and intolerant," especially as words applied to academic and social progress, are vastly more applicable to those of conservative rather than liberal leanings. There are still Republicans in Congress or State Governor's Mansions who not only believe weather patterns haven't changed at all in the past two decades, but believe the world was created around 5000 or so years ago, that dinosaurs co-existed with early humans, that evolution is a "vicious lie," and that economic, political, and social set-ups that objectively failed miserably and were unsustainable and utterly unviable decades or even a century or two ago will magically start working today, even though all economic, political, and social pillars of society have moved even FURTHER away from them.

Regressive can be put to both.  Intolerant can be applied to both.  There is no evidence to say that evolution is a fact.  The is not evidence that dinosaurs didn't live with humans.  There is no evidence that the word isn't around 9k years old.  There is no evidence that humans have a bug impact in climate change.  There are Democrats who try the same old failed policies that are governors.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jvikings1 said:

Regressive can be put to both.  Intolerant can be applied to both.  There is no evidence to say that evolution is a fact.  The is not evidence that dinosaurs didn't live with humans.  There is no evidence that the word isn't around 9k years old.  There is no evidence that humans have a bug impact in climate change.  There are Democrats who try the same old failed policies that are governors.

No evidence? So, our whole body of science is just the product of imagination like science-fiction? Can you explain how there is a complete and utter lack of evidence?

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Patine said:

No evidence? So, our whole body of science is just the product of imagination like science-fiction? Can you explain how there is a complete and utter lack of evidence?

The theory of evolution - cannot be proven

man made climate change - those same scientists were talking about global cooling in the 70s then they switched to global warming then they switched to climate change.  Plus, there is no basis of fact that can prove for certain that man causes global warming/global cooling/climate change (which ever the scientists think at the time).

Carbon dating is extremely inaccurate but scientists like to use it as certain fact.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jvikings1 said:

The theory of evolution - cannot be proven

man made climate change - those same scientists were talking about global cooling in the 70s then they switched to global warming then they switched to climate change.  Plus, there is no basis of fact that can prove for certain that man causes global warming/global cooling/climate change (which ever the scientists think at the time).

Carbon dating is extremely inaccurate but scientists like to use it as certain fact.

I think a clarification of terminology is in order. I believe you have above inadvertently swapped the "evidence" with "proof" in your statement above (at least I'm hoping so). In all those police procedurals, CSI/CNIS, and murder mysteries (all the way back to Sherlock Holmes), the evidence is what starts the detective(s), sleuth, investigators, etc., on the trail of the case and is built up over the storyline to both catch the criminal and build a case. Some evidence sometimes ends up being red herrings or dismissed. The proof is the sum total at the end allows a judge and/or jury to be convinced to convict them. I think that's a good analogy. While the above things are not PROVEN beyond a shadow of a doubt, there is still a body of evidence that indicates that these theories MAY in fact have merit.

Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Patine said:

I think a clarification of terminology is in order. I believe you have above inadvertently swapped the "evidence" with "proof" in your statement above (at least I'm hoping so). In all those police procedurals, CSI/CNIS, and murder mysteries (all the way back to Sherlock Holmes), the evidence is what starts the detective(s), sleuth, investigators, etc., on the trail of the case and is built up over the storyline to both catch the criminal and build a case. Some evidence sometimes ends up being red herrings or dismissed. The proof is the sum total at the end allows a judge and/or jury to be convinced to convict them. I think that's a good analogy. While the above things are not PROVEN beyond a shadow of a doubt, there is still a body of evidence that indicates that these theories MAY in fact have merit.

There is also a body of evidence that indicates that these theories are not true.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, jvikings1 said:

There is also a body of evidence that indicates that these theories are not true.

And a good body of conflicting evidence that indicates they may be true as well.

Understand, that while I consider myself Christian (as I pointed out in previous debates with Regan04, because I believe his take on the religion an erroneous distortion), I do believe some parts of the Epistle of Barrabas (which was prominent among early Christian scriptures and, even though it wasn't included in the OFFICIAL 27 books of the New Testament by the Ecumenical Council of Nicaea in the 4th Century and reconfirmed, as least in most Western canons, in the Council of Trentino, I feel a lot of the excluded books were left out for political reasons and the biases of the day Church leaders rather than for truly being "uninspired). In the Epistle of Barrabas, it states that a lot of the events and descriptions in the Hebrew Bible, ESPECIALLY those that today come to loggerheads with the scientific community, were in fact metaphorical, not literal. Christ and his other Disciples, having not spoken directly on that particular that known, give that statement by Barrabas neither a condemnation nor an endorsement due to their silence on that issue.

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Patine said:

And a good body of conflicting evidence that indicates they may be true as well.

Understand, that while I consider myself Christian (as I pointed out in previous debates with Regan04, because I believe his take on the religion an erroneous distortion), I do believe some parts of the Epistle of Barrabas (which was prominent among early Christian scriptures and, even though it wasn't included in the OFFICIAL 27 books of the New Testament by the Ecumenical Council of Nicaea in the 4th Century and reconfirmed, as least in most Western canons, in the Council of Trentino, I feel a lot of the excluded books were left out for political reasons and the biases of the day Church leaders rather than for truly being "uninspired). In the Epistle of Barrabas, it states that a lot of the events and descriptions in the Hebrew Bible, ESPECIALLY those that today come to loggerheads with the scientific community, were in fact metaphorical, not literal. Christ and his other Disciples, having not spoken directly on that particular that known, give that statement by Barrabas neither a condemnation nor an endorsement due to their silence on that issue.

You're just repeating yourself.  The problem is that you were demonizing Republicans for not believing in theories that cannot be confirmed and have evidence them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/4/2016 at 10:53 AM, vcczar said:

You need to break ME and NE into districts. Also, can't see any scenario of Trump getting Michigan. As unlikely as PA is to go to Trump, it's at least a possibility. I don't think Trump has won a single Michigan poll. 

they oversample  democrats so plus you got the the people that havent voted in a long time voting for him and the so call monster vote its going to close but it could go to trump.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Pure Democracy is not a good form of government because it leads to tyranny.  This is why the Founders avoided it and went with a Republican style of government.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, jvikings1 said:

Pure Democracy is not a good form of government because it leads to tyranny.  This is why the Founders avoided it and went with a Republican style of government.

Although I had said I wasn't going to discuss the election, I feel this issue is more generic by far than today's election.

There has been a lot of confusion by many as to the actual definition, especially as used in the world today, as to what a republic actually is. Many Americans (and people from a number of other countries) believe it specifically and narrowly refers to the type of government advocated and promoted by the US Founding Father and some other later revolutionary groups in other countries who heavily emulated their governmental views. However, the definition is both a lot broader and more dependent on historical context. Plato's eponymous is, if you read, not at all recognizable as a modern republic, or any modern, at all, being promoted. The Roman Republic had some foundation points both the American and French Revolutionaries, but it too was not quite in the style of any government today. In the Middle Ages and Renaissance, a Republic referred to a plutocratic city-state in Northern Italy, along the Adriatic, or among the Hanseatic League along the Rhine River and Baltic Coast. The modern used standard of the term has it's origin in the mid-17th Century Dutch Republic, followed by "Republicans" within Oliver Cromwell's Protectorate, but who were not, ultimate, the party in power, then the American and French (and short-lived Vermont and West Florida) Republics, followed by the Haitian Republic, then (not including Napoleon's "puppet republics") the Spanish American Republics, the First Spanish Republic, the short-lived Republics of Texas, California, Rio Grande, and Yucatan, the Second French Republic, the short-lived Republics of Baden, Hungary, San Carlo, Sicily, and the Roman Republic (of 1848), the Third French Republic, the temporary Boer Republics, the First Portuguese Republic, the Republic of China (under Sun Yat-sen), and the huge wave of republics created in the wake of the World Wars, and another big wave, though more staggered, created by the de-colonization of the British Empire in much of the Third World and the abolition of French and Belgian colonial protectorates in Africa and Southeast Asia, then the fall of the King of Egypt in 1952, the Kings of Greece and Libya in 1963, the Imam of Northern Yemen in 1967, the King of Afghanistan in 1972, the Shah of Iran in 1975, and, most recently and in our lifetimes, the King of Nepal in 2008. In all of this, all of these movements, and every country with the term "republic" in it's official name and/or constitutional statement of governance (the vast majority of nations in the world today, in fact) all have only ONE singular feature in common AT ALL - a nation who head-of-state is NOT mandated by it's constitution or other binding supreme laws of the land to be a hereditary office or one otherwise determined by familial primogeniture of some sort. That's it for any sort of definitive and universal qualities of a "republic" in full usage.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...