jakee

The creation of the electoral college instituted a system whereby a very small class of unelected political elites could make decisions for the benefit of the masses who couldn't be trusted to make the right decisions on their own. Does that not sound aggressively socialist to you?

Could you perhaps, very kindly, stop quoting yourself for absolutely no reason and instead just shut the fuck up? Thanks muchly

The economy was booming under Obama, too. The continuation of an upward trend doesn't mean White House policies are responsible. The large rise in the trade defecit, acceleration of national debt growth and volatile recont market performance may result from them, though. Actually, the founding fathers gave everyone no representation, except for the very few members of the electoral college. That's quite drastically unequal. It's fairer than allowing a few un-populous states to tell the rest of the country what to do, isn't it? Right now 3M people in the Dakotas, Wyoming and Montana have 1 less vote than 8.5M people in Virginia. What have you got against Virginia? Electoral maps are, quite obviously, ridiculously stupid things to base decisions about fairness on. Electoral maps reduce every state or county or whatever from a set of diverse communities with numerous and varied opinions into a single homogenous block of all A or all B. Take Texas. Over 4M people voted for someone other than Trump, to 4.5M voting for Trump, yet your map shows Texas almost completely red. It's not. Even those big empty desert counties that make up most of it will have a decent number of Democrats and independents that you are completely ignoring. Florida is even worse, more people voted for not Trump than for Trump yet your map shows it mostly red, and the even dumber state by state maps show it as a simple block of red. It's not. That simply isn't how population demographics work.

Well, you say another but I’m pretty sure you’ve already been talking about him for a while. Did you really need to start another thread just to make it seem like there was more going on?

Yes, it was established to stop the people from being able to choose the President. If you think it benefits the Democrats to have the people choose the President, you may want to think about what that means for the Republican party. How can anyone tell? Trump has never run on any real issues.

I notice how the Breitbart story about a Breitbart event utilises some carefully chosen camera angles to abvoid showing the real size and makeup of the crowd. Hundreds of attendees? Yeah, counted by the same guy who told Trump his inauguration was bigger than Obama's, maybe.

Good lord, you really still think... So let me rephrase, you allow your opinions to be formed by selective playlist editing.

You absolutely did show just one video, it was the only supporting 'evidence' you provided for the opinion being challenged, and you repeatedly questioned why other people wouldn't accept that it was relevant data.

In one video you were shown. You really don't see the problem there?

Your opinion about an entire population can be swayed by something as simple as selective video editing? You're the gift that keeps on giving

Your far from being equally offensive to both, though eh? Saying the most respectable man is one who leads and creates and is successful with n the word... eh, doesn’t sound too bad. On the flip side, saying you hold someone like my postgrad degreed, airline Captain female friend to be of inferior worth as a woman because she’s not sat at home being dumb with the kids... yeah you’re definitely being a dick.

And intellectually inferior. Exactly which part of why that's offensive are you struggling with? That is also highly misogynistic.

What are you saying, you should only trade with countries you can control? You're not the world boss, y'know

If you could find a way to do it without the rampant bias and bigotry then maybe other people would like debating with you too.

Institutional stupidity.

He wasn't going to have a meltdown. His image and prestige was given a substantial boost, for absolutely no reason and gaining nothing in return. ??? That's pretty much exactly what Trump said.

Everyone?

You know, whenever there seems like a neat and simple solution to international policy dilemmas you can pretty much guarantee it's completely wrong. International Politics is never neat and simple because the players rarely act logically and prestige is more important than almost anything else. China will not let themselves be forced into betraying an ally by the US, even when it's an ally they don't particularly like. If you push them, they'll just push back - and the existential threat to the security and economic wellbeing of the US that would come from another trade war with China is far greater than that which will ever be posed by North Korea.

Is this another example of you redefining words and not telling anyone you've done it? As it relates to a claim regarding most women, a youtube video of one woman is not data, it is an anecdote. Hell, fun fact for ya, even the word 'data' itself is plural. Right, so you've gone from claiming 'It's not enough for me to simply accept opinion-based beliefs, I feel a duty to back them up with reason and data,' to admitting that you have no interest in reason and data, and no idea how scientific studies work or how conclusions regarding a population can be drawn from representative sample sets. Tell me again how it is that you're not full of shit? Since you have admitted you have no idea how literally true it might be, why did you make it in the first place? Not deliberately provocative, deliberately insulting. There's a difference. See, there you go again. That's not just provocative, it's deeply offensive and misogynistic. It's not something you say to generate a discussion, it's something you say because you're either a small minded bigot, you want to outrage the people you're talking to, or a combination of both. Do you really need me to go through all the reasons why that's one of the stupidest things I've ever heard, or are you just trolling for a reaction and you know it's nonsense? Just as a first example - it's quite clear you're intellectually inferior to most women I know, but put you in a room with any random one of them and a selection of pre-gunpowder weapons and you would most probably still win that fight. Capisce?

How is it you've gone from claiming that your opinions are based on data, to being amazed that someone has looked up some data, because you can never be bothered? Which article is it that you think supports the claim that you actually made? So what did you mean, aside from being deliberately offensive to the women you were talking to?

Kinda sounds like you're trying to have your cake and eat it there, but OK, it's still progress. Now, would you like to follow up with a retraction of your claim that 99% of notable techy people are currently men, or do we have to unpick your logic step-by-step all over again?

The video evidence is not evidence that supports the claim you actually made, that MOST women are terrible at killing spiders, not just the one woman in the video. So you CAN'T know that MOST women are terrible at killing spiders? Then you have a choice, are you going to continue to stand by your claim that MOST women are terrible at killing spiders, and prove the brazen and laughable dishonesty of your claim to be driven by data and reason, or are you going to admit that you're just making unsubstantiated claims that result purely from your own pre-existing bias? I'm happy to stipulate that it's fairly well established by medical, scientific and historical research that this is the case. But that's the same as making sweeping generalisations about gender based behaviour that you can't back up, is it? You know what mate, I think at some point you're going to have to recognise that you're not quite as clever as you think you are, because these are fairly basic concepts you're struggling with. I said you are making statements that are not grounded in fact. That you have somehow twisted your way around to the exact opposite is truly inept logic. If you disagree, well, we're right back to square one. Show us the data which says most women are terrible at killing spiders.

The problem isn’t you haven’t supported your claim with any data. You haven’t even provided any reason or logic. You’re quite right, it IS lazy, it IS vague and it IS pointless communicating with you if you’re not even going to admit that your claims are purely opinion based beliefs unsupported by anything else. It’s staggeringly arrogant and hypocritical.

Yeah, thought you were full of shit.

Back that up with data.