Punx0r said:
Dauntless, I can't respond to your post. . .
Oh.
Punx0r said:
. . . . because I have absolutely no idea what you are on about. You seem to ramble on a number of topics using a series of standard rants and simply shoe-horn into the topic at hand whichever one suits your preference. As such, no relevant points get addressed or meaningful information conveyed
. . . . .zzzzzZZZZZZZZZ
. . . . .zzzzzZZZZZZZZZ. . . SNORK!!!!
Person 1: "I think the puppet on the right shares my beliefs."
Person 2: "I think the puppet on the left is more to my liking."
Dauntless: "Hey, wait a minute, there's one guy holding up both puppets!"
Punx0r..."Hey, somebody shut him up!"
Uh, you mean where I went on about 'Tribalism?' Oh wait, that wasn't me. Oh, the thing about '. . . .goes to show how society REALLY feels about women.' Darn, that wasn't me either. The standard rants are there, they're just not mine. What IS mine is that consistent voice that you hear, what really speaks to you in those moments when you try to reject thinking about what you don't want to think about, but you CAN'T reject it, you just CAN'T. All I'm getting out of that is that you feel like your tunnelvision is going to lose, but you don't want to lose. A basic concept in the Humanities: Incompetence is the inability to understand competence. If it's more than you can handle, nobody is cheating, you're just inadequate. And I could go dig out this hat an old girlfriend gave me, it said "I'm not arrogant, I'm just BETTER THAN YOU." Maybe I should have said old FUTURE girlfriend, she gave it to me as part of seeking the first date.
When they burn the flag, that's the subject, It is NOT something I ". . . .Simply shoe-horn into the topic. . . ." because it IS the topic. Just because YOU don't want the whole story to be relevant doesn't mean it isn't all meaningful information. If you cannot respond, it's because you cannot address the true issue, you'd rather pout like high school kids walking out of class and expect that to be considered "Meaningful."
Ah well, to the more thoughtful, think of how powerful your vote would have been in Florida in 2000. If you took a few hundred friends down there to vote for Gore. 4 years later John Kerry was so close in several states and it could have suddenly tipped the other way over just a few votes in the right spot. Meanwhile count every state that has more than the 11 electoral votes of Massachusetts and they each have two Senators who needed considerably more votes than Elizabeth Warren to be there. Is it even fair that so much attention is paid to a dolt who represents so few? (Well, the attention is mostly because she IS a dolt.) If you really want to sit around trying to come up with this perfectly fair system, have fun, but please don't talk out loud while you're driving yourself mad. In the 1960 election they THOUGHT the votes from some mountain community were so crucial that someone had to ski down the mountain in a snowstorm, though it had apparently already been resolved by the time the guy arrived. But they wouldn't have been more important anyway, it was just the timing that would have been.
TheBeastie's theory holds up in California in 1982. Quite a complex story that went beyond the mere Governors race. First there was the issue of one Tom Metzger on the Democratic ballot in the primaries. The press reported on people admitting that they'd meet friends in a bar after work, there'd be jokes about the upset if he got a lot of votes, and BANG, the concept of 'Drunk Voting' found it's way into the Governors race, as the first black man ever nominated for Governor was sharing the ballot with another nominee from his party, an exKKK leader.
So the Democrats were telling people to go ahead an vote Republican on that one. Metzger himself was a rather affable individual, he laughed along as the pointy heads ridiculed him to his face, which allowed him to ride his fifteen minutes of fame into overtime and he remained a minor public figure the rest of his life, almost a darling to talk show hosts as he proved a congenial bad guy guest.
He also proved problematic to pollsters. His presence on the ballot created a backlash all over the state. Loudmouths were thrilled at the opportunity to carry on about how racist you must be to not vote for Tom Bradley, you must be voting the party ticket of Deukmejian and Metzger. Bradley opened a huge lead in the polls, what a shock when election day came and people cast the votes they wanted to cast in the privacy of the booth.
Pollsters then reacted as they do now at the revelation they're out of touch: Denied when rumored, ignored when leaked, deflected when asked, admitted when cleared. Boy did they argue before the election at any suggestion they might have been wrong, eh? But then it's the same for the Democratic party, denying the whole time there was a problem with their candidate, (Hey, the Republicans overdid it with their discussions on theirs) spindoctoring when it came up, dismissively acknowledging they were out of touch after losing but STILL insisting she deserved to win. So the behavior isn't limited just to pollsters.
Ah well, just to wrap up this bit of meaningful information that's over the head of one or more people, as long as one party thinks they get to be the moral superior star bellied sneetches, they're going to feel free to offer up the seriously inferior candidate and play this finger pointing game as was played all through this election. Hillary saying Bernie just got his star on his belly when he registered as a Democrat just a few months earlier, Bernie saying Hillary is a SBSNO, Star Bellied Sneetch in Name Only. But that is NOT the meaningful information, even though someone wishes it was.
Maybe I'll sleep now, knowing he's been properly responded to.
