The only majority that you guys have is the numbers


Watch this MAGA loon try to argue that mathematically, he wins…without any math.

He also states that We [Republicans] have 40% of the population here, you’ve only got about 60%. I just wanted to slap him and tell him that acreage doesn’t vote, people do, and that 60 is bigger than 40. Math Time for Republicans, you ass.

Comments

  1. quotetheunquote says

    “you ever play risk?”

    Why, yes! Tons of it! Must have wasted away about six months of my (sadly misspent) youth on it.

    And I can comfortably state that it is a pointless game that has no bearing whatsoever on winning and losing elections in the real world. Gad, what a doofus.

  2. komarov says

    Yay, a return to… democratic feudalism? In the age of the superrich and real estate tycoons and corporations, that gives the term a “landlord” an (not) entirely new meaning. However, at a guess I’d say the single largest landowner in many countries will be the government itself, thanks to public, unused or decidedly non-public land (e.g. the bits with military stuff). Does that mean the government wins every election every time? So who’s in charge now? And, if ownership is the key, why should they care about votes when most people are likely tenants anyway? Please, I already had a headache before going into this.

  3. cvoinescu says

    To counter with an equally idiotic reckoning: not all land is born equal. Have you looked at the value of the land? You may have the majority of the cheap land, but we have enough of the expensive stuff to have you beat.

  4. cvoinescu says

    Also, and this is not tongue-in-cheek, your two-bit so-called patriotism is not worth shit. If it counts at all, it should count negative — against you. Look where it got your country. Stop congratulating yourself about your pointless flag worshipping and gun fondling, and let the real patriots do actual work to improve the lives of people in your country and the world. Better yet, join and help.

  5. PaulBC says

    I won’t watch this. It reminds me of an argument I got into on Quora a few years back with someone who was convinced that Clinton voters from 2016 lived in “bubbles” (sure) but Trump voters did not (???) and presented the land-area map of electoral votes by state as proof of this claim.

    The thing is, he did not sound delusional or incoherent. His reading comprehension was fine, and he was capable of expressing himself clearly. Yet believed he had made a clever observation, and when I tried to make some points about the irrelevance of land-area, he ultimately fell back on “That’s just your opinion, man.” I.e., I preferred one kind of visualization (population density) and he preferred another (land area).

    There’s a map of where nobody lives in the US that shows the absurdity of using a land-area map to illustrate votes in Western states. The midwest doesn’t show up as starkly, because people live all over the rural parts, just sparsely.

    But back to the “bubbles” claim, it was mind-blowing to me that anyone was so resistant to the idea that they lived in a “bubble” that they would use this bizarre argument, and my guess was that this individual hadn’t made it up on their own. What you would really need to visualize to get at bubbles is the individual human beings on this landscape and the networks that connect them. It’s true that in rural places, people may travel more distance, but they don’t interact with more people. It seems to me that if anything they live in smaller, disjointly connected bubbles, like a kind of foam, which is no less bubbly. (This ignores our digital bubbles, though they are no less important.)

    It’s also worth noting that even the cultivated land is not really “inhabited.” Somebody is out there on a tractor some of the time, but most of those fields are empty, and any given acre is unlikely to be a place of human interaction (grain fields, anyway, not hand-picked crops). The constitution does not weight votes by land ownership, but even if it did, fewer and fewer Americans actually own those giant farms. An insurance broker in Nebraska probably owns about as much land as an insurance broker anywhere else (subject to the effect of local real estate prices).

    It’s painfully obvious that land has nothing to do with it, and this matter was already beaten to death in 2004 when population-adjusted maps showed up a lot in the blogosphere. The fact that it comes up again and again shows that people who would like it to be relevant are either incapable of objectivity or just being dishonest.

    My other related peeve is the idea that it’s my burden as a “blue stater” to develop a deeper appreciation for my “red state” kindred, and then I would know why they vote for Trump. Well… I’m all for walking a mile in someone else’s moccasins, but they seem to evince little interest in understanding what makes me tick and surely have their own prejudices. Why am I expected to assume an asymmetrical burden?

  6. PaulBC says

    Oh, another reason I’m happy President-elect Biden won Arizona (besides the fact that I could now hypothetically drive from Seattle to Denver without leaving a nominally “blue” state) is that it covers enough of that vacant land in blue ink to perhaps cause some cognitive dissonance in the land-area voters. Probably not enough to matter, but it’s a start.

  7. charley says

    While it would be cool to increase my importance 1000X, I don’t think I’ll trade my house and quarter acre in Western Washington for 250 acres of desert scrub in wacko land.

  8. davidc1 says

    I have just left a lot of faceache groups that were to do with politics ,because of dimwits like him .
    He makes a gammon faced britshitter voter sound almost sane .
    It’s the people like the late Ed Brayton ,and people on sites such as Right Wing Watch i feel sorry for .
    Just think, sitting at your computer day after day ,being exposed to moronic cretins like that .
    I remember reading in the intro to Al Franken’s book ,Rush Lumbar is a big fat Git ,how for six months ,i think it was ,he
    had to listen to his radio programme ,I think that entitles him to retake his seat in the Senate .
    Plus he can draw free hand a map of the USA ,that should earn him a Pulitzer Prize .

  9. kome says

    I dug a little deeper into that person in the video. Either they are really dedicated to the parody character that it’s literally all they post or they are sincerely this stupid.

  10. PaulBC says

    charley@13 I have sometimes considered how much redwood acreage I could get in trade for the little postage stamp of Silicon Valley I now inhabit. It’s a tempting thought, though not really feasible at the moment. This year’s fires also made me rethink if this is a great idea.

  11. mamba says

    Soooo by his logic, the number of voting people there are in a state is irrelevant because the land area does not change?

    I…I just…I don’t know what to say to that level of misunderstanding…about everything…

  12. says

    @18
    Let me help you out. When they said “Make America Great Again”, they were harkening back to the 18th century when only men who held land were allowed to vote.

  13. R. L. Foster says

    I just checked the Supreme Court’s rulings on the Equal Protection Clause and sure enough it upholds the principle of the “one acre, one vote.”

  14. mnb0 says

    @3 Komarov: “Yay, a return to… democratic feudalism? In the age of the superrich and real estate tycoons and corporations, that gives the term a “landlord” an (not) entirely new meaning.”
    How do you mean, “return”? That’s exactly what the USA are. I mean, I like Bernie Sanders, but he is a millionaire too.

  15. PaulBC says

    @23

    I mean, I like Bernie Sanders, but he is a millionaire too.

    Gimme a break. So the fuck am I. In fact, given Sanders salary, good health, and longevity, it would be pretty damn shocking if he did not have millions in assets. Most people don’t take a vow of poverty.

    If Sanders had not accumulated a nest egg by this point, I would seriously question his judgment. I’ll take his frugality over assholes like Brett Kavanaugh who somehow managed to piss away hundreds of thousands of dollars (on sports betting? who knows?) knowing they’d be bailed out. Then there was Bill Bennett’s video poker addiction.

    BTW, I’m not even a Sanders supporter, but he’s as entitled as anyone else to his earned wealth.

  16. mmason0071 says

    Don’t suppose he has really looked at the land distribution of Washington state, has he? Add up Western Washington (where all us libtards and minorities live), federal land (almost 30% of the state) , and Indian reservations, then the land left for his ‘patriots’, wheatfields and mobile homes is not quite so overwhelming. Not to mention that the taxes from the populated Puget Sound area pays for most of the services for the rest of the state, like those long country roads where he drives his pickup truck.

  17. PaulBC says

    @25 Here’s the interactive map of where nobody lives. Washington state has a pretty large belt of uninhabited land, mostly in the middle (and a part in the Northwest. What’s there?). I assume eastern WA has more agricultural land.

  18. whheydt says

    Re; PaulBC @ #22…
    Somebody needs to explain to McConnell (probably with a clue-by-four in hand) that, come January, “bipartisan” means something that Pres. Biden is willing to sign.

  19. PaulBC says

    whheydt@29 No doubt, Mitch will settle comfortably into the role of Grim Reaper. Barring a 2-part miracle in the Georgia senate runoff anyway. It could still be a lot worse.

  20. PaulBC says

    whheydt@28 Yes, and New Mexico, but those are old news. The west is marching to its own drum in Trump America (which it will probably remain even with Biden). On the other hand, in Montana, they elected thug to the governor’s mansion so it’s still very Trumpy.

  21. brightmoon says

    @7 . I got a visual image of that and laughed so hard I was breathless. Thanks you made my morning! About this idiot red MAGAt , don’t they have civics classes any more? I mean we used to call it social studies but seriously!

  22. whheydt says

    Actually…in California, he’s wrong. Voters registered as Republicans are in third place (upper 20s percentage, IIRC), behind both Democrats and independents, aka “decline to state”.

  23. raven says

    (and a part in the (Washington state) Northwest. What’s there?).

    That is the Olympic penninsula. A big part of it is the national park which contains a whole mountain range with permanent glaciers, rain forest, and wilderness areas.
    It is very scenic.

  24. says

    I love it when the innumerate explain math to me.

    While Mr. MAGA brags about the acreage dominated by his 40% of the population, the 60% majority will have to assuage their lackland woes by settling for the state governor, both U.S. senators, and the state legislature. Boo hoo.

  25. Frederic Bourgault-Christie says

    When they thought they had a Moral (population) Majority, a silent conservative bloc, they bragged.

    Now that they are the statistical minority, land matters.

    When that stops mattering, they’ll just say the quiet part loud and say that they are white.

  26. hackerguitar says

    They’re already saying the quiet parts out loud; that’s the Proud Boys, Patriot Prayer, and their more extreme cousins Atomwaffen and IdentityEvropa.

    Innumeracy is rampant among MAGAts. I’ve a co-worker from Ukraine who is a hardcore 45 supporter….I’ve learned to check the math in his scripts.

  27. says

    @garydargan 39
    I realize it’s an expression but the problem involves what their life experience and choices put there. Not an absence. Quite a bit of is involved in protecting what is there despite it’s inconsistency with reality.

  28. wzrd1 says

    Saw that video last night. My wife heard it and called him a dumbass.
    I reminded her that he got all of the dirt votes.

  29. stroppy says

    #32 brightmoon

    Back when I was a whippersnapper we had to take both civics and social studies, two different classes.

    Civics was about how government works and how to be a responsible citizen. Social studies was more about societies and culture.

    Teaching civics pretty much faded out of fashion a few decades ago, and we’ve suffered for it. There is an effort to bring it back, though.

    Civics lessons: Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Neil Gorsuch on promoting education in citizenship
    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-justices-sonia-sotomayor-and-neil-gorsuch-promote-civics-education/

  30. PaulBC says

    stroppy@43 It’s true that I never took a civics course as you describe above, and that was nearly 40 years ago. My son is now taking AP Government and Politics, which seems closer to civics, though I have not looked at the textbook. (I remember thinking at the start of the year, that depending on how the election goes, the whole thing might be obsolete before the semester ends, since they’d have to revise it for an autocracy. Thankfully not, at least so far.)

  31. anat says

    Social Studies is an area of studies that includes classes in geography, history, civics, and other related topics. In Washington state, the classes of 2016 and beyond are required to take at least 3 credits of social studies, including 0.5 credit of civics.

  32. stroppy says

    It’s been a long time since I was in K12 and I’m sure that things have changed quite a bit… and that I’ve forgotten quite a bit. We basically had two tracks, you were either in “business” or “academic” with some electives during high school depending on your emphasis. Along the way, we were required to take separate classes in history, geography, and civics, in addition to what was then called social studies — set curriculum, non-negotiable.

  33. birgerjohansson says

    And meanwhile……here are the rules the “little people” have to live under.
    Taking away their votes would simply just be a minor further step into making people powerless.
    ”Krystal and Saagar: Amazon Hires LITERAL Pinkerton Goons To Monitor Warehouse Workers” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xj6SR0ghlw

Leave a Reply