Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
2012/10/31 01:03:54
Subject: This will be an election you tell your kids about
whembly wrote: All I'm saying is that he's just "another Poll".
Just like Gallup/Rassi is "another Poll" site.
So... let's just stop with the poll wars and wait till after the election. Then we can see how close Gallup/538/Those Colorado Professors are...
No. That makes zero sense. To be another polling site... you'd actually have to be a polling site. That would mean conducting polls, processing the data and releasing it. 538 doesn't do that.
It's an analyst/prediction site. Now, you can argue they're analysis isn't right, if you want, and the site itself would be the first to confirm they is plenty of subjectivity in what they do, but it's a complete nonsense to argue it is a polling site.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2012/10/31 03:11:06
Subject: This will be an election you tell your kids about
whembly wrote: All I'm saying is that he's just "another Poll".
Just like Gallup/Rassi is "another Poll" site.
So... let's just stop with the poll wars and wait till after the election. Then we can see how close Gallup/538/Those Colorado Professors are...
No. That makes zero sense. To be another polling site... you'd actually have to be a polling site. That would mean conducting polls, processing the data and releasing it. 538 doesn't do that.
It's an analyst/prediction site. Now, you can argue they're analysis isn't right, if you want, and the site itself would be the first to confirm they is plenty of subjectivity in what they do, but it's a complete nonsense to argue it is a polling site.
Whoa... you're late there buddy... D-usa corrected me on this.
I know 538 is a polling data aggregate and attempts to divine it's meaning.
It's a sabermetric analysis on polling data.
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2012/10/31 03:11:40
Subject: This will be an election you tell your kids about
whembly wrote: The reason being... is that it's too close right now. I think we're at the point where anybody can make the numbers "look good for their guy" at this point.
Of course they can. Which is why it's so good to find a site that isn't pimping for their guy, but is just trying to make the best they can based on the numbers. 538 does that. It doesn't make them perfect, but it means reading it will make you more informed than you would have been, because everything is open, their reasoning and assumptions are always laid out, and there is no secret agenda to bump one side more than the other.
In the present electoral environment that's not something you can dismiss.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Whoa... you're late there buddy... D-usa corrected me on this.
I know 538 is a polling data aggregate and attempts to divine it's meaning.
It's a sabermetric analysis on polling data.
Yeah, my bad. I was going to delete my post, it wasn't too late and the issue already settled. Seems you were too quick for me with your response
In other, way more important news, did you see my response to you asking for a friendly wager? I don't know if you missed my response, or if you responded and I missed that. I can't even remember what election thread that was in.
Anyhow, I took your offer of a wager on the issue, and said if Obama won you could have a Che Guevera avatar for a month, and if Romney won I'd have whatever avatar you chose to for me. What do you think?
I know you're joking but I swear to God there is blood coming from my ear.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: The controversy over the 2000 election was the hanging chads in Florida, not the popular vote.
Hanging chads was a big deal, and the recount debacle.
But for at least two years afterwards there was a huge deal about Bush not winning the popular vote. It was enough of a big deal that once the 2004 election was basically done and dusted, the Bush campaign put massive effort into getting the vote out in every state to make sure he won the popular vote.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kid_Kyoto wrote: The big two have stacked the deck with a winner-take-all system and also, frankly know their work. The last several elections have all been only a few points apart. If any 3rd party starts to rise the big two work to steal their best ideas and undercut their chance for success.
Umm, 'stealing their work'? This isn't Miss Strempel's eighth grade english class.
Picking up ideas that have popular support among the population is what political parties are supposed to do.
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2012/10/31 03:21:23
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2012/10/31 03:21:49
Subject: This will be an election you tell your kids about
whembly wrote: The reason being... is that it's too close right now. I think we're at the point where anybody can make the numbers "look good for their guy" at this point.
Of course they can. Which is why it's so good to find a site that isn't pimping for their guy, but is just trying to make the best they can based on the numbers. 538 does that. It doesn't make them perfect, but it means reading it will make you more informed than you would have been, because everything is open, their reasoning and assumptions are always laid out, and there is no secret agenda to bump one side more than the other.
In the present electoral environment that's not something you can dismiss.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Whoa... you're late there buddy... D-usa corrected me on this.
I know 538 is a polling data aggregate and attempts to divine it's meaning.
It's a sabermetric analysis on polling data.
Yeah, my bad. I was going to delete my post, it wasn't too late and the issue already settled. Seems you were too quick for me with your response
In other, way more important news, did you see my response to you asking for a friendly wager? I don't know if you missed my response, or if you responded and I missed that. I can't even remember what election thread that was in.
Anyhow, I took your offer of a wager on the issue, and said if Obama won you could have a Che Guevera avatar for a month, and if Romney won I'd have whatever avatar you chose to for me. What do you think?
No problemo dude...
I missed your response! Wager accepted! I'm thinking of a Paul Ryan avatar of some sort (nah... too mean... I'm sure I can think of something).
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2012/10/31 03:22:12
Subject: This will be an election you tell your kids about
Monster Rain wrote: The thing about the electoral college is, as dogma has pointed out, if the candidate receiving the electoral majority were reversed we'd be having the same conversation with the sides switched.
Hey, I've been saying that for weeks!
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2012/10/31 03:23:52
Subject: This will be an election you tell your kids about
Monster Rain wrote: The thing about the electoral college is, as dogma has pointed out, if the candidate receiving the electoral majority were reversed we'd be having the same conversation with the sides switched.
Hey, I've been saying that for weeks!
Wait... I missed this...
Are we saying that the Electoral College is flawed? It is... but I'd argue it's one of the better system around...
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2012/10/31 03:26:54
Subject: This will be an election you tell your kids about
WarOne wrote: Non-Democrats have been tossing away their vote here in NY since 1988....
Democrats have been tossing their vote away as well. Just as both parties have been tossing their votes away in California, or Kansas or Alabama or any of the 40 odd states that will only ever swing from one candidate to the other in a landslide result.
That's really the big reason to change to a popular vote, to make everyone's vote count, not just Florida, Ohio, Colorado and the others.
Are we saying that the Electoral College is flawed? It is... but I'd argue it's one of the better system around...
Nah, what I was saying that there's a chance of Romney winning the popular vote but losing the electoral college vote, and that'd mean the left and right wing would take up positions of yay/boo the electoral college and protest like 2000 never happened and they weren't saying the exact opposite things back then.
As for the electoral college itself... well it's okay. I mean over here the Wesminster system sort of the same, in that the party that wins the most votes overall doesn't win, but the party winning most districts (this actually happened in our most recent federal election).
That said, we don't vote for our head of state, we actually vote just for our local representative, who in turn votes for the Prime Minister. Where there's a person directly being elected, it does make sense to have popular voting. Afterall, shouldn't it bother people that when it comes to presidential politics, the opinions of people in major states like New York and Texas don't matter one bit, because they're safe states?
I mean, that said, as far as problems go it's a pretty small one. Lots of things I'd fixed before I bothered with that one.
I missed your response! Wager accepted! I'm thinking of a Paul Ryan avatar of some sort (nah... too mean... I'm sure I can think of something).
Hey, whatever you pick as long as it's dakka legal.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2012/10/31 03:34:36
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2012/10/31 03:37:55
Subject: This will be an election you tell your kids about
WarOne wrote: Non-Democrats have been tossing away their vote here in NY since 1988....
Democrats have been tossing their vote away as well. Just as both parties have been tossing their votes away in California, or Kansas or Alabama or any of the 40 odd states that will only ever swing from one candidate to the other in a landslide result.
That's really the big reason to change to a popular vote, to make everyone's vote count, not just Florida, Ohio, Colorado and the others.
I beg to differ... that's not how our system is setup.
The founders saw this that by having the Electoral College, it avoids the "tyranny of the majority" (a popular phrase) that is inherent in pure democratic systems. Otherwise, why campaign in Delaware? Montana? There are regional differences in those voting bloc... It also enables large and small sovereign states to co-exist with each other.
And that's what a lot of people forget... we are NOT one entity... we are 50 sovereign states with their own constitution AND one federal bureaucracy.
If we truly want to go to a popular vote (and we should do this anyways), then we need to stop the 2-party monopoly.
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2012/10/31 03:38:08
Subject: This will be an election you tell your kids about
Are we saying that the Electoral College is flawed? It is... but I'd argue it's one of the better system around...
Nah, what I was saying that there's a chance of Romney winning the popular vote but losing the electoral college vote, and that'd mean the left and right wing would take up positions of yay/boo the electoral college and protest like 2000 never happened and they weren't saying the exact opposite things back then.
As for the electoral college itself... well it's okay. I mean over here the Wesminster system sort of the same, in that the party that wins the most votes overall doesn't win, but the party winning most districts (this actually happened in our most recent federal election).
That said, we don't vote for our head of state, we actually vote just for our local representative, who in turn votes for the Prime Minister. Where there's a person directly being elected, it does make sense to have popular voting. Afterall, shouldn't it bother people that when it comes to presidential politics, the opinions of people in major states like New York and Texas don't matter one bit, because they're safe states?
I mean, that said, as far as problems go it's a pretty small one. Lots of things I'd fixed before I bothered with that one.
Huh... interesting regarding your Westminster system... so it's a "district" based Electoral Collage (as opposed to States)? **Google, here I come!**
Honestly, I don't think people were THAT bothered... the ones who were upset didn't understand how the system works... and, that's the beauty of this system... the founders/later congress even built the system to address this if there's a tie.
I'm mean, can you imagine the schadenfreude if Obama and Romney tied! Whoa-momma that'd be definately something I'd tell my kidz about!
I missed your response! Wager accepted! I'm thinking of a Paul Ryan avatar of some sort (nah... too mean... I'm sure I can think of something).
Hey, whatever you pick as long as it's dakka legal.
Right on! Maybe... Sarah Palin? (lol... no... I couldn't do that to you man... I'm actually laughing hysterically here...)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: Any system where the winner of the electoral college can become president with only ~25% of the vote is pretty stupid.
eh... it got us this far...
Like I said earlier... if we go with popular vote, then we need to stop the 2 party system. Open it up... Green, Commie, GW-fanboi party... all of them.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/10/31 03:49:51
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2012/10/31 03:55:55
Subject: This will be an election you tell your kids about
What would the platform of the GW Fanboi party be? Gaming Night is a national institution, cheetos and mountain dew receive federal subsidies? Golden Demon winners get a cash prize and a tax break as "national treasures"?
I beg of you sarge let me lead the charge when the battle lines are drawn
Lemme at least leave a good hoof beat they'll remember loud and long
KalashnikovMarine wrote: What would the platform of the GW Fanboi party be? Gaming Night is a national institution, cheetos and mountain dew receive federal subsidies? Golden Demon winners get a cash prize and a tax break as "national treasures"?
All those would certainly be up for vote...
We could rename our ships / tanks too!
Don't forget subsidies to help build your armies
If Boeing / General Dynamic feed on the trough for the "Military Industrial Complex"... why can GW feed on the same trough?
C'mon... need some help guys... lets build the new "GW Fanboi" party platform!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/10/31 04:04:48
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2012/10/31 04:43:05
Subject: This will be an election you tell your kids about
whembly wrote: I beg to differ... that's not how our system is setup.
The founders saw this that by having the Electoral College, it avoids the "tyranny of the majority" (a popular phrase) that is inherent in pure democratic systems. Otherwise, why campaign in Delaware? Montana? There are regional differences in those voting bloc... It also enables large and small sovereign states to co-exist with each other.
As opposed to the tyranny of Ohio?
I mean, right now it doesn't matter how much people in Utah, Texas or New York like Romney, if people in Ohio like him he'll almost certainly be president, if they don't he almost certainly won't. How much time have the Presidential candidates spent stumping in states other than the ten swing states in the last month?
Now, I know what you're saying about making sure every state matters, but the simple fact is that isn't the system you have. When it comes to the presidency 40 states don't matter right now.
And it isn't as though the minor states don't have protections anyway. They've still all got their two senators.
If we truly want to go to a popular vote (and we should do this anyways), then we need to stop the 2-party monopoly.
Americans are really hung up on this 2 party monopoly thing. You all seem to ignore the reason those two parties remain the only parties with a real chance is because when an issue becomes important to voters one major party or the other draws it into their platform.
Besides, when you have directly elected representatives (as opposed to proportionate election), a two option system is unavoidable. It will be to the advantage of groups of voters to coalesce into coalitions, backing a single candidate with their combined votes.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/10/31 04:43:59
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2012/10/31 04:48:24
Subject: Re:This will be an election you tell your kids about
YOu all sounding like ROmney won already or something
Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.
Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha
2012/10/31 04:51:06
Subject: This will be an election you tell your kids about
whembly wrote: Huh... interesting regarding your Westminster system... so it's a "district" based Electoral Collage (as opposed to States)? **Google, here I come!**
Yeah, basically we don't vote for our head of state. We vote for our local representative. Whichever party wins the majority of electorates (or can form a coalition representing the majority of electorates) will have its leader made Prime Minister. Then there's the Senate, which like yours has its members elected on a state by state basis.
The most interesting point of distinction from your system is that this means the head of state always from the party controlling the lower house of government. So we can't ever have a situation where the executive is at odds with the legislative.
Honestly, I don't think people were THAT bothered... the ones who were upset didn't understand how the system works... and, that's the beauty of this system... the founders/later congress even built the system to address this if there's a tie.
It's a pretty instinctive thing that the person who gets the most votes win the election.
I mean, what's funny is that sometimes you hear people here in Oz claim we should popularly elect our PM, and I will yell at them. But that's because I don't want to executive seperate from the legislative (as the former should reflect the will of the latter). But in your system, where that seperation is already in place why not go the whole hog?
I'm mean, can you imagine the schadenfreude if Obama and Romney tied! Whoa-momma that'd be definately something I'd tell my kidz about!
Did you read that other thread where we mentioned that? You'd have President Romney and Vice President Biden. It'd be hilarious.
Right on! Maybe... Sarah Palin? (lol... no... I couldn't do that to you man... I'm actually laughing hysterically here...)
Actually, I'd have to respect that kind of evil
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2012/10/31 04:51:51
Subject: This will be an election you tell your kids about
whembly wrote: I beg to differ... that's not how our system is setup.
The founders saw this that by having the Electoral College, it avoids the "tyranny of the majority" (a popular phrase) that is inherent in pure democratic systems. Otherwise, why campaign in Delaware? Montana? There are regional differences in those voting bloc... It also enables large and small sovereign states to co-exist with each other.
As opposed to the tyranny of Ohio?
Er what? Ohio is on the news because "its the battleground" state based on the polls. That's the nature of the system. Like Winsconsin, Minnie and now Penn... it's always been this way.
Last two years, it was Florida that was the battleground. Now... not so much.
I mean, right now it doesn't matter how much people in Utah, Texas or New York like Romney, if people in Ohio like him he'll almost certainly be president, if they don't he almost certainly won't. How much time have the Presidential candidates spent stumping in states other than the ten swing states in the last month?
I disagree... those voters still needs to vote. Yeah, some states are foregone conclusion, but that doesn't mean it can't never change. If someone has a wild hair up their ass (and some moola), they can try and break historical voting patterns of their states by running themselves. Yeah, it may take some time... but it happens.
Now, I know what you're saying about making sure every state matters, but the simple fact is that isn't the system you have. When it comes to the presidency 40 states don't matter right now.
They still need to vote.
And it isn't as though the minor states don't have protections anyway. They've still all got their two senators.
True... and that has merits.
If we truly want to go to a popular vote (and we should do this anyways), then we need to stop the 2-party monopoly.
Americans are really hung up on this 2 party monopoly thing. You all seem to ignore the reason those two parties remain the only parties with a real chance is because when an issue becomes important to voters one major party or the other draws it into their platform.
Besides, when you have directly elected representatives (as opposed to proportionate election), a two option system is unavoidable. It will be to the advantage of groups of voters to coalesce into coalitions, backing a single candidate with their combined votes.
Yeah... I get that.
I still want a GW-Fanboi party...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/10/31 04:52:38
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2012/10/31 04:55:02
Subject: Re:This will be an election you tell your kids about
Jihadin wrote: YOu all sounding like ROmney won already or something
538 has posted four new polls from Ohio today. Rasmussen gives it to Romney by 2, but the other three all report for Obama by either 3 or 4 points. This has strengthened Obama's position in Obama, by 538's model, to a 78% chance of winning. Given how much this race is turning on Ohio, that number is pretty much exactly what Obama's chance of winning the election is.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2012/10/31 05:03:08
Subject: Re:This will be an election you tell your kids about
Jihadin wrote: YOu all sounding like ROmney won already or something
538 has posted four new polls from Ohio today. Rasmussen gives it to Romney by 2, but the other three all report for Obama by either 3 or 4 points. This has strengthened Obama's position in Obama, by 538's model, to a 78% chance of winning. Given how much this race is turning on Ohio, that number is pretty much exactly what Obama's chance of winning the election is.
We'll just see right?
Romney can still lose Ohio and get enough electoral votes... but, I'm thinking he'll win Ohio too. For some reason, that Jeep Ad (which is widely criticized, but was accurate) and that Coal Ad is resonating with Ohio voters. They have coal mines in Ohio?? I thought those were Virginian ads... *shrugs*
man... 'tis late kids... need some shut eye time...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: Just one of many good examples why our system is screwed up:
You're secretly hoping for a 269-269 draw eh?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/10/31 05:03:56
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2012/10/31 05:05:45
Subject: This will be an election you tell your kids about
whembly wrote: Er what? Ohio is on the news because "its the battleground" state based on the polls. That's the nature of the system. Like Winsconsin, Minnie and now Penn... it's always been this way.
Last two years, it was Florida that was the battleground. Now... not so much.
Uh, Florida is another key battleground state. It was Romney moving ahead in polls there that gave him an actual chance of winning this election (though there's still more chance of Obama winning there than Romney winning Ohio, IMO).
But seriously, look at the key battleground states in this election. Not where the vote was closest, but the state that took a candidate over 269 votes and all those around that point. Then look at the key states from 2008, then 2004, then 2000. It's the same states.
I disagree... those voters still needs to vote. Yeah, some states are foregone conclusion, but that doesn't mean it can't never change. If someone has a wild hair up their ass (and some moola), they can try and break historical voting patterns of their states by running themselves. Yeah, it may take some time... but it happens.
Well, sure, people have been waiting for the blue drift in Texas to turn that state into a battleground again. And it was a blue state in living memory.
But that's not what I'm saying. I am saying that in a given election, candidates look at the states they can't win, and can't lose, and put little effort into them. You said people wouldn't bother with Delaware or other small states... except you're missing the fact that candidates wouldn't bother with state based systems at all anymore. They'd campaign person by person, demographic by demographic, across the whole country. Because winning a vote, whether it's in Delaware or California would matter.
Right now, winning a vote in Delaware is meaningless, because Obama leads there by 20.
They still need to vote.
If you live in Delaware and you don't vote, it changes nothing. If you convince everyone you know not to bother voting, it changes nothing. Because Obama will win Delaware, and it doesn't matter if it ends up being by 20 points or 5, those votes are going to Obama.
True... and that has merits.
Absolutely.
Yeah... I get that.
I still want a GW-Fanboi party...
Well start one
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/10/31 05:06:07
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2012/10/31 05:06:13
Subject: This will be an election you tell your kids about
Not hoping for a draw, just hoping that we would wake up someday and get rid of pretending that we are a system that actually cares about representative democracy and just admit that we are a "vote by party" population and should just switch to a system of dividing the lower house by percentage of votes per party in each state.
2012/10/31 05:21:20
Subject: This will be an election you tell your kids about
d-usa wrote: Just one of many good examples why our system is screwed up:
I stopped about a minute in when the narrator described the exact intent of the electoral college as a problem; then went on to piss and moan about the states that already have too much power in the electoral college not having enough electoral votes.
No offense to you Dusa, but whoever made that video is a fethtard.
Avatar 720 wrote: You see, to Auston, everyone is a Death Star; there's only one way you can take it and that's through a small gap at the back.
Powder Burns wrote:what they need to make is a fullsize leatherman, like 14" long folded, with a bone saw, notches for bowstring, signaling flare, electrical hand crank generator, bolt cutters..
2012/10/31 06:04:22
Subject: This will be an election you tell your kids about
Powder Burns wrote:what they need to make is a fullsize leatherman, like 14" long folded, with a bone saw, notches for bowstring, signaling flare, electrical hand crank generator, bolt cutters..
2012/10/31 06:17:35
Subject: Re:This will be an election you tell your kids about
d-usa wrote: Just one of many good examples why our system is screwed up:
I stopped about a minute in when the narrator described the exact intent of the electoral college as a problem; then went on to piss and moan about the states that already have too much power in the electoral college not having enough electoral votes.
No offense to you Dusa, but whoever made that video is a fethtard.
Your loss, he actually makes a good argument.
AustonT wrote: I doubt the producer/narrator got less stupid in the other four minutes.
You can't exactly form an opinion about the video without watching it. That's stupid, if anything.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/10/31 06:18:35
2012/10/31 06:25:39
Subject: Re:This will be an election you tell your kids about
Maybe... Sarah Palin? (
