I never left.

Oh I'm not worked up, I just don't see ever encountering something this dumb again.

This is literally my absolute peak. Someone unironically just called math partisan.

Except all that was linked to him was the formula being applied to the maps.

There's no possible way for it to be "partisan." so he literally just called math partisan.

The article is literally applying this formula:

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2457468

To the map. They aren't doing anything with it, it's literally just the open formula you yourself can go apply to the map if you want.

It literally can't be "partisan."

What does the organization have to do with a math formula? Either he's calling math partisan, or he's trying to reject math with a fallacious ad hominem, either way, he's avoiding math that proves him wrong.

Is this what you're referring to?

Yeah, Jubber doesn't understand what gerrymandering is or how we detect them.

He thinks the outcome of a gerrymander is based on the shape of the district, but that isn't how it works.

When looking at partisan gerrymanders we use various formulas to determine how bad the gerrymander actually is.

One of those is called the "efficiency" gap. This is a formula developed specifically for this:

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2457468

I linked him something applying this formula and he called it partisan.

He literally just said a math formula was partisan.

What is biased about the presented formula?

Do you literally not understand what is happening here?

Republicans are creating basically wave-immune districts.

The only fix to gerrymandering - the only way to create fair districts is to create compact districts.

Your solution amounts to rigging districts so Republicans can still be competitive, that's not called a "fair district."

Are you unironically 50 IQ? What are you even trying to argue at this point?

Why are compact districts bad? How is a formula that clearly shows extreme gerrymandering somehow biased?

The only way to conclude this is somehow "biased" is if you believe fair districts are biased.

A party having a deficit in votes means they should lose elections. Explain why that is bad.

I already explained it, but you refused to answer that because your debating style is ignoring everything that put hole in your argument than claiming victory after people get fed up with your retardation.

You didn't, your argument was literally stupid. There's no bias in a formula that simply shows rigged districts.

X got 49.9999 to Y 50. Therefore the X should not have a single seat anywhere. Your actual, unironic take. lmao.

Are you dumb? Yes, that is how the American electoral system works.

A loss by 1 vote is the same as a loss by 500 votes. Furthermore, compact districts wouldn't be an outcome of "not one seat" for anyone.

If you were to end gerrymandering in America and draw compact districts the outcome would be a swing of 10 house seats towards the democratic party.

If you don't like the electoral system (the one, btw, Republicans refuse to change) then take it up with them.

They want this system. What they don't want is fair districts because they can't win voters with their unhinged platform.

To be clear here, are you unironically trying to argue that fair districts, as in districts with no rigging, are actually unfair and more partisan than leaving literal rigged districts in place?

Do you seriously not read the shit you type?

Like really lmao?

As far as I can tell you don't even know what the wasted vote formula is:

Wasted votes are the basis for computing the efficiency gap, a measure devised by University of Chicago law professor Nicholas Stephanopoulos and political scientist Eric McGhee in 2014. This statistic has been used to quantitatively assess the effect of gerrymandering, the assigning of voters to electoral districts in such a way as to increase the number of districts won by one political party at the expense of another.[1] It has been called the most scrutinized method of measuring gerrymandering.[4] The heart of the computation is to add up, over all electoral districts, the wasted votes of each party's candidates. The efficiency gap is the difference between the two parties' wasted votes, divided by the total number of votes.[1][5] Stephanopoulos and McGhee argued that in a non-partisan redistricting with two roughly equally popular parties, the efficiency gap would be zero, with an equal number of wasted votes from either party. If the gap exceeded 7%, then Stephanopoulos and McGhee argued that this could ensure the party with fewer wasted votes would be able to control the state for the duration of the validity of the district map.[6][7]

Citing in part an efficiency gap of 11.69% to 13% in favor of the Republicans, in 2016 a U.S. District Court ruled in Gill v. Whitford against the 2011 drawing of Wisconsin legislative districts. It was the first U.S. Federal court ruling to strike down a redistricting on the grounds of favoring a political party. In the 2012 election for the state legislature, Republican candidates had 48.6% of the two-party votes but won 61% of the 99 districts. The court found that the disparate treatment of Democratic and Republican voters violated the 1st and 14th amendments to the US Constitution.[8] The State appealed the district court's Gill v. Whitford ruling to the Supreme Court,[6] which said that the plaintiffs did not have standing and sent the case back to the district court. Consequently, existing gerrymandered district maps were used in the 2018 elections. For the State Assembly, 54% of the popular vote supported Democratic candidates, but the Republicans retained their 63-seat majority. The efficiency gap, estimated to be 10% in 2014, increased to 15% based on election results.[9]

You are completely low IQ man. I don't even know how to help you here.

There's a tool that shows you exactly how the house changes based on different methods of ending gerrymandering:

To show you exactly how dumb your argument is, here's the map in which compact districts are drawn:

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/redistricting-maps/#algorithmic-compact

The primary issue with your argument is you seemingly didn't account for or consider "competitive districts."

It's literally not worse, and the issue isn't me not understanding your argument, it's that your argument is dumb.

The only outcome of compact maps = more competitive district and fewer safe Republican and democraitc seats.

Even if we were to take your argument at face value (we shouldn't, it's stupid) fair districts are not "unfair."

How are you this dumb lmao.

You understand you have to do this on a state by state basis, right? Trying to look at national vote share and percentage of seats to make this argument is really bizarre.

Some states have much larger congressional districts than others.

And now you get back to arguing for gerrymandering. Make up your mind.

Except no, I'm not. A fair district is not "gerrymandered." There's nothing unethical about 1 person 1 vote, and fair districts.

There's a lot unethical about drawing districts specifically to lock in a certain balance of seats.

That's literally the only correct take broski

Not really, the senate isn't intended to be based on the population vote share.

Yet you are arguing against the option that is closest to the proportionnal one.

It's literally not man, you can go look at what a fair map would break down into.

There's no perfect solution, literally, all we can do is come up with a way to create competitive districts.

Either way, to put into perspective for you how extreme the gerrymandering actually is in America, compare the 2010 tea party win with the 2018 democratic win.

Democrats won the house vote by about 8 points in 2018, and took home 37 more seats.

Republicans won the vote by about 7% in 2010 and took home 63 more seats.

Do you not see the problem here?

The 2018 advantage in favor of Republicans was extreme. The GOP won about 16 more seats than would be expected based on average vote share across all congressional districts:

https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/2019/03/22/gerrymandering-gop-redistricting-edge-muted-democrats-gains-2018/3234065002/

1

Ah, yes, not letting people decide is the proof of a good democracy.

The US is not a good democracy. It's actually garbage, as shown by gerrymandering and the senate. I'm no fan of the senate, but there's nothing we can legally do about it.

So you are saying you were wrong wrt to the previous 10 seat number you put out?

I have now given you 4 different empirical sources showing the absurdity of gerrymandering in America.

I have given you multiple empirical sources showing the map make ups with actual fair districts.

You can accept these or keep denying them and trying to defend electoral rigging, your choice.

Yes, you could do gerrymandering back to ensures correct result. This way you would have only 1 seat of difference to expected output.

No gerrymandering, period. Political parties picking their own voters is literally rigging.

I am asking again because you aren't answering :

No, you're just not factoring in seat changes in either direction. I have no idea how many seats democrats would also lose in compact districts, or how many would switch.

When you create 40 new competitive districts, they're by definition, competitive.

So you are in favor of dissolving the states? Your views are severely uncoherent tbh.

Are you actually illiterate? Am I reading this correctly that you think ending gerrymandering is the same thing as dissolving states?

Ok we need to back up here. Define for me using your own words what you think gerrymandering is.

So let me explain this.

There are 2 forms of gerrymander.

A) Unintentional gerrymandering that takes place due to geography.

For example, you could draw random districts in a state and still end up with unintentional gerrymanders.

B) Intentional gerrymandering.

There's always been some form of gerrymandering in America - intentional and unintentional.

What's happened in 2010 is computer software advanced to the point where politicians could draw incredibly precise, gerrymandered maps that were wave immune, meaning that there is realistically no political solution to fixing them outside of re-drawing them.

This is completely unlike anything that has happened previously in American history.

When we talk about gerrymandering - what we mean is this form of extreme, intentional gerrymandering meant to lock in place specific ratios.

There's nothing about the states that requires this. A map doesn't have to be gerrymandered, there are numerous ways to draw fair maps, competitive maps. Being against rigged districts with map software doesn't mean one is in favor of "dissolving the states."

What is being suggested is the districts are drawn using software that focuses on compactness.

This is what a compact map looks like:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2016/01/gerrymandering_compact.jpg

As you can see, these are fair, even districts. There's no real advantage for anyone here.

On a side note, why do you care so much about it, when it's provably pretty much nill (literally one seat out of 435 of difference).

Because it's not nil. As seen by the radically different 2010 win and 2018 win.

And house races aren't the only problem with gerrymandering, state houses are also a problem.

The state seats are actually vastly more gerrymandered than the national seats are.

We're talking democrats winning 50% of the vote and walking away with 30% of the seats.

Ah, yes, one side compare results to what would be expected if it was fair and the other draw with crayon. It also is completely unrelated to the formula you talked about.

No, it's literally not unrelated. Drawing compact districts would also solve the gap.

As a reminder, if the vote in the house was proportionnal it would be literally 1 seat away from the one that resulted.

The house is not "proportional" so I'm baffled as to why you keep saying this.

So what you are arguing for is a gerrymandering that is literally 16 times worse than the current state of affair. And you call this non partisan. LMAO

Gerrymandering does not mean "fair districts." You're again, trying to claim that fair, computer drawn districts are somehow partisan and gerrymanders.

Do you have idea how mentally disabled you have to be to think this?

Would it? So far you have proven

The efficiency gap is a way to identify gerrymanders, it's not a model for re-drawing the maps.

Compactness is a model for re-drawing the map. The product of compactness is reducing the gap.

No it's not. But it's the perfection of one person one vote that you pretend to fight for.

It is literally not mathematically possible for the house to be proportional in a winner take all system.

I am starting to understand that you are actually, really, really dumb. Like you didn't even think a second about what is the supposed goal of gerrymandering, what should be the result.

No, I think you're dumb. You seemingly can't comprehend the difference between intentional malicious gerrymandering and fair districts.

1) what exactly would be fair? Give a criteria.

Even districts drawn with no political bias.

2) Once you understood that the criteria of 1) is basically the proportionnal vote, think a bit about the fact that one would be 1 vote away from it and the other 16 vote away from it.

Do you literally need like a basic lesson here in english?

Think about how dumb the argument you're making is.

Let's say we have 3 people lined up for a foot race. Let's say one of those people is fat and runs slower than the other 2.

Let's say the fat kid gets control of the foot race rule board and moves his starting line closer to the finishing line.

Let's say the other 2 people protest, and fight to make all 3 lines equal again.

Is this unfair, is this rigged against the fat kid? No, of course it isn't. The idea that non-partisan, non-gerrymandered fair, even districts are somehow "unfair" and "partisan" on the basis Republicans are on the losing end of those districts is so profoundly stupid it borders on mental illness.

Ok, either I explained this poorly or you're dumb. I'll assume it's a bit of both.

This seems unlikely to me given that people tend to congregate toward their own.

How compactness works is as follows:

This map is based on a computer algorithm, written by software engineer Brian Olson, that minimizes the average distance between each constituent and his or her district's geographic center. The algorithm doesn’t care about party or race (meaning this map could violate the Voting Rights Act) and ignores city and county boundaries.

1

Yes, it is lmao. Just redraw districts to have each a set of 100k people that are all either republican/democrats for this election (one type per district).

The issue is that we do not have enough house seats. What you're talking about is greatly expanding the size of the house, which would address gerrymandering. The way we appoint seats is stupid and makes it very hard to have proportional representation:

https://time.com/5423623/house-representatives-number-seats/

Congress has tried five different algorithms to tackle the problem since 1789, finally landing on an elegant process called the “equal proportions method,” which has been in use since 1940. The way it works is quite clever. After comping every state one representative, this algorithm uses a round-robin system to apportion the remaining 385 seats one at a time to the state that needs another seat the most, until every seat is assigned and so ends the game of musical chairs. That neediness is calculated by taking each state’s population and dividing it by the square root of the number of seats it has thus far in the process multiplied by that number plus one — which is to say, a weighted prediction of how much better its people-per-representative figure would get if it was awarded the next seat. (This is known as the “geometric mean.”) After each seat is assigned, this neediness is recalculated and usually a different state rises to the top of the priority list.

The method isn’t perfect, but it is the best way to minimize unfairness that lawmakers could agree on 80 years ago. And it’s not a bad solution. The problem isn’t the math. The problem is that there just aren’t enough seats to go around.

1

You literally can't determine what is fair and what is not, and you attempt to use that.

You can though, is the thing.

This is the most retarded take I have read in a long while. Anyway if that is the goal, I am a better drawer than you because I am less politically biased, not being from the US, let alone being a stan for one of your parties.

I am not calling for me or any human to draw the districts, but a computer to draw them.

So yet again, I was right and you were wrong. It's starting to get quite common, start having a point fast please.

You are deluded.

Divide population by number of electors to get the size of a district. How fucking dumb are you?

Why are you suggesting shit that you clearly don't comprehend?

This isn't how our system works, you can not change how anything currently works other than drawing the maps.

Do you even know that the electors are based on the number of house seats/senate?

Which make it quite impressive that it's literally one seat away from it innit.

It's not.

Guess who tell the computer to draw you absolute rslur?

An open source algo that has no bias?

You are unironically just too dumb man, I don't think I can help you.

I'm literally not going to engage in this stupidity man.

You're not comprehending how the map would change with new districts, or the fact bigger states (which tend to be blue) are under-represented in the house for multiple reasons.

Like, you aren't getting why your claim is stupid.

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2017/02/22/misrepresentation-in-the-house/

This isn't something you know anything about so it's pointless trying to help you.

To put into perspective why your argument is really dumb, is when we break this down on a state by state basis (which is what you're supposed to do) the problem is very obvious:

This aggregate over-representation of the majority party is considerably extreme when looked at state-by-state. In red states (see Figure 2), Republicans garnered 56 percent of the vote but 74.6 percent of representation. In blue states, Democrats won 60.3 percent of the vote but 69.1 percent of representation.

We're talking about fixing the system so states have equal representation. You keep trying to look at the total national margin and don't understand that isn't relevant.

Misrepresentation is considerably larger within each red and blue grouping than in the U.S. as a whole. Translated into seats in the House, Democrats over-represent blue states (excluding the two flipped states) by 19 seats, whereas Republicans over-represent true red and flipped blue states by 40 seats. Republicans over-represent red states (true and flipped) by 16 percentage points, while in united blue states the disparity is 11 percentage points.

This is a topic far too complex for someone that gets everything they know filtered through 4chan.

Because it's not relevant to any argument being made. It's again, you not understanding what is being said.

You're clearly not educated on this subject nor do you care to be educated on the subject.

You're also not even looking at the house over, for example, a 10 year period, and trying to look at singular years (which are wave elections, which make the house representation map look better than it actually is.)

The 10 year average looks vastly different. The 20 year average looks vastly different.

So no, the house is not "within 1 seat" because there happened to be a wave election in which democrats won by 8.3 points, nor does that change the fact on a state by state basis either party can get 65-78% of the representation with 50-56% of the vote.

I'm done with this shit, feel free to read:

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2017/02/22/misrepresentation-in-the-house/

It's not that you're wrong in the sense the current balance is "acceptable."

It's that you don't understand what is being said to you.

The map looks "ok" when democrats win by 8.3 points. Now how do you think the map looks when Republicans win by 8.3 points?

No, because it's pointless. Think about the incoherence of what you're asking me.

even if I couldn't do it (lmao) I could literally just pull up a calculator and do it.

Me not answering you is based entirely on it holding no relevance to the argument.

Can you unironically not read?

Gonna just assume you're illiterate.

https://www.readingrockets.org/helping/target/comprehension

https://www.readingrockets.org/helping/target/comprehension

https://www.readingrockets.org/helping/target/comprehension

https://www.readingrockets.org/helping/target/comprehension

https://www.readingrockets.org/helping/target/comprehension

Considering it aligns with the other formulas that also exist to expose partisan gerrymanders, I doubt it.

If there was some bias in the formula it'd be easy to prove. The formula is actually very simple, it's based on "wasted" votes as in what percentage of voters are being wasted or having their votes not really count.

For example, if a state has 4 districts, and 1 of them is democratic by 92 points, something fishy is most likely going on, as in basically every Democratic voter in the state is being packed into 1 district.

The GOP has basically been engaging in the most extreme gerrymandering in history for years now.

Jubber is just a poorly educated internet conservative that uses the same playbook they all do.

• lose an argument.

• deflect.

• chant "but both sides."

• Declare all data that says he's wrong fake.

The GOP has not one redeeming quality. It's a poorly educated, hyper-partisan religious conspiracy cult engaging in open electoral rigging.

The only thing they are good at is bamboozling rubes.

This is literally a pants on head stupid argument. Literally any fix to gerrymandering is going to cause a net flip in seats because Republicans have gerrymandered the country to hell and back.

Using that logic, literally anything that could possibly fix gerrymandering is somehow partisan and biased.

You've got it very wrong, which is probably because you are a leaf.

America has a long history of voter laws put in place specifically to suppress minority voters.

This is something, as far as I know, did not exist in other western countries. The thing about these laws is they always seem race neutral, but aren't actually.

Take the poll tests of the Jim Crow era, for example.

Anyway - democrats aren't actually against photo ID laws. They're against Republican attempts at photo ID laws which always happen to include other restrictions, that are clearly intended to reduce voter turnout.

This isn't my opinion - it's literal court rulings. Take the NC law which multiple courts struck down:

https://pdfserver.amlaw.com/nlj/7-29-16%204th%20Circuit%20NAACP%20v%20NC.pdf

Moreover, as the district court found, prior to enactment of SL 2013-381, the legislature requested and received racial data as to usage of the practices changed by the proposed law.

After Shelby County, with race data in hand, the legislature amended the bill to exclude many of the alternative photo IDs used by African Americans. Id. at *142; J.A. 2291-92. As amended, the bill retained only the kinds of IDs that white North Carolinians were more likely to possess.

And for example, attempts to end sunday voting:

The State then elaborated on its justification, explaining that “[c]ounties with Sunday voting in 2014 were disproportionately black” and “disproportionately Democratic.” J.A. 22348-49. In response, SL 2013-381 did away with one of the two days of Sunday voting.

And this wasn't all that took place. The US supreme court had to strike down multiple districts on the basis they were illegal racial gerrymanders:

https://www.johnsoncitypress.com/news/nation-world/supreme-court-strikes-down-two-nc-congressional-districts/article_fe93abd2-19a4-5e4b-b49f-1ba74ea8b6dd.html

The point is, this isn't just about ID. It's about a constant pattern of Republicans trying to suppress black voters, because they can not win black voters. They have repeatedly lost in court.

None of this negates the fact that their is nothing inherently partisan about voter ID laws just like their is nothing inherently partisan about using a particular formula to prevent gerrymandering. Dems and Reps are starting from different optimization criteria.

When you write the laws specifically to suppress voters you can't win, that is in fact partisan.

Republicans want to maximize the quality of votes - i.e. minimize 'questionable' votes from people without photo ids/ mail-in ballots etc.

No, they don't. The entire calculation, from start to finish, is to reduce turnout.

They have repeatedly lost in court, fabricated claims of voter fraud, and failed to present any evidence a problem even exists.

I've no doubt the Republicans do some fucky shit to up their chances, both parties would be fools not to maximize their chances of winning. That's just Realpolitik. You don't gain power in the most powerful empire to ever exist on Earth without some Machiavellian tendencies.

I don't entertain both siderism. I deal in facts.

There are 34 states that require photo ID so it doesn't seem that they always lose.

They have lost in relation to their more absurd ones, many blue states have photo ID laws as well. You're not actually refuting me here, you're proving my point.

Democrats aren't against ID, they're against Republican rigging.

Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. It's implausible that in a country of 330 million people there is zero voter fraud going on.

This is what we call a strawman argument. There's a non-zero amount of fraud. There is no organized fraud, nor does fraud take place at any large enough rate to flip elections.

Voter fraud in America is a very rare occurance. You can look at the various papers on this subject:

https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/analysis/Briefing_Memo_Debunking_Voter_Fraud_Myth.pdf

1

Again, we are starting from different assumptions. Power processes are the most likely of all processes to be corrupted by partisan courts, cherry picked statistics and distorted information feeds.

Again, not responding to the point, just making weird accusations of partisan bias or whatever, which isn't actually defensible.

The rest of this doesn't even seem relevant to what is being said. We can dance around with sophisms like this all day, the point is I have the data, you do not.

One thing I never got was the idea that Trump was simultaneously a fascistic threat to US democracy and that any attempt to rig the election in favor of democracy was somehow beyond the pale.

Trump was a major threat to US democracy because he destroyed norms and ran around claiming the system was rigged and fake.

The US electoral system, in practice, is far too large, decentralized, and scattered to fall victim to any kind of organized election theft attempt. We're talking about hundreds of thousands of people, many thousands of different rules, regulations, department heads etc.

If Trump was in fact a significant threat to American democracy/pluralism and usher in an era of concentration camps for Muslims/Jews/LGBT or whatever then ensuring he lost via any and all means wasn't just justified, but a moral imperative.

The thing is, Trump was deeply unpopular, mentally ill, and failing left and right. Nothing has to be rigged to make sure he loses.

One of the following must be true: Trump wasn't a fascistic threat, Dems rigged the election, or Dems are indifferent to another Holocaust occurring.

Trump was a fascistic threat, the election wasn't rigged, and Trump was carrying out another "holocaust" was not a serious talking point outside of the most fringe internet social media spheres or blog tier media.

You're appealing to empiricism where I have reason to doubt the sources (power processes are inherently corrupting) while I'm trying to argue from a point of deductive reasoning which is why we are talking past each other.

But you have no reason to doubt the sources. They're all credible, published papers, from reputable sources, and all of the data is available for you to go check yourself.

You're seemingly getting what you know about US politics filtered through 4chan or something.

If Trump had flipped 43000 votes in three states the electoral college would have been tied. You're way overstating your case here - the election was close. Closer than 2016.

The election was not closer than 2016, you are straight making that up or misinformed.

The margins Biden won by in those states was actually fairly standard in an American election and larger than the margins Trump won by in 2016.

https://www.statesman.com/story/news/politics/politifact/2021/01/11/mitch-mcconnell-says-accurately-joe-bidens-win-wasnt-unusually-close/6623432002/

The 2020 election was not close.

One of the following must be true: Trump wasn't a fascistic threat, Dems rigged the election, or Dems are indifferent to democracy ending.

Or, you know, democrats aren't going to engage in illegality when they don't have to.

There is a replication crisis in the social sciences, that's reason enough to take non-political let alone political studies with a grain of salt.

That's neat, this has nothing to do with the things I linked you. Incoherently invoking "replication" crisis to discount just objective, publicly available empirical data is very weird.

Either you don't know what a replication crisis is, or again, are getting what you read filtered through 4chan.

2016 and 2020 were virtually tied in terms of the victory margin. 2000, 2004, 2016 and 2020 are all in the top 25% closest electoral victories in US election history. They are only normal if you restrict to the last 20 years of elections which are historically close due to increased polarization.

While I understand you probably aren't America, trying to cite the electoral college margin is hilarious. The election was not that close. Biden won by fairly stable and large margins in the relevant states.

Biden even won with a 2+ state buffer.

At what percentage chance of a Trump win is rigging the election morally justified in your view?

I have no idea, there's probably no moral cause for rigging the election. Trump wasn't popular, if the guy did anything super obviously illegal he'd be dragged out of the WH. You don't go far for a 36% approval rating. Not exactly enough to pull much of anything off.

He was a fascist threat, thankfully fascism is only appealing to about 36% of the population.

Trump and his base hit every single marker of a proto-fascist movement.

A fascist is a threat no matter what, especially if they're allowed to lay roots and inflame tensions.

The only 2 successful fascist movements in history did what they did with about 35% support.

If he was a fascist threat then rigging the election is a moral imperative. You're oscillating between him being impotent.

You keep trying to bait me into this false dillema. No, that isn't how reality works.

I don't know if you're some internet pseudointellectual that saw some other clown make this argument and couldn't identify the fallacy or what, but no.

Most people don't even know what fascism is. Normalcy bias is in fact a think.

Trump was, by literally all definitions of the term a proto-fascist.

That doesn't mean anyone is going to start rigging elections.

To saying he had a good chance at achieving a victory for fascism.

He did, the institution barely survived.

Do you not see the contradiction here?

No, because you're trying to engage in these little fallacious arguments.

Impotent again. You can't have it both ways.

Something being a fascist threat doesn't mean they're a successful fascist threat.

Even a failed fascist can destroy a country.

Ok pal, considering you again want to throw out terms you clearly do not understand, let's do this.

Point to me a single piece of credible evidence in relation to organized election fraud during the 2020 election.

Show me this evidence of election fraud.

I mean, if you're nutting from losing arguments you have issues.

Guy, you literally just tried to set up some dumb false dilemma, were wrong on pretty much every point you made, and didn't make any coherent argument.

Idk how spending more effort irl is going to change dark circles under my eyes caused by allergies.

https://www.healthline.com/health/allergic-shiners#causes-and-riskfactors

Hahahahahaha.

You really gotta stop coming at me. How many arguments will you lose before you stop?

You literally tried to claim the statement "people will die if we don't address climate change" was crazy.

Honestly, you're way dumber than jubber, which is crazy. You lose every argument you come at me with. You're a low tier fent brained ape.

Because it is a ridiculous statement and you couldn't refute it.

I literally did refute it. That statement is objectively correct. You tried to throw out the braindead climate denier talking point "but the climate has changed before."

Take your meds, schizo.

Keep losing arguments.

Holy shit you actually did it again, let's do it.

So are you arguing the position that the climate is static? Despite what science says? Sounds like a science denier....

No, you moron. Obviously the climate has changed before. The difference is modern civilization didn't exist then, and the climate has never changed this quickly.

Your argument is about as dumb as saying "so what if an asteroid is going to hit the earth, it's happened before." The climate changing before has no relevance to the current state of things, and it doesn't mean everything will be ok.

For context for everyone else: he's literally defending AOC who writes the sort of policies to try and prevent cows from farting that cause the earth "to warm."

Wow, almost like you're low IQ and don't actually know what is being talked about:

https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/33/which-is-a-bigger-methane-source-cow-belching-or-cow-flatulence/

Jesus Christ, how are you so profoundly stupid?

I never lost, schizo, keep trying tho B)

You just did, again, for the 7th time.

Except that wasn't the argument you were making. You were in fact arguing the opposite and failed to be specific. Try again.

That literally was the argument. AOC correctly states that if climate change is unaddressed, people will die.

If you were actually smart, maybe look at a data chart that maybe start way longer than just 30 or 40 years ago to actually get a true picture and idea of the climate. From a PhD level scientist in molecular biology and biochemistry who recently published an essay.

I'm sure you do trust that source, considering he's a fucking wackjob climate denier shilling the long debunked "but the sun is causing this" meme.

Like do you seriously not get why nobody takes you people seriously? You link dumb shit like this, from actual quacks that have been shilling climate denial for years, and try to pass them off as real sources.

You conveniently ignore the overwhelming scientific consensus against them, and then you try to accuse the scientific consensus of somehow being "activist" when in reality the people you're linking are the activists.

Fucking cringe.

I trust sources like these than "climate advocates" that suggest we put diapers (or muzzles) on cows to stop them from emitting hot gas and eating bugs while elites continue to buy water front properties and fly private jets for climate awards.

Again, why are you a pathological liar? The suggestion is to change the diet of cows because they are in fact a large source of methane you fucking inbred twat:

https://www.eenews.net/special_reports/recipe_for_change/stories/1060367345

1

I stand with science

No, you literally do not. If you stood with the science, you wouldn't be lying about cows and linking known climate denier sources of information while you ignore overwhelming scientific consensus on the subject.

An asteroid is not planetary climate, it's an external foreign object. I thought you'd be smart enough to differentiate between the two.

Are you actually this slow? The point still stands - just because the climate has changed before doesn't mean anything. Lots of bad things have happened before, but we weren't around to experience them.

lol Oh, my bad, sorry, cow burps. Wrong hole. Glad this is the hill you want to burp on.

Hint: you're fucking wrong.

And I just won for the 8th time. Thanks for keeping my streak going.

This is why you're a joke dude. You're literally linking blog posts from climate deniers and pretending they somehow erase scientific consensus and then declaring victory, after being proving a fucking clown.

That's a yikes from me dog.

And, again, for the third time, that can be made for about any statement.

That again, does not change the fact is completely correct.

People are always going to die, so explain to me how a policy that puts more money in government, going to save people?

Explain to you how slowing down climate change can prevent deaths?

literally there is more than just "The sun" in those graphs, but okay, I understand, multi-graph instruments are too complicated for you.

No, there's not idiot. This has been debunked countless times, it's one of the oldest climate denier talking points:

https://skepticalscience.com/Is-the-sun-causing-global-warming.html

These people are very good at repeating bullshit that has been debunked, except in a very long-winded way that fools poorly educated people such as yourself.

So what you're saying is you have no real arguments. Got it.

No, I actually made my argument pretty clearly: your climate change denial blog is not a valid source of information.

Ad populism fallacy. I'm not even going to start with debunking the "overwhelming consensus" where someone like Mickey Mouse signed on and anyone who dissents are silenced.

If I had a dime for every time one of you people tried to misuse fallacies like this, I'd have a lot of dimes.

Ad populism applies when things are believed by the masses with no evidence. A scientific consensus is not a "fallacy."

A scientific consensus is based on what the majority of the research says on a subject - it is empirical. Here, try this wiki page to educate yourself on the basics:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus#:~:text=Scientific%20consensus%20is%20the%20collective,agreement%2C%20though%20not%20necessarily%20unanimity.

I can also provide to you some logic textbooks so you learn what fallacies actually are and don't misuse them in such an absurd way.

I'm not sure why you are addressing yourself like this.

Who do you think you are fooling?

Except you never made that argument at all. You just linked "cows burp" or did you forget you schizo?

You tried to attack AOC for making a meme about cow methane production and pretend it was absurd, when again, she was completely right.