Fizzzzle

Just now, Massdriver said:

Once I’m off work and I’ve run with our dog, I’ll likely be on here with you all tonight as we celebrate Texas going blue!

Don't hatch your chickens until you count them or whatever.

On 10/20/2020 at 3:48 PM, AbsolutSurgen said:

Don’t do it. You know there will be a 40% off sale by spring. Nobody discounts like Ubi. 

I've also realized there's no point (for me, at least) buying huge games like AC until after all of the DLC is out, because after that I'll just play through the whole thing again and I ain't got time for that. I just did a rerun of AC Odyssey and it took me like 120 hours with all of the DLC. I did the same thing with The Witcher 3 last year, it was a little over 100 hours. With Valhalla, I think I'll just wait this time and play through it once. No need to be in a hurry.

Just now, mclumber1 said:

I'm confident we'll know the trajectory of Nevada by the end of the night, even if they are still counting mail in ballots for the next week.  

Depends on how many people voted early, I suppose. And how close the race is.

1 minute ago, CitizenVectron said:

Obviously it won't be forever...but I can't see the GOP winning back the House anytime soon. If, as it looks likely to happen, the Democrats take the Texas legislature, then that will likely add more seats to the safe, blue wall (undoing gerrymandering).

I mean, it's still possible, but California, New York, and Ilinois are already pretty safely blue. Texas and Florida are battleground states (Florida pretty much always has been, this is kind of a first for Texas). If Texas flips and turns into a blue state, I don't see any avenue for the Republicans winning another election in the foreseeable future. But even if Texas votes Biden this year, I wouldn't be ready to call them a blue state just yet. They could easily flip back in 2 or 4 years.

So:

- We won't know who won Alaska for at least a week unless Trump wins handily (probably safe to assume)

- If Arizona is really close, we might not know who won for a couple days

- Indiana's two biggest counties can't start processing absentee ballots until today

- absentee ballots in Maryland aren't due until Nov. 13

- Michigan expects not to have all of their votes counted until Friday

- Nevada only requires that mail-in ballots be postmarked by election day, and this is their first time using mail-in voting (in Oregon, mail-in ballots have to be received by election day)

- New Jersey, for some reason, isn't going to start counting in-person votes until *after* they've already counted their mail-in votes, which they can't start counting until today, so they're a mess

- New York doesn't start to count absentee ballots until Nov. 6

- Some counties in Pennsylvania won't start counting absentee votes until tomorrow, the state plans to know who won by Friday

- Utah won't know for a few days, probably

- Washington (another vote-by-mail state) allows ballots to be counted as late as Nov. 23. I'm assuming most people have already voted there, though.

So Arizona, Michigan, Nevada, and Pennsylvania might not know who won for a few days. The rest of the states we'll probably know/assume by the morning.

I went D for all the national stuff. There were a couple down ballot things that I voted green/progressive, simply because they were races no Republican stood a chance of winning in my area.

10 hours ago, johnny said:

Fizzle needs his old icon back 

I have it on my Steam profile, but it's cut off. It's easy enough to just make another one, though. I'm just lazy.

2 hours ago, Joe said:

 

I remember back in the day you posted photos of the carnitas you used to make and I was super jealous because it seemed super hard to prepare. I now know it's not but it still looked amazing!

Back when I still cooked all the time. Those were the days.

16 minutes ago, ort said:

Figure out a way to eliminate the electoral college and/or have the senate more closely match the political values of the country it represents.

 

16 states, including California and New York, have signed the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, wherein states who signed the compact would pledge to place all of their votes to whoever won the national popular vote, regardless of who won in their state. It would effectively nullify the electoral college if enough states signed onto it. It's pending in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and South Carolina. If, theoretically, it passed in all of those states, you would only need 1 or 2 more before you hit 270 electoral votes.

Alternatively, states could choose to switch to a popular vote system and pledge their votes based on that, but that is harder to pull off and comes with its own problems.

edit: I forgot to mention the Compact would only actually become a thing IF enough states sign it. Right now things stay as they are.

Apparently I made a few posts here a couple years ago, but before that it had been years.

Also try putting wasabi and pickled daikon on a hot dog. It's awesome. There's a place by me that does it with nori flakes on top, it's dope.

4 hours ago, Kal-El814 said:

 

This myth needs to die forever.

That was tongue in cheek. Though it is true that Trump only won Wisconsin by 20k votes and Michigan by 10k. Bernie beat Hillary in both of those states during the primary. However, voter turnout in those states was actually higher than the national average so it's hard to make a determination that people who would have preferred Bernie just stayed home. And, at any rate, even if he lost those states he still would have won. Hillary would have needed Ohio, Pennsylvania, or North Carolina, too. It's hard to see Pennsylvania going full Bernie.

At any rate, it doesn't matter anymore.

Trump's climate plan: "People say I have the best climate plan. We have clean, tremendous air, all over the country. The air has never been cleaner. People say we've done a great job, the greatest job on climate."

Biden's climate plan: "uhhhh... fracking? Here's the deal, I love solar. Solar is great. I won't end fracking, but we need to seriously look into fracking."

It's not much, but it's something.

edit: On climate, you're choosing between someone who has a wishy-washy "eehhhh, MAYBE I'll THINK about a carbon tax, but probably not, but maybe, but probably not, but you never know!" solution to a problem, vs. someone who denies there even is a problem. It's... something.

Maybe we should have a political candidate who wants healthcare for all, free education, and also hates gays and fetuses. Gaslight the religious base into being liberals before they know what hit them.

Whatever. KATANA FUCK.

Speaking of katanas, does trish not post here anymore?

Fuck the fact that "climate change is real and is something we should do something about" is a radical opinion in America.

12 minutes ago, johnny said:

Kamala running in 2024 would be interesting considering she’s one of the most progressive democrats, which is fucking insane. 

Shit, Joe might not even make it all 4 years, so we might see it anyway.

Fun fact: Woodrow Wilson suffered a massive stroke in 1919 while in office. For the last year and a half or so of his term, his wife Edith basically ran the country. So we already have had a defacto woman president.

2 hours ago, skillzdadirecta said:

I don't know how old you are but most of rural America was Democrat until the late 60's. You know what flipped them to Republicanism? THE CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT. Look up "The Southern Strategy" and then come back. Racism was a KEY factor in flipping white rural voters. Rich Whites have exploited Poor Whites since this Country's founding by treating them slightly better than Blacks, Native Americans, Hispanics and even other "White" immigrants like The Irish and Italians by telling them that THESE groups are responsible for their lot in life and they fall for it EVERYTIME. How else could a rich northern elitist reality TV star EVER appeal to groups of people that he would never be cuaght dead hanging around. He's playing by the old playbook.

 

White working classs Americans ROUTINELY vote against theit own interests because as long as you appeal to their since of grieviance and victimhood that will "Trump" any other concern. Explain to me how working class, rank and file union workers could EVER support a Republican President... that makes absolutely no sense. It would almost be like a gay person voting for a hardcore evangelical expecting that candidate to have their best interests at heart.

I'm very well aware of all of that, that was kind of my point.

"You think America sucks now? Imagine how gay and Mexican it will be if the Democrats win!"

FUCK

sure can recognize someone as that, but I can also try to convince them to my way of thinking. Most people are at least somewhat convertible if you come at them from the right angle. My girlfriend was a 9/11 truther when I met her, not kidding. Turns out she's a wonderful person outside of that, but the point is you can reason with people if you're just patient. If you just tell everyone they're a basket of deplorables, they tend to not listen to what you have to say.

The vast majority of Trump supporters are real people who have real problems that Biden doesn't acknowledge. Bernie does.

1 minute ago, Greatoneshere said:

 

 

Glad we all understand the group isn't worth considering except in an incidental way.

I just don't believe that anyone is worthless. If someone has a toxic opinion, it's a symptom of a greater disease that we don't treat by cutting them off. We should understand why they feel that way and what we can do to help it.

Just now, Greatoneshere said:

 

I don't care. They sway elections? Minimize them. They feel ostracized? Ostarcize them further. Bully hate into the ground. I'm done with these fucks. You're indulgence feels like the naivete of 2015. I learned this lesson. 

 

I appreciate the intellectual indulgence, but you are leagues behind where this war is. I do not care about the group you want to empower. I want to disempower them into oblivion. They feel ignored?

 

GOOD.

I kind of feel like your mindset is what resulted in germany having Hitler.

Or maybe it was mine. Who knows.

Just now, Keyser_Soze said:

A democratic president may not mention them but will help them.

A republican president will mention them, exploit them for their vote and not help them.

Fuckin' A, you spelled it out better than I could.

Just now, Greatoneshere said:

 

Disagree hard. You give up your right to participate when you actively vote against the common good because you believe in hate culture. "Cruelty is the point". We're fighting a war. Wake up bru.

Again, I disagree. I come from white trash, they basically feel like the political establishment has told them to fuck off (this was basically how Jim Crow started, kinda like "yeah you know your life sucks but at least you're better than black people"), so there's this opinion that they're ignored. Donald Trump at least acknowledges they exist. I'm not saying that it's right, but the lower class white people in this country have this idea that they're outcasts, and they tend to sway elections.

It's sad to hear that. No one is above redemption.

They are people who have real problems. You don't get to decide their problems don't matter. Instead of making them feel victimized and villainized (and thus galvanizing their KKK bullshit), let them know that you actually give a shit about their problems. Give them a solution. Give them a reason to hope. Democrats haven't done that. Republicans run on a platform of "IMAGINE HOW WORSE IT WOULD BE UNDER BIDEN." Give them a "here's what we could do for you" platform and the Republicans would crumble. Democrats just haven't gotten the balls to go full on single payer health and other shit because they think it will lose them too many purple states.