So its basically SJW Penn and Teller Bullshit! but everything it says is wrong?

So its basically SJW Penn and Teller Bullshit! but everything it says is wrong?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=pjcawGIpTew
d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/fairvote/pages/199/attachments/original/1450119297/2008votersperelector.pdf?1450119297
youtube.com/watch?v=c_VDQVs7OE8
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Who is that disgusting fat liberal faggot

Yes

What was he wrong about, provide empirical evidence that contradicts his points, and cite your references with links that can be corroborated from more than once source.

heres a video refuting his videogame episode

youtube.com/watch?v=pjcawGIpTew


Also, in his election episode, he bitches about the electoral college and mentions the arbitrary nature of swing states basically getting to decide the fate of the nation on his own. Yet he doesnt even mention that swing states are these things the EC choose. They are constantly changing states based on voter history. For example, Pennsylvania isnt considered a swing state because it has gone to the democrats since 1984, but this election, it went to the republican candidate.

This is either ignorance on his part or deliberate misinformation to fit his narrative.

what's wrong with his hair?

he's incessantly annoying but when the topic isn't too partisan he's pretty spot on. it's just that he picks things that everyone agrees with. he's running around shouting that the world is round. basically the youtube quality version of John Oliver.

NO AKSHUALLY: The Show

pretty much

is that the guy from collegehumor?

>36 minutes
who has time for this shit?
christ

I hate this guy.

>is that the guy from collegehumor?
Yes.

>the world is round

i wish the 2010's would be over so people won't be wearing these fucking garbage haircuts anymore

>who has time for this shit?

>implying you havent spent all day on Sup Forums

this is actually the correct answer

even when he tells you something you didn't know before, it's usually useless knowledge. Oh, a single conglomerate controls the entire eyeglasses industry, which is why I pay so much for glasses? Just like countless other organizations in America.. what am I going to do with that knowledge?

the herpes episode. Basically said "hey, a lot of people you know technically have a mild case of herpes that's pretty much asymptomatic, so you don't have to worry about getting herpes at all!"

>implying Penn & Teller got anything right
They used Libertarian think tanks as their sources for expert analysis on every fucking issue. Not a single "expert" of any issue of merit covered on Bullshit had any credibility. They used their show to deceptively push a political agenda, rather than inform people.

>watching the one he did on nfl
>"yeah what the league needs to do is stop tackling and make the nfl even safer"
>mfw

He claimed this as a football fan. Guys a giant doofus.

>hymen is a myth goy
>now excuse me while I retire to my virgin harem

>They are constantly changing states based on voter history.

And? That doesn't change the fact that the EC values certain votes more than others for no defensible reason.

Yeah, I wish he would've just said that it's homoerotic negro worship instead.

Is there a single football fan that isn't a gay cuck?

Yes

he said

>things that everyone agrees with

not

>things that are true

What? No, they definitely don't.

Are you talking about how some states get more EC votes than others?
Amount of EC votes are distributed based on house seats, which are given one per population of ~700,000, in addition to 2 default senate seats for every state (and DC)

The only thing that's "unfair" is that votes are a winner take all basis

>That doesn't change the fact that the EC values certain votes more than others for no defensible reason.

no they dont because like I said THEY DONT KNOW WHICH STATES ARE SWING STATES. that isnt how it works user. They dont say "ok, for this election, Idaho, Ohio, and Florida are the swing states"

Every state matters. The thing is no one knows for certain how an election will turn out, all they can do is make predictions based on the history of that state.

Oklahoma has been republican since the 50s straight, so its a pretty safe bet to guess that that state will go to the republicans

Minnesota has been solid blue since the 70s, so its easy to guess that that state will go to the democrats.

But some states, like Florida or Ohio, have no real clear history like that. They go back and forth between democrat and republican each election, so theres no solid bet on how they will turn out. These are swing states. However, its just those states now. California for example was solid Republican up until 1992. More Recently Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin all went to Trump despite them being solid blue since 92. All those news anchors were shitting themselves over that because no one expected that because those werent swing states, but then they changed. Now those states arent safe bets for the democrats.

>Amount of EC votes are distributed based on house seats, which are given one per population of ~700,000, in addition to 2 default senate seats for every state (and DC)


and that isn't 1:1, and there's no reason it shouldn't be

d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/fairvote/pages/199/attachments/original/1450119297/2008votersperelector.pdf?1450119297

>in addition to 2 default senate seats
and there lies the problem

>video games are the great equaliser
>like a GLOCK
kek'd hard

Here's a list off the top of my head.
>Hymens are a myth
My wife was 25 when I married her, she has been riding horses since she was 14. She had a Hymen.
>Pure bred dogs are bad.
Dogs breed for working are different the dogs bred strictly for appearance. I have a 15 year old blueheeler, many purebreds are actually healthier then mutts.

The guy is full of shit.

his thing on food banks annoyed me

theres nothing wrong with that. Our entire system is based around the balance of powers and is pretty ingenious despite what angry democrats who didnt get their way in this election say.

Please explain why some votes should matter more than others in a popular election

Well, I disagree with this, but not too strongly. I mean this is different than saying "do away with the electoral college and make it a popular vote."

it's almost an even distribution though, because it's based on on the proportion of each state's population to that of the Fifty States together

the eleven most populated states represent ~55% of the population and have the majority of the electoral votes

The problem with the EC is not EC voter distribution, having them distributed by state makes sense, the problem is that any votes that go to the losing candidate in a particular state are totally null because of the winner takes all system. The distribution of votes is fine

>a popular election

they dont, its a balance of powers, we dont have a popular election, each state is essentially a country. learn2socialstudies

This is the guy that literally (LITERALLY) tried to convince people to not worry if their partner ha genital herpes cause 99% of us have cold sores already anyway and they are both Herpes goyim ignore that little letter at the end of the word herpes its all the same trust me :^)

Best part is the lef has started to turn on him because he made a video recently on how electric cars arent green enough to replace your old gas chugger and boy did it piss the greenies off.

>My wife was 25 when I married her, she has been riding horses since she was 14. She had a Hymen.
Cool story, but I believe the point was that the presence of a hymen isn't a reliable indicator of virginity, not that hymens don't exist.
>many purebreds are actually healthier then mutts
The vast, vast majority are not.

Correction faggot.

At work, browsing Sup Forums all day.

>the problem is that any votes that go to the losing candidate in a particular state are totally null because of the winner takes all system.

But it's up to each state to decide this for itself. In some states it's not winner take all. And that is kind of the point. The president is meant to be elected by the states, not the people, and so each state determines the way that it's electors will be selected.

>People breed dogs for traits.
>Decide that trait should be hardeness and health.

BTFO faggot

>Adam makes a point about something you agree with or know about

Fuck yeah take that libtards

>Adam makes a point about something you disagree with

Fucking SJW cuck faggot

>The president is meant to be elected by the states, not the people

But that's asinine horseshit that ceased to be an accurate portrayal of the election since the invention of the automobile. Why are we trusting the people to elect electors that vote with the state population 100% of the time, but we can't trust them to directly elect the president? People aren't voting for state sponsors. They're voting for president.

Would a good solution be splitting the "loser votes" in a state so that they have a reduced weight for the loser candidate in that state?

This would fix the winner takes all system but it wouldn't just arbitrarily jump to a popular vote

For example, a state splits 55%/45% for a candidate, instead of giving the 45% to the winning candidate, you give them 23% and let the other 22% actually go to the loser.
Maybe not exactly those distributions but you see what I mean

What the hell is arbitrary about an election being decided by a popular vote? What's arbitrary is the system as it stands.

he got BTFO by fucking steven crowder. sad!

youtube.com/watch?v=c_VDQVs7OE8

>watching clickbait
You can do better op

Haven't seen a single episode and the way he looks makes me want to keep it that way.

God what a douchey looking piglet.

why should 5 cities decide the fate of the nation? Unlike the bitching about swing states deciding the fate, which I already explained.

>produce breeds like the australian cattle dog which have a high likelihood of developing deafness or blindness due to inbred recessive traits

Why shouldn't the majority of the people decide the fate of the majority? Why should people have more voting power based on where they live?

>but everything it says is wrong?
How is that different from Penn and Teller Bullshit?

The only episode that I disagreed with was the video game one.

He said something along the lines that people who play phone games are gamers, and that there isn't a difference. When that is complete bullshit.

This. Adam Ruins Everything is Renegade Anodyne Revolutionary the show

Are you so unread on our nation's history that you are unaware our entire constitution was made specifically to take power AWAY from the majority?

>People aren't voting for state sponsors. They're voting for president.
Well, I think the point is less about the fact the electors are actual people and more about the distribution of electoral votes among the states.

>Would a good solution be splitting the "loser votes" in a state so that they have a reduced weight for the loser candidate in that state?

If any state wanted to do that, they could. But I think it's important for that decision of how to divide up EVs to be up to the state legislatures

DUDE PHONE GAMES LMAO!

I don't know who this guy is, but I can tell just by looking at him that he'll be an unbearable progressive gobshite

>our entire constitution was made specifically to take power AWAY from the majority

I'm not sure that's wholly accurate.

now that is a meme i havent seen in forever

>What's arbitrary is the system as it stands.
>t. high school dropout

>video games

ignored

what was he wrong about in regards to real issues?

it is. our ENITIRE system is based around the idea that mob rule doesnt happen, so we have this carefully crafted balance of powers.

thats where the whole "democracy is 2 wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner" quote is about. letting 5 set cities decide the fate of the nation is completely retarded. At least swing states change all the time.

>these things the EC choose
so he was right to be bitching about the EC then

the fact that the particularly states that are swing states can change in any given election doesn't change the fact that it's an extreme minority of states that swing the election

it's part of his act to be annoying unlike the late night show hosts who are just naturally annoying. sort of like satire of those shows.

adam is a cool guy

It is. Freedom of religion, speech, right to protest, bear arms, etc.

This is all to limit the power of a would be majority that might seek to silence others. You cannot have freedom for all when you let majority rule, simply a fact of life.

I want you to imagine a nation where everyone is born sheep or wolf at random, and you just so happened to have been born a sheep. By chance there are 5 million sheep, and 5 million +1wolves. And someone just put up a vote what to have for dinner. Have fun with that majority rule ideal.

youre an idiot. The whole point is that you dont know which states are swing states, its a surprise. This prevents candidates from only shilling themselves in a few key locations and forces them to appeal to the nation as a whole.

If you go by "muh popular vote" they are going to do just that, except with a few key cities. At least the swing states change and they have no idea where it will be.

Clinton for example didnt even visit Wisconsin this election while she was campaigning because her team arrogantly believed that they would just automatically get it. While Trump campaigned hard in that state and at least articulated what they wanted in a candidate.

Thus, solid blue Wisconsin went red. People who voted for Obama twice voted for Trump this time because they felt the democratic party was ignoring them (because they were) and they payed the price for it.

LA and Jew York hipsters not understanding the EC doesnt change that.

>letting 5 set cities decide the fate of the nation is completely retarded

I don't understand how you've arrived at this figure. The top five most populous cities in the United States account for a little more than 19 million people, or less than a tenth of the total US population. This strawman doesn't make sense.

>I don't believe in natural selection or that humans can improve nature.
>Mix it up meme.

This egalitarianism stupidity is reaching new levels. When you get a mutt, you have no fucking idea what you are going to get. Most of them are owned by people who do not take them to the vet or get them diagnosed. They can have more problems in many cases.

Also, you don't seem to understand the concept of show stock and working stock. Many breeds of dog have amazing health because they were bred for longevity. Some dogs are only bred for appearance of a very specific trait, longevity is not even considered.

Want your kid to have good genes? Go fuck an abbo.

I'm guessing you saw his Wall episode and have been shaking ever since?

Why are drumfpkins such tumblrinas baka

So you decided to back up your entirely unfounded opinion on dog breeding with racism? It's just a fact that purebred blueheelers are more likely to suffer from deafness and blindness. Only the freshest breed standards don't suffer from genetic problems.

jameison crowder really didnt have enough of a season to justify this

>This strawman doesn't make sense.

yes it does because popular vote only comes down to a few million in difference. Obama only won the popular vote last election by 5M, Hillary by 3M, Bush won by 3M in 2004. If you really dont see the impossibly overpowered impact LA and NYC would have in a situation like that, you are blind.

Again, our entire system is based around balancing powers and to prevent mob rule

>forces them to appeal to the nation as a whole.

Yeah, I'm sure those republicans in california or democrats in alabama were feeling really empowered and appealed to

The EC doesn't cause candidates to appeal to the whole nation, just to the parts of the nation that are close enough to flipping, which is why an inordinate amount of this election centered on coal country politics despite that shit affecting a meager percentage of the us population

Crowder is the probably the only alt-cuck that doesn't make me cringe. Based

I'm not that guy, but thats the 'less than the tenth' that actually votes.

>just to the parts of the nation that are close enough to flipping,

Trump won by appealing to three solid blue states. You are factually wrong user.

So you're preventing mob rule by arbitrarily obscuring the mob's influence in direct elections? There are no restrictions on who or what can be elected, just how those votes are applied. This shit isn't equivalent to the bill of rights, it's an abstraction that has no moral or political guidance. It's senseless.

Its not racism. I'm not claiming superiority of any dog of human.

What I'm saying is that Animal husbandry have often improved animal longevity way more then natural selection, this includes dogs, horses ect.

I'm not claiming I'm superior to Abbos, I just know that they genetically have lower average IQ's and more general health problems then other humans inb4 muh race is not real meme.

Because cities aren't the majority of the population, they're only 26%.

The problem is that cities are densely populated, suburbs and rural areas are much less densely populated.

Therefore a candidate has to spend significantly more time, money, and resources to appeal to the same number of voters in suburb and rural areas that they need to in cities.

As a result candidates will favor cities via their campaigning, platforms, positions, etc., because with the time and money spent to win 10 million suburban and rural voters you could won 50 million city voters.

The popular vote will make candidates focus disproportionaley more on issues and problems in cities and making cities better.

The electoral college will leave rural parts of the country, which are 19-21% of the country ignored because they aren't worth the time, money and effort because the money spent to reach rural voters could reach 10 times as many people in states.

The electoral college did it's job this last election because Hillary ignored the rust belt, so she lost 3 states that have been blue since the 80s. The electoral college forces you to address and appeal to the entire country, not the areas that are lost efficient. Maybe the electoral college gives disproportionate power to less densely populated areas, but at least less people are being ignored or forgotten by candidates.

You know what we need? A one world government with a direct democracy. I'm sure nothing bad would happen.

ITT - City shitters getting salty that flyovers control the election results

I haven't watched any episodes because I'm not a faggot, so I can go off of only what I've seen in the commercials for it. Here are the examples I remember off the top of my head:

- He says that football helmets do not prevent brain injuries. I'm assuming he stated that brain injuries are still common, and I'm sure he pointed out that brain injuries increased dramatically since the time when cloth/leather helmets were used. What I'm sure he fails to mention is that the players' heads are used far more often. I'm sure he also fails to mention that performing the same actions without helmets would result in many more injuries and deaths than what already occur.

- He calls cats mass murderers. I'm sure he tells the truth and says that it's not cats but a bacteria they often carry. Even so, it was complete bullshit to purport it anyway.

- He said women did more to shape the "wild west" than men did. If I have to explain why that's wrong, you don't deserve an explanation.

- He said some street drugs are similar to drugs used for colds. I'm sure he was talking about pseudoephedrine specifically and that it's an ingredient in some street drugs. I don't know what else he could have said outside of things that all drugs do, but it was obviously bullshit when it comes to his claim.

but that's just the nature of population distribution, the states that are swing states just happen to have a political party distribution closer to 50/50.

Why is it a problem that a minority of states are deciding the election, those minority of states are the ones on the fence, it makes total sense that they would decide the election.

Every other state is dominated by a party, but it doesn't make their votes any less important. Their votes are worth the exact same amount as a swing state, they just aren't as close to 'political 50/50' with their population distribution

For example, if you voted blue in California, but you're upset because a swing state like Florida happened to go red, it doesn't invalidate your vote AT ALL, you still contributed to the 55 blue EC votes that California has.
If California had 50/50 red/blue population you might say your vote would suddenly become "worth" more, but that's a fallacy. the location of the swing states can't change arbitrarily, California literally cannot become a swing state because the politcal alignment of the people who choose to live there is a constant towards one side
Swing states are an inevitability

>you may think interracial relationships are bad.. here's why you're wrong!

Remember seeing one of his videos. Could barely make it to the end. He's annoying little faggot.

why are you in this thread. lol you seem to care an awful lot about something you refuse to watch.

That's an absurd straw man. How does the uneven distribution of electoral power benefit the electorate? How does your vote counting twice as much in Alaska or Washington DC equal protection against tyranny?

Easy. I think democracy is inferior to monarchy.

I would prefer if people couldn't vote for the president, only senators, or if only military vets could vote.

I honestly hope Trump goes full God Emperor and no one ever gets to vote again, or better, the US Balkanized.

Well, you could argue to what degree it's genetic.

Maybe not for Abbos, since they had such a large degree of Founder effect because of geographic isolation, which inevitably results in genetic variation, but for any races living in Eurasia the genetic differences are so so small

>muh echo chamber

Well that's just silly.

yeah
that worked out really well for brazil, uzbekistan and literally every other country with a large population of mixed race people
their economy is great, they have a reputation for developing scientific advancements and everybody knows the people themselves are so much healthier than wh*tes

Not really.

I really hope the majority votes to enslave you for being a faggot.

>He said women did more to shape the "wild west" than men did.
How? By giving syphilis to outlaws?

I didn't know that circumcision was pushed by a fanatic cereal guy and that virginity regenerated and just how little actual logic and how much comerce there is in ritual services. Also i didn't know how crazy americans are about herpes.

>incorrect amount of electors mean states votes are inaccurately skewed
>WTA method makes some votes entirely pointless
>people actively support this

>it's just that he picks things that everyone agrees with. he's running around shouting that the world is round.
user, I have some bad news for you. Not everyone agrees the world is round.

There are as many americans who voted for trump as there are people who believe the earth is flat. Roughly 1/6th of americans.

>only senators
Used to be people didn't even elect senators. They were chosen by state legislatures.

I get what you're saying though, and I think it's valid. A lot people in America equate democracy with 4 year presidential elections. And since we now have a 2-year-long campaign cycle thanks to 24 hour bullshit news, the whole presidential election process distracts a lot of people from state and local politics, which is what people really should be more focused on.