Here is an interesting article about social media echo chambers: http://qz.com/843648/facebook-and-filter-bubbles-how-the-internet-enabled-us-to-break-democracy/.
From the New York Times Magazine: Is Social Media Disconnecting Us From the Big Picture? (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/22/magazine/is-social-media-disconnecting-us-from-the-big-picture.html?ribbon-ad-idx=5&rref=technology&module=Ribbon&version=origin®ion=Header&action=click&contentCollection=Technology&pgtype=article)
Social media is the downfall of society.
I suspect these Facebook-only news people formerly consumed no news at all, an angle not mentioned in either article.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 23, 2016, 01:13:06 AM
I suspect these Facebook-only news people formerly consumed no news at all, an angle not mentioned in either article.
No news is good news.
:lol:
This is a load of BS. The newspapers of old (and now) were also set on one particular world view and agenda. And those who did not read news before Facebook were reliant on their social circle, and the pub, to get news. If you think that was any better than "eco chambers" it has been YOU who have been confined to a bubble your whole life.
Newspapers tend not to be so blatant in their lying though. Even the likes of the Daily Mail try to stick somewhat to actual things that have happened at least half of the time.
On the Internet, hidden away in some obscure conservative site that most people will never even glimpse.....take that 50% and shove it.
Quote from: The Brain on November 23, 2016, 01:47:24 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 23, 2016, 01:13:06 AM
I suspect these Facebook-only news people formerly consumed no news at all, an angle not mentioned in either article.
No news is good news.
:lol:
Good thing we avoided all that here :D
Quote from: Tamas on November 23, 2016, 03:22:38 AM
This is a load of BS. The newspapers of old (and now) were also set on one particular world view and agenda. And those who did not read news before Facebook were reliant on their social circle, and the pub, to get news. If you think that was any better than "eco chambers" it has been YOU who have been confined to a bubble your whole life.
Spoken like a true eastern European beet farmer.
If editorial boards, news directors and journalist philosopher-kings still ruled the earth as they once did, the Kardashians would not be a thing.
Before social media Hitler and Mussolini rose to power. Social media is still doing better than old-school media.
Quote from: The Brain on November 23, 2016, 10:12:22 AM
Before social media Hitler and Mussolini rose to power. Social media is still doing better than old-school media.
Just because people weren't listening doesn't mean global media wasn't doing its job.
Quote from: Tamas on November 23, 2016, 03:22:38 AM
This is a load of BS. The newspapers of old (and now) were also set on one particular world view and agenda. And those who did not read news before Facebook were reliant on their social circle, and the pub, to get news. If you think that was any better than "eco chambers" it has been YOU who have been confined to a bubble your whole life.
It is not the news, it is how you don't interact with people you disagree with anymore. You just block them or some algorithm filters them out for ya.
Quote from: derspiess on November 23, 2016, 09:39:08 AM
Good thing we avoided all that here :D
Heh, we've seen this sort of article before. Has anyone here ever changed his or her behavior in order to escape the bubble?
Quote from: Savonarola on November 23, 2016, 01:09:33 PM
Quote from: derspiess on November 23, 2016, 09:39:08 AM
Good thing we avoided all that here :D
Heh, we've seen this sort of article before. Has anyone here ever changed his or her behavior in order to escape the bubble?
derspiess has become more liberal. Now he just believes in segregation. He's come around.
Quote from: Tamas on November 23, 2016, 03:22:38 AM
This is a load of BS. The newspapers of old (and now) were also set on one particular world view and agenda. And those who did not read news before Facebook were reliant on their social circle, and the pub, to get news. If you think that was any better than "eco chambers" it has been YOU who have been confined to a bubble your whole life.
I think we all are to some degree. Basically, the more you were surprised Trump won, the more in a bubble you were. Me included. I mean, I knew enough to be expecting the unexpected, but not enough to actually not be surprised by the result.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 23, 2016, 02:41:52 PM
I think we all are to some degree. Basically, the more you were surprised Trump won, the more in a bubble you were. Me included. I mean, I knew enough to be expecting the unexpected, but not enough to actually not be surprised by the result.
I don't think the two are related. I was surprised by the result because all the polls were predicting a comfortable Clinton victory, not because I don't know Trump supporters/Clinton haters, or because I avoided Trump-positive news.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 23, 2016, 02:49:03 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 23, 2016, 02:41:52 PM
I think we all are to some degree. Basically, the more you were surprised Trump won, the more in a bubble you were. Me included. I mean, I knew enough to be expecting the unexpected, but not enough to actually not be surprised by the result.
I don't think the two are related. I was surprised by the result because all the polls were predicting a comfortable Clinton victory, not because I don't know Trump supporters/Clinton haters, or because I avoided Trump-positive news.
Exactly.
Why would your average person assume that they, through their personal contacts, have a better idea of voter sentiment
throughout the entire country than the alleged polling professionals who make a business of knowing that stuff and work day in, day out tracking it with multiple surveys? In the polls, Clinton was always ahead, albeit by a slim margin. Anyone who says they 'knew better' because they predicted a Trump win is simply suffering from hindsight.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 23, 2016, 01:15:24 PM
Quote from: Savonarola on November 23, 2016, 01:09:33 PM
Quote from: derspiess on November 23, 2016, 09:39:08 AM
Good thing we avoided all that here :D
Heh, we've seen this sort of article before. Has anyone here ever changed his or her behavior in order to escape the bubble?
derspiess has become more liberal. Now he just believes in segregation. He's come around.
I embrace diversity.
Quote from: derspiess on November 23, 2016, 03:18:06 PM
I embrace diversity.
Yes, the more restrooms and water fountains, the better.
Quote from: Malthus on November 23, 2016, 02:59:18 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 23, 2016, 02:49:03 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 23, 2016, 02:41:52 PM
I think we all are to some degree. Basically, the more you were surprised Trump won, the more in a bubble you were. Me included. I mean, I knew enough to be expecting the unexpected, but not enough to actually not be surprised by the result.
I don't think the two are related. I was surprised by the result because all the polls were predicting a comfortable Clinton victory, not because I don't know Trump supporters/Clinton haters, or because I avoided Trump-positive news.
Exactly.
Why would your average person assume that they, through their personal contacts, have a better idea of voter sentiment throughout the entire country than the alleged polling professionals who make a business of knowing that stuff and work day in, day out tracking it with multiple surveys? In the polls, Clinton was always ahead, albeit by a slim margin. Anyone who says they 'knew better' because they predicted a Trump win is simply suffering from hindsight.
I think CdM was calling it correctly, based on his RL interactions with the ordinary people in the NE.
I certainly didn't call a Trump victory, I believed the polls, but if I'd been living in the USA and canvassing people in rust belt states I too might have come to his conclusions.
I say that because during the Brexit campaign if you leafleted people on a typical street*, within an hour or two you'd have an impression entirely at odds with what the polls/pundits were saying.
*not in the big metropolitan areas of London, Bristol, Manchester, central Scotland etc
Quote from: derspiess on November 23, 2016, 09:39:08 AM
Good thing we avoided all that here :D
The Timmay news network is remarkable indeed.
Quote from: Savonarola on November 23, 2016, 01:09:33 PM
Quote from: derspiess on November 23, 2016, 09:39:08 AM
Good thing we avoided all that here :D
Heh, we've seen this sort of article before. Has anyone here ever changed his or her behavior in order to escape the bubble?
I listened to right wing talk radio for over ten years. By this point I generally know what their take on something is going to be without having to listen anymore :P
The new technology has not in practice brought people together, it has separated them even further and forced them to create groups with which to identify, and opposing groups to demonize. Filter bubble, identity politics, anti-establishment populism, all part of the same problem. If anything, we are more prejudiced now than before against "others".
Quote from: mongers on November 23, 2016, 06:17:21 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 23, 2016, 02:59:18 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 23, 2016, 02:49:03 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 23, 2016, 02:41:52 PM
I think we all are to some degree. Basically, the more you were surprised Trump won, the more in a bubble you were. Me included. I mean, I knew enough to be expecting the unexpected, but not enough to actually not be surprised by the result.
I don't think the two are related. I was surprised by the result because all the polls were predicting a comfortable Clinton victory, not because I don't know Trump supporters/Clinton haters, or because I avoided Trump-positive news.
Exactly.
Why would your average person assume that they, through their personal contacts, have a better idea of voter sentiment throughout the entire country than the alleged polling professionals who make a business of knowing that stuff and work day in, day out tracking it with multiple surveys? In the polls, Clinton was always ahead, albeit by a slim margin. Anyone who says they 'knew better' because they predicted a Trump win is simply suffering from hindsight.
I think CdM was calling it correctly, based on his RL interactions with the ordinary people in the NE.
I certainly didn't call a Trump victory, I believed the polls, but if I'd been living in the USA and canvassing people in rust belt states I too might have come to his conclusions.
I say that because during the Brexit campaign if you leafleted people on a typical street*, within an hour or two you'd have an impression entirely at odds with what the polls/pundits were saying.
*not in the big metropolitan areas of London, Bristol, Manchester, central Scotland etc
That doesn't make any sense, though. Why would anyone reasonably expect that their experience of random people in the place they happen to live accurately corresponds to that of people they have never seen in places they have never gone? Just because everyone one meets in (say) Iowa was rooting for Trump, doesn't mean that the same feelings are of necessity going to be expressed in (say) Florida, or vice versa.
Thing is that the margins were close. Clinton actually *won* the popular vote, allegedly by an estimated 2 million or so votes (and growing, as counts come in). What led to her defeat was how the vote was split. No reasonable person could have predicted in advance how that split would shake out across the entire country, based on a bunch of impressions of street sentiment, and claiming otherwise strikes me as pure hind-sightism.
Quote from: Malthus on November 24, 2016, 08:54:49 AM
Quote from: mongers on November 23, 2016, 06:17:21 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 23, 2016, 02:59:18 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 23, 2016, 02:49:03 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 23, 2016, 02:41:52 PM
I think we all are to some degree. Basically, the more you were surprised Trump won, the more in a bubble you were. Me included. I mean, I knew enough to be expecting the unexpected, but not enough to actually not be surprised by the result.
I don't think the two are related. I was surprised by the result because all the polls were predicting a comfortable Clinton victory, not because I don't know Trump supporters/Clinton haters, or because I avoided Trump-positive news.
Exactly.
Why would your average person assume that they, through their personal contacts, have a better idea of voter sentiment throughout the entire country than the alleged polling professionals who make a business of knowing that stuff and work day in, day out tracking it with multiple surveys? In the polls, Clinton was always ahead, albeit by a slim margin. Anyone who says they 'knew better' because they predicted a Trump win is simply suffering from hindsight.
I think CdM was calling it correctly, based on his RL interactions with the ordinary people in the NE.
I certainly didn't call a Trump victory, I believed the polls, but if I'd been living in the USA and canvassing people in rust belt states I too might have come to his conclusions.
I say that because during the Brexit campaign if you leafleted people on a typical street*, within an hour or two you'd have an impression entirely at odds with what the polls/pundits were saying.
*not in the big metropolitan areas of London, Bristol, Manchester, central Scotland etc
That doesn't make any sense, though. Why would anyone reasonably expect that their experience of random people in the place they happen to live accurately corresponds to that of people they have never seen in places they have never gone? Just because everyone one meets in (say) Iowa was rooting for Trump, doesn't mean that the same feelings are of necessity going to be expressed in (say) Florida, or vice versa.
Thing is that the margins were close. Clinton actually *won* the popular vote, allegedly by an estimated 2 million or so votes (and growing, as counts come in). What led to her defeat was how the vote was split. No reasonable person could have predicted in advance how that split would shake out across the entire country, based on a bunch of impressions of street sentiment, and claiming otherwise strikes me as pure hind-sightism.
More sense than solely relying on polls.
Just imagine yourself involved in a fight on an ancient or medieval battlefield, a lot of confusion and shouting all about, but doesn't a point come when you can sense how the battle is going and act accordingly?
One thing that is worse nowadays is that the lunatic and the reckless have easier access to spread their bullshit, and due to the infancy of the media, many people don't realise that just because it's on a webpage, it's not necessarily true.
But guess what, that used to be the situation with my grandparents' generation, and any people on TV with a tie on.
But otherwise please don't pretend/assume that Facebook and the rest have somehow triggered a lower base of discussion and political views. Those discussions have always happened, those views have always been there, the only difference is that you were sheltered from them.
Social media has brought MORE insight into other bubbles, not less.
Maybe, just maybe, the reason for the growing internal divides is not that we understand each other less, but, in fact, more!
Quote from: mongers on November 24, 2016, 09:17:27 AM
More sense than solely relying on polls.
Just imagine yourself involved in a fight on an ancient or medieval battlefield, a lot of confusion and shouting all about, but doesn't a point come when you can sense how the battle is going and act accordingly?
But that's just it, a misplaced analogy. Ears to the ground in Maryland/PA won't tell you what is going to happen across an entire nation. The comparison, if apt, would be that you think the one battle you are in is predictive of all battles that will be fought in an entire campaign.
Quote from: garbon on November 24, 2016, 09:32:54 AM
Quote from: mongers on November 24, 2016, 09:17:27 AM
More sense than solely relying on polls.
Just imagine yourself involved in a fight on an ancient or medieval battlefield, a lot of confusion and shouting all about, but doesn't a point come when you can sense how the battle is going and act accordingly?
But that's just it, a misplaced analogy. Ears to the ground in Maryland/PA won't tell you what is going to happen across an entire nation. The comparison, if apt, would be that you think the one battle you are in is predictive of all battles that will be fought in an entire campaign.
Unfortunately, the American disdain for immigrants, minorities and women does stretch across the entire nation-- more so in some areas than others, but still a very good predictor.
Quote from: mongers on November 24, 2016, 09:17:27 AM
More sense than solely relying on polls.
Just imagine yourself involved in a fight on an ancient or medieval battlefield, a lot of confusion and shouting all about, but doesn't a point come when you can sense how the battle is going and act accordingly?
As garbon has pointed out, that analogy doesn't work well. A medieval battlefield was a rather restricted time and place. The better military analogy is with a whole military "campaign" spread out over a vast geographical expanse. To judge how a "campaign" is going you need to hear the reports of what happened on a lot of different "battlefields" you have no personal experience with.
To extend the analogy - in your particular battlefield you may feel the tide going against you, but suddenly a bunch of hard-riding heralds known as "pollsters" show up at your headquarters and tell you that other battles happening elsewhere are going in your favor - as they have personally witnessed. Why is it reasonable to trust your own particular experience of a single time and place over their first-hand reports?
To be Seedy's advocate, you can sort of get an idea from a longitudinal analysis of people you know.
If you know people for some time, and those people who previously did not exhibit strong GOP tendencies suddenly start mindlessly reciting all the alt-right talking points, and you don't observe the same kind of drift the other way, you can get a sense of the winds that way. And it wasn't much of a surprise that the Alabama part of Pennsylvania would be the tipping point, so what was happening on the ground there would be the decider.
Yes, the election was close, and could've gone to Clinton still with all this still being true, but the point is that it was a lot closer than what the polls were predicting in any case.
I could have predicted Leave winning Brexit, by how I am living in an area that is just very well off in general, and how the only posters and signs I could see on my commute were Leave ones. Nobody for Remain cared enough around here to actually put in an effort.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 23, 2016, 02:41:52 PM
Quote from: Tamas on November 23, 2016, 03:22:38 AM
This is a load of BS. The newspapers of old (and now) were also set on one particular world view and agenda. And those who did not read news before Facebook were reliant on their social circle, and the pub, to get news. If you think that was any better than "eco chambers" it has been YOU who have been confined to a bubble your whole life.
I think we all are to some degree. Basically, the more you were surprised Trump won, the more in a bubble you were. Me included. I mean, I knew enough to be expecting the unexpected, but not enough to actually not be surprised by the result.
Were there any Trump supporters here, among Americans who were eligible to vote? I don't remember anyone saying that they were going to vote for Trump. Even the 2 conservatives among our regular American posters (derspiess and myself) voted for 3rd party candidates.
Quote from: dps on November 24, 2016, 12:19:28 PM
Even the 2 conservatives among our regular American posters (derspiess and myself) voted for 3rd party candidates.
lol
Quote from: dps on November 24, 2016, 12:19:28 PM
Were there any Trump supporters here, among Americans who were eligible to vote? I don't remember anyone saying that they were going to vote for Trump. Even the 2 conservatives among our regular American posters (derspiess and myself) voted for 3rd party candidates.
Seeb could have citizenship by now. Lettuce seems to like Trump.
I imagine that voting for Trump is not something that you would be open about on a forum like that, unless you're comfortable in the village idiot role. Not because we're an echo chamber, but because we have standards for discourse that we all hold each other to, and pro-Trump arguments can't survive first contact with such an environment. I imagine that at least a couple of regular Languish posters did vote from Trump, but either never said anything publicly to that effect, or pretended to vote for someone else.
Quote from: DGuller on November 24, 2016, 11:39:58 AM
To be Seedy's advocate, you can sort of get an idea from a longitudinal analysis of people you know.
If you know people for some time, and those people who previously did not exhibit strong GOP tendencies suddenly start mindlessly reciting all the alt-right talking points, and you don't observe the same kind of drift the other way, you can get a sense of the winds that way. And it wasn't much of a surprise that the Alabama part of Pennsylvania would be the tipping point, so what was happening on the ground there would be the decider.
Yes, the election was close, and could've gone to Clinton still with all this still being true, but the point is that it was a lot closer than what the polls were predicting in any case.
On flip side all of the Republicans in my family went hard left this election. Apart from one who has been warned to be on good behaviour at Christmas.
Quote from: DGuller on November 24, 2016, 12:43:57 PM
I imagine that voting for Trump is not something that you would be open about on a forum like that, unless you're comfortable in the village idiot role. Not because we're an echo chamber, but because we have standards for discourse that we all hold each other to, and pro-Trump arguments can't survive first contact with such an environment. I imagine that at least a couple of regular Languish posters did vote from Trump, but either never said anything publicly to that effect, or pretended to vote for someone else.
That's a slightly more pleasant way of calling Speesh a liar than Seedy's way, but not much.
Quote from: DGuller on November 24, 2016, 12:43:57 PM
I imagine that voting for Trump is not something that you would be open about on a forum like that, unless you're comfortable in the village idiot role. Not because we're an echo chamber, but because we have standards for discourse that we all hold each other to, and pro-Trump arguments can't survive first contact with such an environment. I imagine that at least a couple of regular Languish posters did vote from Trump, but either never said anything publicly to that effect, or pretended to vote for someone else.
disagree on the echo chamber. there were sometimes echo chambers re: hillary.
Quote from: DGuller on November 24, 2016, 11:39:58 AM
To be Seedy's advocate, you can sort of get an idea from a longitudinal analysis of people you know.
If you know people for some time, and those people who previously did not exhibit strong GOP tendencies suddenly start mindlessly reciting all the alt-right talking points, and you don't observe the same kind of drift the other way, you can get a sense of the winds that way.
This same thing happened in 1980. Remember those SNL skits about aliens taking over peoples' brains and making them into Reagan supporters?
It's not really new.
Quote from: LaCroix on November 24, 2016, 01:53:44 PM
Quote from: DGuller on November 24, 2016, 12:43:57 PM
I imagine that voting for Trump is not something that you would be open about on a forum like that, unless you're comfortable in the village idiot role. Not because we're an echo chamber, but because we have standards for discourse that we all hold each other to, and pro-Trump arguments can't survive first contact with such an environment. I imagine that at least a couple of regular Languish posters did vote from Trump, but either never said anything publicly to that effect, or pretended to vote for someone else.
disagree on the echo chamber. there were sometimes echo chambers re: hillary.
I don't know man. We were all pretty wracked by nerves the whole time. I never got the feeling that Hillary was going to easily win this thing based on what Languish was saying...well except for a few minutes after the Democratic convention.
I'd tell you guys if I had voted Trump. If Ohio had looked close I probably would have.
Seedy and Blueberry Boy think I voted for him? Cool-- I don't care.
Quote from: derspiess on November 24, 2016, 10:39:18 PM
I'd tell you guys if I had voted Trump. If Ohio had looked close I probably would have.
Seedy and Blueberry Boy think I voted for him? Cool-- I don't care.
I got your back on this one, but I gotta say that's some bass ackward thinking Bubba. Vote for Trump if it's close???
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 25, 2016, 12:10:23 AM
Quote from: derspiess on November 24, 2016, 10:39:18 PM
I'd tell you guys if I had voted Trump. If Ohio had looked close I probably would have.
Seedy and Blueberry Boy think I voted for him? Cool-- I don't care.
I got your back on this one, but I gotta say that's some bass ackward thinking Bubba. Vote for Trump if it's close???
I wouldn't have felt good about it, but Hillary had to be defeated.
And the truth comes out!
Oh wait, we knew he was a Trump supporter all along.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 24, 2016, 01:29:02 PM
Quote from: DGuller on November 24, 2016, 12:43:57 PM
I imagine that voting for Trump is not something that you would be open about on a forum like that, unless you're comfortable in the village idiot role. Not because we're an echo chamber, but because we have standards for discourse that we all hold each other to, and pro-Trump arguments can't survive first contact with such an environment. I imagine that at least a couple of regular Languish posters did vote from Trump, but either never said anything publicly to that effect, or pretended to vote for someone else.
That's a slightly more pleasant way of calling Speesh a liar than Seedy's way, but not much.
....and it turns out that DG was exactly correct...
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 25, 2016, 12:10:23 AM
Quote from: derspiess on November 24, 2016, 10:39:18 PM
I'd tell you guys if I had voted Trump. If Ohio had looked close I probably would have.
Seedy and Blueberry Boy think I voted for him? Cool-- I don't care.
I got your back on this one, but I gotta say that's some bass ackward thinking Bubba. Vote for Trump if it's close???
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSATpzG61ki2R7_kcuydeARKwSYIC3luZ0Mhmc-tEullSHeMx2uTg)
Quote from: Berkut on November 25, 2016, 01:34:46 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 24, 2016, 01:29:02 PM
Quote from: DGuller on November 24, 2016, 12:43:57 PM
I imagine that voting for Trump is not something that you would be open about on a forum like that, unless you're comfortable in the village idiot role. Not because we're an echo chamber, but because we have standards for discourse that we all hold each other to, and pro-Trump arguments can't survive first contact with such an environment. I imagine that at least a couple of regular Languish posters did vote from Trump, but either never said anything publicly to that effect, or pretended to vote for someone else.
That's a slightly more pleasant way of calling Speesh a liar than Seedy's way, but not much.
....and it turns out that DG was exactly correct...
He hasn't exactly been shy about stating he'd vote against Hillary regardless.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 23, 2016, 02:41:52 PMI think we all are to some degree. Basically, the more you were surprised Trump won, the more in a bubble you were. Me included. I mean, I knew enough to be expecting the unexpected, but not enough to actually not be surprised by the result.
Yeah presumably those who voted for him were a little less surprised about his win. :hmm: The retard pundit class is maybe not representative.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CxpJweBWgAAxTcG.jpg)
Quote from: Eddie Teach on November 25, 2016, 04:14:09 AM
He hasn't exactly been shy about stating he'd vote against Hillary regardless.
What are we even arguing about, in regards to derspies? He was insufferable after Trump's victory, only outdone by Martinus. He clearly, and very obviously, voted Trump. It's his right, but it would have been way more classy to just admit it.
I, and I believe Yi, are willing to take him at his word that he voted for Johnson. Even so, he readily admitted multiple times that he liked Trump better than Clinton. Of course he's going to exhibit a bit of schadenfreude at some of the Clinton supporters acting like it's the end of the world.
Quote from: Tamas on November 25, 2016, 05:40:03 AM
What are we even arguing about, in regards to derspies? He was insufferable after Trump's victory, only outdone by Martinus. He clearly, and very obviously, voted Trump. It's his right, but it would have been way more classy to just admit it.
You guys are hilarious :lol:
Derspicy didn't vote for Johnson. Anyone who believes that is gullible. Trump win means he gets to break out his extra special uniforms.
Quote from: katmai on November 25, 2016, 01:09:02 PM
Derspicy didn't vote for Johnson. Anyone who believes that is gullible. Trump win means he gets to break out his extra special uniforms.
Ah, the irony of picking up that extra-special dry cleaning at an immgrant-owned cleaners. #WhitePowerExtraStarch
:lol:
Time magazine. I have these in my living room it's sequential order.
(https://timedotcom.files.wordpress.com/2016/10/trump-compare-final.jpg?quality=85&w=1100)
(https://timedotcom.files.wordpress.com/2016/11/final-election-cover.jpg?quality=85&w=1012)
Do you have the limited edition Madame President one? :D
Quote from: derspiess on November 25, 2016, 12:19:20 PM
Quote from: Tamas on November 25, 2016, 05:40:03 AM
What are we even arguing about, in regards to derspies? He was insufferable after Trump's victory, only outdone by Martinus. He clearly, and very obviously, voted Trump. It's his right, but it would have been way more classy to just admit it.
You guys are hilarious :lol:
Who is not with us is against us. It's the today's left motto.
Quote from: Martinus on November 25, 2016, 02:52:05 PM
Quote from: derspiess on November 25, 2016, 12:19:20 PM
Quote from: Tamas on November 25, 2016, 05:40:03 AM
What are we even arguing about, in regards to derspies? He was insufferable after Trump's victory, only outdone by Martinus. He clearly, and very obviously, voted Trump. It's his right, but it would have been way more classy to just admit it.
You guys are hilarious :lol:
Who is not with us is against us. It's the today's left motto.
I thought that was the alt-right's motto?
Quote from: Martinus on November 25, 2016, 02:52:05 PM
Quote from: derspiess on November 25, 2016, 12:19:20 PM
Quote from: Tamas on November 25, 2016, 05:40:03 AM
What are we even arguing about, in regards to derspies? He was insufferable after Trump's victory, only outdone by Martinus. He clearly, and very obviously, voted Trump. It's his right, but it would have been way more classy to just admit it.
You guys are hilarious :lol:
Who is not with us is against us. It's the today's left motto.
When it comes to binary choices, that is a rather rational motto.
I think it's positively adorable that Marti the Homosexual pitches in with the alt-right.
Hopefully he'll have time for a selfie when the homophobic fascists that are going to be running loose in Poland with increasing regularity are bashing his brains in, because the look of surprise on his face will be priceless.