Login or register


Last status update:
Gender: male
Date Signed Up:3/22/2012
Last Login:12/06/2016
Comment Ranking:#2496
Highest Content Rank:#1236
Highest Comment Rank:#1076
Content Thumbs: 11532 total,  13113 ,  1581
Comment Thumbs: 13508 total,  15877 ,  2369
Content Level Progress: 5.4% (27/500)
Level 210 Content: Comedic Genius → Level 211 Content: Comedic Genius
Comment Level Progress: 89.8% (449/500)
Level 310 Comments: Wizard → Level 311 Comments: Wizard
Content Views:455230
Times Content Favorited:880 times
Total Comments Made:3910
FJ Points:13301
Favorite Tags: 4Chan (4) | k (4) | 4 (3) | chan (3) | comp (3) | Tank (3) | to (3) | a (2) | bad (2) | Cute (2) | funny (2) | gmod (2) | How (2) | humor (2) | is (2) | Russian (2) | tags (2) | the (2) | Time (2) | WTF (2)

latest user's comments

#5 - Theres one in every 6-10 crates My estimate, not sure what…  [+] (1 reply) 11/18/2016 on So I decided to try... +1
User avatar
#15 - zahidlol (11/19/2016) [-]

Actually the stats are one in every 27 or so boxes last I heard
#3 - Self driving cars haven't killed two people, they've failed to…  [+] (4 replies) 11/18/2016 on Tesla Floors it to not get... +3
User avatar
#6 - ohhh (11/18/2016) [-]
And that was years ago, with a low end prototype model. These ones have 8x the cameras, and 40x the computing power. There's a reason they now advertise them as being fully autonomous. Or at least ones with more recent tech.
#4 - mohawkwarrior (11/18/2016) [-]
The very first crash was a Tesla that drove full speed into a semi.
Several other manufacturers have noticed software problems that cause the cars to just 'stop driving' and let the car go in neutral.
They are dangerous, and don't have nearly the number of safeguards they attempt to advertise.

User avatar
#8 - buttkickerboy (11/19/2016) [-]
"The very first crash was a Tesla that drove full speed into a semi."
idk why but that is fucking hilarious
just imagine a guy sitting in a car like "Car slow down"
"car what are you doing"
"car comE ON STO--"
#9 - mohawkwarrior (11/19/2016) [-]
Investigators said they didn't even know if he knew what was going on at the time.

First responders and the driver of the truck all said that they saw 'Harry Potter' playing on DVD in the car when they went to rescue him, but the final report says that it wasn't even on. An odd discrepancy.

Also, it probably wasn't actually the 'first crash' globally, as a family is suing in China for their relative being killed when his Tesla drove into the back of a semi on the highway. It just didn't make big news in the west.

#4 - Source? I keep hearing that, but the only one i'v seen was a t…  [+] (21 replies) 11/14/2016 on Hillary supporters right now +18
User avatar
#5 - lean (11/14/2016) [-]
>>#3, It's not reliable, and not true. Some idiot is trying to justify it, but it doesn't matter.

Does the vote of California or New York City represent the country as a whole? If so, why let the rest of the country vote? If not, well, that's what the electoral college is there for.
New York voted Clinton by 1.5 million popular votes winning 16 counties and the state. Donald Trump won the remaining 48
Similar story in Cali, although Hillary won by 2.8 million popular votes there.

User avatar
#6 - lebarricuda (11/14/2016) [-]
I wouldn't put it past google to be misrepresenting the numbers, and I wouldn't put it past left media or fox to report what google reports. how would we look up the numbers with 100% certainty of accuracy?
User avatar
#7 - lean (11/14/2016) [-]
Results in these states at least have been verified. What you can glean from that is Trump won by several million popular votes in the rest of the country, and that densely populated urban areas don't represent the country as a whole. It is a demonstration in the reason for a democratic republic over a direct democracy in a country the size of the US.

I really like to make liberals' heads spin and relate it to affirmative action. It is a way of weighting opinions so one area is not ignored simply because it has less people.
#11 - gallantarmor (11/15/2016) [-]
Its a crummy system that ultimately disenfranchises a large percentage of voters. If you are in a minority party for your state, there is no reason to go vote for president as you know your state won't go for your candidate. It also places undue focus on swing states and not the country as a whole (which is what you claim it is trying to do).
User avatar
#32 - lean (11/15/2016) [-]
You might conclude that if more than 50% of the voting population actually voted outcomes could be radically different. What really disenfranchises people from voting is that the vast majority sees no direct results of any federal government.

What's your idea for a better system?
#33 - gallantarmor (11/15/2016) [-]
I would really like to see a system where the party percentiles are reflected in representation. If 2 percent of people vote for the green party then they should have at least some representatives who advocate for their party. Maybe have half of the members of the house of representatives and/or senate be geographically based and the rest based on a percentile breakdown of the political parties people support.
User avatar
#34 - lean (11/15/2016) [-]
That's a logistics nightmare, and still doesn't address the presidency. Theoretically all a candidate would need then is a simple majority. 15% of the popular vote or less could nominate the president that way.
#35 - gallantarmor (11/15/2016) [-]
Most of what you said doesn't seem to relate to my post at all. You brought up getting people to not feel disenfranchised, so I was addressing that in particular. I have no idea where you got 15%and my system wasn't even related to electing the president. To make things more clear:

I think a straight popular vote would be better for president.

For my proposed system we would vote for some of our representatives as we do now. For the party percentile based representatives we would hold a special election before the primaries to determine the breakdown of representation.
User avatar
#36 - lean (11/15/2016) [-]
You can't let 5 wolves and a sheep vote on what's for supper.

The minority vote must carry weight equivalent to that of the majority, thus the election is decided on those who swing to the other side. If it was a simple popular vote, why let middle america vote at all? California will decide every election. Back to my original comment #5.

as an example: In a direct election with all parties represented you could have 10 potential candidates running for president. A simple majority higher than the competitor's vote count would place that candidate in the presidency. It could be a very low percentage of votes, and imagine the not our president protests then.
#37 - gallantarmor (11/15/2016) [-]
That is an insane concept, why should the majority of people not be able to get what they want? By your logic the person with the least votes should win as they are the greatest minority party that needs protection. I can understand wanting a voice even if you are a minority, which is why I proposed a system where parties with only 1-2% could potentially get a representative in Washington. But when voting for the president, or anything else that is either/or the will of the masses should prevail. The popular vote was extremely close as it often is so there isn't an overwhelming majority one way or the other between the two major parties.
User avatar
#39 - lean (11/15/2016) [-]
Right. Take out NY and CA and Trump won the remaining states by 3.5 million popular votes, using CNN numbers. That's why there is an electoral college. High voter turnout in a single state doesn't mean that the rest of the country has the same values and ideals as that one state.

What you are proposing is called mob rule. Mob rule down south 100 years ago hung black folks from trees. Every dictator and despot in history had the will of the people on their side at least initially. What we have in the US is a tempered electorate so that the majority will is still unable to overrule the rights of the minority. Even if california were to cast 100 million popular votes, they only get 55 electoral votes.
#41 - gallantarmor (11/15/2016) [-]
I don't know why you are talking about states, in a straight popular vote states wouldn't matter. Most states are around a 65/35 split. Look at California, about a third voted for Trump, but those votes didn't help him win since it's a blue state. Just over 52 million votes were ignored by the electoral college in this past elections. that is 42.7% of the vote. THe electoral college allows "mob rule" as you call it to keep people from being able to support a candidate just because they happen to be in the minority in their state.
User avatar
#43 - lean (11/15/2016) [-]
States matter because we are a union of states. Each state has equal say in the direction of the country. You can freely move between states, but are beholden to the laws of the state in which you reside.
You didn't have a civics class in HS did you?
#44 - gallantarmor (11/15/2016) [-]
When voting on things of national importance we shouldn't be seen as a collection of states but as a nation of individuals. There is no reason why we have to have our votes clumped by state in a process that invalidates 42% percentage of voters. I am not saying states don't matter, but in this instance it should have no bearing on the process. I had a "government" class in high school and the electoral college didn't make any sense then either.
User avatar
#45 - lean (11/15/2016) [-]
Boy you have an ass backwards idea of federal government.
Do you know that the federal government has zero authority over a county sheriff? Your local sheriff has the highest authority in the united states. That is why there are individual counties, and states, and borders in general. Because one group of people may not share the ideals of another, and as such are under no obligation to the mandates of that other group. We are states first to protect individual rights against tyranny, and a nation to allow the fluid movement of people to a place where they are more inclined to share the same ideals. The federal government doesn't deal with the individual, it deals with the country on a macro scale. That's why the 10th amendment exists, because the states and local governments are far better equipped to handle the needs of individuals. The federal government is there to handle the needs of the states. You must win in each state first to become a federal elected official. The states decide collectively who wins each based on what the people of each state want.
It's to protect people like me who view commiefornia as antithetical to my definition of liberty.
#46 - gallantarmor (11/15/2016) [-]
None of that has any baring on what I have said about federal representation, in fact I don't think you really addressed any of the points I brought up. I have learned that "local sheriff has the highest authority" is a good place to tap out as you are likely an ideologue who can not be swayed by reason. Good luck on your doomsday bunker.
#58 - vigilantej (11/16/2016) [-]
dude do you not understand how simple goverment works he adressed every point you fucking had and went through it with facts and backed them up and you did not return the favor you argued his point by saying "no your wrong" "nope i dont see that" "nope your an idoit who cannot be swayed with reason" at this point i think your a troll account as you used literally the attacks points we make fun of liberals for using now if ur local area the sheriff if the highest law authority in the land but he is beholden to the governor and i think a bit to the mayor but that being said the local sheriff has the authority to arrest and remove the governor or mayor from office but they cannot arrest the sheriff as they do not have the legal authority so his comment stands it is arguable that the highest local authority would be the sheriff or or the governor and considering the governor only deals with you guess it government issues he is not a law authority and again so thats also why we have federal and state jurisdiction because feds have no power of the state law enforcement unless it in their jurisdiction
#62 - gallantarmor (11/16/2016) [-]
After reading your post I think you might have meant to post this in response to lean.
User avatar
#47 - lean (11/15/2016) [-]
Listen up twat.
Federal representation means the states, constitutionally. That's why there isn't a popular vote to win. The individual states must choose. That system is in place so the entire country isn't represented by California.
I understand that you don't get that, or that it doesn't make sense to you. That's ok. I'm dealing with the reality of what is, and why that is. A lot of people don't get it- they are out protesting. Call me an ideologue if you want, at least I'm not rejecting reality because it's unfair.

Feel free to jump back and forth between presidential elections and federal representation all you want. You need a party and a candidate first. You think the people who wrote in harambe deserve representation too? Fucking useless you are
User avatar
#8 - lebarricuda (11/14/2016) [-]
these radical liberals which you speak of; their heads don't spin. In fact, they don't even process what you say. I'm pretty certain they just hear a tone of voice that isn't agreeing with them and stroking their ego, so they just bitch louder and cry. Try agreeing with them in an argumentative manner and watch them start disagree and bitching, because they lack the ability of thought.
User avatar
#9 - lebarricuda (11/14/2016) [-]
tone* not manner.
#12 - It does 30 on the US server, not sure if any of the servers ha…  [+] (1 reply) 11/11/2016 on Strongest ? 0
User avatar
#29 - willgum (11/12/2016) [-]
why would they
#10 - 45* when ulting.  [+] (4 replies) 11/11/2016 on Strongest ? +12
User avatar
#11 - undeaddog (11/11/2016) [-]
normal melee does 50 last I checked
User avatar
#12 - lilnuggetbob (11/11/2016) [-]
It does 30 on the US server, not sure if any of the servers have different verisons.
User avatar
#29 - willgum (11/12/2016) [-]
why would they
#6 - This looks like she actually got cut out, like, her internet *…  [+] (5 replies) 11/11/2016 on CNN Silences Muslim +130
User avatar
#60 - itsapirateslife (11/12/2016) [-]
also they would have cut her off sooner if they were going to do it anyway.
User avatar
#56 - mamenber (11/12/2016) [-]
They've done it at least twice before and it got noticed, so of course they would be more careful. I'm not saying I'm 100% sure it was intentional, but, knowing CNN, it probably was.
User avatar
#18 - notlittledevil (11/11/2016) [-]
Well, even if you're right, cnn has run it's reputation into the mud for hillary for so long that
it's gonna make it even harder to believe them, if it did cut of for legitimate reasons, then they need to have her on the air on a later date to finish the conversation, if they don't, well thats another hit on their name
User avatar
#8 - tzoedn (11/11/2016) [-]
You can also hear a chiming sound in the background, like a low battery warning.
#7 - anon (11/11/2016) [-]
It kinda looks like her internet just being borked. You're probably right on this one.
#6 - Picture  [+] (2 replies) 11/11/2016 on For Anyone Worried +19
#8 - GentlemanRaptor (11/11/2016) [-]
User avatar
#7 - englman (11/11/2016) [-]
Thank you. I'm honestly kind of surprised he's for this. If he actually is. It may not even matter really.