🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

Jeffrey Phillips Freeman

Innovator & Entrepreneur in Machine Learning, Evolutionary Computing & Big Data. Avid SCUBA diver, Open-source developer, HAM radio operator, astrophotographer, and anything nerdy.

Born and raised in Philadelphia, PA, USA, currently living in Utrecht, Netherlands, USA, and Thailand. Was also living in Israel, but left.

Pronouns: Sir / Mister

(Above pronouns are not intended to mock, i will respect any persons pronouns and only wish pronouns to show respect be used with me as well. These are called neopronouns, see an example of the word “frog” used as a neopronoun here: http://tinyurl.com/44hhej89 )

A proud member of the Penobscot Native American tribe, as well as a Mayflower passenger descendant. I sometimes post about my genealogical history.

My stance on various issues:

Education: Free to PhD, tax paid
Abortion: Protected, tax paid, limited time-frame
Welfare: Yes, no one should starve
UBI: No, use welfare
Racism: is real
Guns: Shall not be infringed
LGBT+/minorities: Support
Pronouns: Will respect
Trump: Moron, evil
Biden: Senile, racist
Police: ACAB
Drugs: Fully legal, no prescriptions needed

GPG/PGP Fingerprint: 8B23 64CD 2403 6DCB 7531 01D0 052D DA8E 0506 CBCE

  • 0 Posts
  • 15 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: September 24th, 2023

help-circle
  • @godofbiscuits @CoachMark @WrenArcher @kamalaharrisforpresidentnews > First off, 80 years is more like FOUR generations.

    True usually when people talk about generations they talk about the time to average child bearing age, not the length of time of a lifetime. What I meant here was a single persons lifespan.

    Second, the last non Democratic, non Republican President was Millard Fillmore

    To be clear here I didnt actually answer your question, because I misread it as being applicable to my claim.

    I claimed the majority party changed 8 times and the last time was 80 years. That is not the same as saying a non-majority party won all those 8 times. Some of those 8 cases represent presidential wins, some of them simply represented a new majority party pushing out an old, but not corresponding with a presidential win during that year (and by some future point when the new party does win has now been established as a majority party so wouldnt count by your criteria).

    Specifically in the case of 80 years ago, we are talking about a third-party becoming one of the two majority parties, but not becoming the winning party,. 80 years ago was also the one time out of 8 that I had mentioned that the thuird party did not retain majority status after wards. In all other cases, 7 of them, the new majority party remained a majority party and I beleive in all cases eventually had a presidential candidate in office.

    @CoachMark @WrenArcher @kamalaharrisforpresidentnews


  • @godofbiscuits

    > so each was on its way already to becoming a majority party and entrenching itself. Gotcha. And WHEN was the last one?

    No actually not at all. In every case where a new party came in and took over a majority party it had <1% support int he previous election. These new parties that come in and replace existing majority parties in 7 out of 8 of the cases all happened over the course of a single election. In the one outlier it was over the court of 2 elections.

    > And WHEN was the last one?

    Quite some while back, Its about a generation back, something like 80 years ago. Which again is to my point, the fact that it has happened 8 times already and has not happened **recently** means the underlying cause is something recent and not FPTP which we had through that entire time.

    > My only point was that THIS election, a 3rd party vote is nothing but a not-D and not-R vote, because there is no 3rd party groundswell.

    As stated in virtually all cases of a switch of parties there was no building “ground swell” in all cases the switch of party was abrupt and over the course of just a single election.

    Moreover as stated earlier, its a pointless argument because there is no rational argument that a vote for a candidate that wins, particularly when your vote does not swing the outcome, has any more value than a vote for a canddidate that looses, again, when your vote wouldnt have caused the swing. Since votes never really come down to a single vote, your vote will never swing the outcome, so there is little incentive for you to pick a canddidate you dont like as much simply because you think they would win.

    @CoachMark @WrenArcher @kamalaharrisforpresidentnews