thebeave
Veteran Member
I doubt that would have worked. As I understand it, the 10 C's were in Hunter Biden's classroom when he was a kid, and look how he turned out. The fact is, Lauren Boebert is just a shitty parent.
-
Features
Lauren Boebert’s American Dream
- Thread starter ZiprHead
- Start date
I doubt that would have worked. As I understand it, the 10 C's were in Hunter Biden's classroom when he was a kid, and look how he turned out. The fact is, Lauren Boebert is just a shitty parent.
Shadowy Man
Contributor
Wait.. you're saying that the parents need to be responsible for the moral upbringing of their own children? Sheesh!! I thought the whole point was that the schools were falling down on that job, hence the need to post the Ten Commandments in every classroom.
thebeave
Veteran Member
I like to think that both parents and schools play a big part in the moral upbringing of kids. I do put more responsibility on the parents though. The 10 C's posted in schools aren't going to do jack shit though. In fact, I expect (and hope) this is going to backfire badly. With any luck, other religions are going to demand to post their stuff in the schools, or the outspoken atheist kids are going to have a field day with teaching the other kids about the religious nuttery in the bible. Its going to be clusterfuck IMHO. 
T.G.G. Moogly
Traditional Atheist
Ten Commandments Karen. Pretty soon we're going to be hearing about how Karen and Kristi went atop Mount Sinai and rapped with the big Yah. It'll be in one of their books. Can't wait.
lpetrich
Contributor
Why the 10C's? Why not the Sermon on the Mount? Like "Love your enemies and let them abuse you" and "don't do name calling" and "one ought to remove body parts that make one commit sins" and "don't make a big show of your piety" and "you cannot serve both God and money" and "don't have foresight because God will always provide".
Never mind that that last one contradicts the story of Joseph and the Pharaoh, about how it's important to prepare for bad times when one is in good times. Dreams being prophetic is a big fat load of bull doo-doo, but I like the message. Also Jesus Christ himself calling Pharisees "snakes", and him claiming to uphold all of the law of the Old Testament and him revoking some of it.
Jesus Christ's Sins | Internet Infidels Discussion Board - including acting contrary to some of the Ten Commandments:
Never mind that that last one contradicts the story of Joseph and the Pharaoh, about how it's important to prepare for bad times when one is in good times. Dreams being prophetic is a big fat load of bull doo-doo, but I like the message. Also Jesus Christ himself calling Pharisees "snakes", and him claiming to uphold all of the law of the Old Testament and him revoking some of it.
Jesus Christ's Sins | Internet Infidels Discussion Board - including acting contrary to some of the Ten Commandments:
- He was very disrespectful and rude to his parents, and he insisted that his followers also be that way
- He worked on the Sabbath for some of his healings
- He obstructed justice in a case of adultery
Just couldn't do it could you? Hunter is like the new Benjamin Ghazi drug for people like you isn't it?
Don't worry. Just relax. I'm only asking questions.
lpetrich
Contributor
I'm very surprised by Lauren Boebert's primary victory. Colorado 4th Congressional District Primary Election Results 2024 - The New York Times
With 95% counted, she got 43.3% of the vote, with the others getting 14.5%, 13.7%, 10.8%, 10.6%, and 7.1%.
That means that 56.7% of the primary voters of CO-04 had voted against her, but her opponents were so divided that they let her win.
That's a problem with first-past-the-post or plurality voting: vote for one candidate and whoever has the most votes wins. Simple, but dumb. As this example shows, FPTP rewards the most unified political blocs, and that is why it produces a two-party system (Duverger's law). Here, LB was obviously very unified, since there is only one of her. But she had five opponents, and they did not try to consolidate their opposition by all but one dropping out.
An alternative has been emerging: ranked-choice voting. One ranks the candidates: first choice, second choice, etc. The votes are usually counted in instant-runoff fashion. Whoever gets a majority, more than 50%, wins, but without a majority, the candidate drops out who is in the fewest top choices. The ballots are then recounted as if that candidate was not in the race. This process is repeated until some candidate gets a majority of the remaining top-choice votes.
Thus, LB's opponents would have voted for one or two of LB's opposition as a second or third choice, and the survivor of these would have beaten LB.
With 95% counted, she got 43.3% of the vote, with the others getting 14.5%, 13.7%, 10.8%, 10.6%, and 7.1%.
That means that 56.7% of the primary voters of CO-04 had voted against her, but her opponents were so divided that they let her win.
That's a problem with first-past-the-post or plurality voting: vote for one candidate and whoever has the most votes wins. Simple, but dumb. As this example shows, FPTP rewards the most unified political blocs, and that is why it produces a two-party system (Duverger's law). Here, LB was obviously very unified, since there is only one of her. But she had five opponents, and they did not try to consolidate their opposition by all but one dropping out.
An alternative has been emerging: ranked-choice voting. One ranks the candidates: first choice, second choice, etc. The votes are usually counted in instant-runoff fashion. Whoever gets a majority, more than 50%, wins, but without a majority, the candidate drops out who is in the fewest top choices. The ballots are then recounted as if that candidate was not in the race. This process is repeated until some candidate gets a majority of the remaining top-choice votes.
Thus, LB's opponents would have voted for one or two of LB's opposition as a second or third choice, and the survivor of these would have beaten LB.
bilby
Fair dinkum thinkum
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 35,054
- Gender
- He/Him
- Basic Beliefs
- Strong Atheist
Needing less than 7% of the vote from second preferences, it would be highly unlikely that she would have lost out to one of her opponents anyway. Her closest challenger needed to pick up a 35% shortfall. That would only happen if almost everyone who didn't love her, absolutely despised her.
I have seen plenty of candidates lose in IRV ballots (which have been the norm for lower house voting in Australia since 1918) despite having gotten over 40% of the first preference vote, but not when their closest opponent was so far behind.
