Page 55 of 232

Re: Random Politics

Posted: Wed Dec 20, 2017 11:12 am
by Johnnie
To Republicans he's the greatest president ever already because he's going against what the black guy did. So that isn't saying anything.

And when you control both houses and the presidency, passing legislation shouldn't be an issue. They rammed through the worst legislation that fucks my generation for decades without input from democrats and with nothing but input from lobbyists. If the threshold is "passing legislation" for a win, that's a disgusting low bar.

Otherwise, this is arguing semantics over words. He's a failure and pathetic person.

Re: Random Politics

Posted: Wed Dec 20, 2017 11:14 am
by Steve of phpBB
Joe K wrote:
mister d wrote:Coming off historically botched presidential election projections, I'm not going to be comfortable with any forecasting or polling for a long time. I'll worry right up until all of those motherfuckers are voted out, have resigned or are dead.

Also, while I hope that it remains unpopular, the tax bill was a huge policy accomplishment for the GOP. I personally disagree with virtually all of the policy goals involved, but it's a pretty big rebuttal to the narrative that Trump "can't get anything done," which was probably a big factor in diminished GOP support for him. If the inevitable follow-up attempts to slash Social Security and Medicaid actually "succeed" before the midterms, then every major conservative publication will be calling Trump a historically great President.


I dunno. Republicans with a majority voted to cut taxes. That isn't really noteworthy. What's noteworthy is that the Dems were able to make it such a struggle.

More Republicans voted against the tax cuts (12?) than Democrats voted for it (0!).

Anyway, as I recall it, 538 said that Trump had about a 25-30% chance of winning the electoral college, and that Hillary would win the popular vote by 3-4%. Change the votes by 0.07%, and Hillary wins. I don't think they botched it.

The folks who botched it were the ones who refused to believe that it could be close because people would actually vote for Trump. (Like me.)

Re: Random Politics

Posted: Wed Dec 20, 2017 11:28 am
by Nonlinear FC
This tax legislation has already been judged, and it is EXTREMELY unpopular. A lot of you guys keep looking at the Republican base holding and ignoring that the independents and a larger and larger chunk of educated white Rs are turning on the party.

They can try to spin this as a win, it won't work. It is seen by most Americans for what it is. Some in the R party think it's good to give money to rich people and corporations because they think trickle down works, despite all evidence to the contrary. That group is not anywhere close to a majority.

Don't worry about what Fox News and the WH and Rs on the Hill are saying so much. A vast majority of the American people don't trust them and aren't buying this shit.

I don't know how else to say what I've been saying for a year... A lot of you guys need to worry less about the propaganda machine and what it's doing to the mouthbreathers. That 30 percent is a lost cause. What we are seeing in special elections this year is a rejection of all that bullshit.

Passing what has already been judged to be horrible legislation by a large majority of the electorate isn't going to save Republicans. It's going to make things worse. And when they come back next year and start chopping away at SS and Medicare? All while continuing to watch ACA further deteriorate, knowing that Trump and the Rs refused to fix it?

Yes, there are a lot of gullible Americans. Not enough to keep this dumpster fire going past 2018.

Re: Random Politics

Posted: Wed Dec 20, 2017 11:42 am
by mister d
Steve of phpBB wrote:Anyway, as I recall it, 538 said that Trump had about a 25-30% chance of winning the electoral college, and that Hillary would win the popular vote by 3-4%. Change the votes by 0.07%, and Hillary wins. I don't think they botched it.


I have to imagine, historically, (1) an under 30% chance for one side is rare and (2) that side winning is almost unheard of. 72/28 (which I think is where 538 landed) might not sound skewed, but its basically the "of course this could happen" scenario that almost never does.

Re: Random Politics

Posted: Wed Dec 20, 2017 11:59 am
by Steve of phpBB
mister d wrote:
Steve of phpBB wrote:Anyway, as I recall it, 538 said that Trump had about a 25-30% chance of winning the electoral college, and that Hillary would win the popular vote by 3-4%. Change the votes by 0.07%, and Hillary wins. I don't think they botched it.


I have to imagine, historically, (1) an under 30% chance for one side is rare and (2) that side winning is almost unheard of. 72/28 (which I think is where 538 landed) might not sound skewed, but its basically the "of course this could happen" scenario that almost never does.


Sure, but still, things that almost never happen sometimes do. And I think that's what happened. Hillary won the popular vote, and the electoral college vote was basically a tie. (Not the actual EC votes, but the votes in the states that controlled the EC.)

So in other words, Fuck Jim Comey. And Bernie. And Jill Stein voters. And Russia. And Hillary for her buckraking. Any one little thing could have changed the outcome.

Re: Random Politics

Posted: Wed Dec 20, 2017 12:09 pm
by degenerasian
Steve of phpBB wrote:
mister d wrote:
Steve of phpBB wrote:Anyway, as I recall it, 538 said that Trump had about a 25-30% chance of winning the electoral college, and that Hillary would win the popular vote by 3-4%. Change the votes by 0.07%, and Hillary wins. I don't think they botched it.


I have to imagine, historically, (1) an under 30% chance for one side is rare and (2) that side winning is almost unheard of. 72/28 (which I think is where 538 landed) might not sound skewed, but its basically the "of course this could happen" scenario that almost never does.


Sure, but still, things that almost never happen sometimes do. And I think that's what happened. Hillary won the popular vote, and the electoral college vote was basically a tie. (Not the actual EC votes, but the votes in the states that controlled the EC.)

So in other words, Fuck Jim Comey. And Bernie. And Jill Stein voters. And Russia. And Hillary for her buckraking. Any one little thing could have changed the outcome.



Why fuck Bernie? Is Bernie not allowed to run on a different platform that makes sense to a lot of people? He's still doing good work now that makes sense to a lot of people.

Re: Random Politics

Posted: Wed Dec 20, 2017 12:26 pm
by Joe K
degenerasian wrote:
Steve of phpBB wrote:
mister d wrote:
Steve of phpBB wrote:Anyway, as I recall it, 538 said that Trump had about a 25-30% chance of winning the electoral college, and that Hillary would win the popular vote by 3-4%. Change the votes by 0.07%, and Hillary wins. I don't think they botched it.


I have to imagine, historically, (1) an under 30% chance for one side is rare and (2) that side winning is almost unheard of. 72/28 (which I think is where 538 landed) might not sound skewed, but its basically the "of course this could happen" scenario that almost never does.


Sure, but still, things that almost never happen sometimes do. And I think that's what happened. Hillary won the popular vote, and the electoral college vote was basically a tie. (Not the actual EC votes, but the votes in the states that controlled the EC.)

So in other words, Fuck Jim Comey. And Bernie. And Jill Stein voters. And Russia. And Hillary for her buckraking. Any one little thing could have changed the outcome.



Why fuck Bernie? Is Bernie not allowed to run on a different platform that makes sense to a lot of people? He's still doing good work now that makes sense to a lot of people.

I get that Steve was mostly just speaking figuratively and this is is largely an aside but I really don't understand the scapegoating of Jill Stein and her voters when Gary Johnson got a lot more votes than she did. Since Johnson was a conservative candidate who was likely far more attractive to Republicans than to Dems, it's highly likely than an alternative scenario where no one voted for third parties would have significantly helped Trump.

Re: Random Politics

Posted: Wed Dec 20, 2017 12:27 pm
by Nonlinear FC
degenerasian wrote:
Steve of phpBB wrote:
mister d wrote:
Steve of phpBB wrote:Anyway, as I recall it, 538 said that Trump had about a 25-30% chance of winning the electoral college, and that Hillary would win the popular vote by 3-4%. Change the votes by 0.07%, and Hillary wins. I don't think they botched it.


I have to imagine, historically, (1) an under 30% chance for one side is rare and (2) that side winning is almost unheard of. 72/28 (which I think is where 538 landed) might not sound skewed, but its basically the "of course this could happen" scenario that almost never does.


Sure, but still, things that almost never happen sometimes do. And I think that's what happened. Hillary won the popular vote, and the electoral college vote was basically a tie. (Not the actual EC votes, but the votes in the states that controlled the EC.)

So in other words, Fuck Jim Comey. And Bernie. And Jill Stein voters. And Russia. And Hillary for her buckraking. Any one little thing could have changed the outcome.



Why fuck Bernie? Is Bernie not allowed to run on a different platform that makes sense to a lot of people? He's still doing good work now that makes sense to a lot of people.


He was never going to win, and that has nothing to do with the DNC fixing things. He waited far too long to back out and did a ton of damage to HRC along the way. And I won't speak for Steve, but absolutely fuck people that voted for Bernie or stayed home because they were butt-hurt about the process. I get feeling shitty because your guy lost, I've been there multiple times. But grow up already. When the alternative is fucking Donald Trump in the WH, you suck it up and do what's right.

Re: Random Politics

Posted: Wed Dec 20, 2017 12:32 pm
by wlu_lax6
It is great to remember that every single vote counts
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/vi ... 2f8edb520a

Re: Random Politics

Posted: Wed Dec 20, 2017 12:32 pm
by Nonlinear FC
And just to add to that, I was never really all that annoyed with Nader voters, because I understood what they were saying in terms of needing a third party/voice. And, at least at the time, I didn't think Bush being in the WH was going to be a disaster (in hindsight... holy shit.)

But if you were looking at this campaign and you weren't absolutely horrified by a guy with Trump's racist, classist, criminal, bigoted, misogynistic background... enough to say, ok, we need to have a talk about the 2 party system, but HOLY SHIT we can't let this guy win.

I mean, again, there's a time to take a moral stand and there's a time to just table that and do what's right so shit doesn't burn to the ground. And if you're a "burn it to the ground" type person... Fuck you. I have kids and I like animals and generally don't want a lot of suffering to prove my shitty point.

Re: Random Politics

Posted: Wed Dec 20, 2017 12:48 pm
by Pruitt
Nonlinear FC wrote:I mean, again, there's a time to take a moral stand and there's a time to just table that and do what's right so shit doesn't burn to the ground. And if you're a "burn it to the ground" type person... Fuck you. I have kids and I like animals and generally don't want a lot of suffering to prove my shitty point.


I wonder what the people who claimed that there was no difference between the parties are thinking this afternoon.

Obviously on certain things there are big similarities. But for those who pouted instead of voting, I hope the mirror looks good today.

Re: Random Politics

Posted: Wed Dec 20, 2017 1:56 pm
by Steve of phpBB
My fuck Bernie was directed at him as much as his supporters. Yes, he was entitled to present whatever platform he wanted to the Democratic electorate (though I'm not sure a lifelong proud "non-Democrat" really can claim a right to the Democratic nomination).

If Bernie had stuck to proposing a positive agenda, that would have been fine. But he went negative, and dishonestly so. He spent months pushing the notion that Hillary would simply do the bidding of the large corporations if she was elected. That's bullshit, and we know that's bullshit because we can see what has happened since January 20.

He also falsely and maliciously pushed the notion that Hillary was somehow winning the nomination contest unfairly. Bullshit again. She got millions more votes than Bernie did in Democratic primaries. Bernie did better only in caucuses, which were themselves unfair to large swathes of the electorate. Bernie pushed the whole argument about superdelegates, but they did not control the outcome. He was so strident in this that my mother, a lifelong Democrat who pays attention to politics, actually thought that it was the superdelegates who gave Hillary the win.

Bernie did a great job campaigning after the convention. But by then, the damage was done.

So yes, argue for a $15 minimum wage and universal healthcare. Fantastic. But don't spend months pushing false narratives that tear down the party's ultimate nominee that you know the other side will adopt as soon as you are done.

My fuck Jill Stein voters was because most of them claim to be liberals or claim to want to see a liberal society, yet they voted to make Trump our president.

Re: Random Politics

Posted: Wed Dec 20, 2017 2:39 pm
by Joe K
Steve of phpBB wrote:My fuck Bernie was directed at him as much as his supporters. Yes, he was entitled to present whatever platform he wanted to the Democratic electorate (though I'm not sure a lifelong proud "non-Democrat" really can claim a right to the Democratic nomination).

If Bernie had stuck to proposing a positive agenda, that would have been fine. But he went negative, and dishonestly so.

Eh, he could have gone a lot more negative had he so chosen. He didn't bring up the FBI investigation or the Clinton Foundation's contributions from despotic regimes.

He spent months pushing the notion that Hillary would simply do the bidding of the large corporations if she was elected. That's bullshit, and we know that's bullshit because we can see what has happened since January 20.


Wasn't his argument just that he would be less corporate friendly than Hillary, which is pretty much impossible to dispute? Can you identify a single instance where Sanders said that Hillary would be better for corporate America than Trump? Because otherwise I don't see how anything that has happened since January 20 disproves what he said. And do you think the Wall Street banks paid all that money to Clinton out of the goodness of their hearts, or because they expected something in return?

He also falsely and maliciously pushed the notion that Hillary was somehow winning the nomination contest unfairly. Bullshit again. She got millions more votes than Bernie did in Democratic primaries. Bernie did better only in caucuses, which were themselves unfair to large swathes of the electorate. Bernie pushed the whole argument about superdelegates, but they did not control the outcome. He was so strident in this that my mother, a lifelong Democrat who pays attention to politics, actually thought that it was the superdelegates who gave Hillary the win.

Can you identify any specific "false and malicious" statements by Sanders himself? Expressing the *opinion* that Superdelegates shouldn't be part of the process is neither a false nor malicious statement.

Bernie did a great job campaigning after the convention. But by then, the damage was done.


How many people, as of the date of the convention, actually thought that Hillary was going to lose? Are you suggesting that her loss was unavoidable by that point?

So yes, argue for a $15 minimum wage and universal healthcare. Fantastic. But don't spend months pushing false narratives that tear down the party's ultimate nominee that you know the other side will adopt as soon as you are done.

My fuck Jill Stein voters was because most of them claim to be liberals or claim to want to see a liberal society, yet they voted to make Trump our president.

Are you aware that Sanders supporters were far more supportive of Clinton in the general election than 2008 Clinton supporters were of Obama? Because that sure seems to undermine your argument that Sanders "tore down the party's ultimate nominee." And really what you're saying logically means that no Democrat should ever challenge the party's presumptive front runner. Along these lines, do you blame Bill Bradley for the Iraq War? Because Florida was pretty damn close in 2000 and maybe he shouldn't have torn down Al Gore by waging a futile primary campaign.

And I have zero sympathy for the Clinton campaign in all of this when she herself was far nastier and more negative towards Obama in 2008. But Obama actually ran a good general election campaign and was therefore able to easily overcome a bitter primary. Continued finger pointing at Sanders supporters, who make up a big part of the party's activist energy, is entirely counterproductive at this point.

Re: Random Politics

Posted: Wed Dec 20, 2017 3:25 pm
by Steve of phpBB
I really don't think it's worth going down this road in too much detail. Just a few points.

First, comparing Bernie's nastiness in 2016 to Hillary's in 2008 is irrelevant. Bernie's nastiness helped give us Trump. Hillary's nastiness didn't give us McCain. End of story.

Second, I remember Bernie and his people promoting the idea that Hillary would do the bidding of the corporations, that she was rigging the election, and she was using superdelegates to defeat the will of the people. Can I point to an instance where Bernie himself said that? No. But I do remember it being said, and it certainly wasn't being said by the Clinton camp. Like I said, my mom was surprised when I told her Hillary won by a clear margin of delegates without any superdelegates being involved.

Third, it doesn't matter that Bernie never explicitly said "Hillary will be as bad as Trump." What matters is that he pushed the false narrative that she would do whatever corporations wanted her to do. Which is not true, was never true, and clearly never would be true. (Which, again, we know, because we can see what happens with a president who really does whatever corporations want, and it is different from what would be happening if Hillary had won.) So many voters felt they were faced with two candidates who would do whatever corporations wanted. If that's the choice, why bother? So we ended up with Trump.

Finally, this isn't about "sympathy for the Clinton campaign." It's about the millions of people who are suffering and will continue to suffer because Trump is president instead of Hillary.

Re: Random Politics

Posted: Wed Dec 20, 2017 4:13 pm
by Avram
I would like to point out FWIW that the number of Bernie voters who voted for Trump in PA,MI and WI was greater than Trump's margin of victory in PA,MI and WI. In PA they would have to be registered D's you can't cross vote and Independents can't vote for a party slate in the primary. I don't know the rules in WI or MI.

Re: Random Politics

Posted: Wed Dec 20, 2017 5:04 pm
by Rush2112
Avram wrote:I would like to point out FWIW that the number of Bernie voters who voted for Trump in PA,MI and WI was greater than Trump's margin of victory in PA,MI and WI. In PA they would have to be registered D's you can't cross vote and Independents can't vote for a party slate in the primary. I don't know the rules in WI or MI.


WI is an open primary.

Here's a deep look at the numbers of supposed Bernie to Trump voters, and while at the surface it looks like the numbers could generate out to look like they provided the margin of victory, as the article mentions there are a lot of caveats to those numbers.

Re: Random Politics

Posted: Wed Dec 20, 2017 6:20 pm
by Steve of phpBB
Rush2112 wrote:Here's a deep look at the numbers of supposed Bernie to Trump voters, and while at the surface it looks like the numbers could generate out to look like they provided the margin of victory, as the article mentions there are a lot of caveats to those numbers.


It seems to me that with the margins in those three states being as close as they were, you could probably look at any slice of people who didn't vote for Hillary and say that if they had, she would've won the EC.

Re: Random Politics

Posted: Wed Dec 20, 2017 9:26 pm
by brian
Yup. We were 1000 Nader fucktards in Florida and Bernie Bros in MI, WI and PA away from having no Republican presidents for the last 25 years (if you assume Gore would have won 2004 as well and a bunch of other stuff)

Re: Random Politics

Posted: Thu Dec 21, 2017 6:47 am
by cerrano
wlu_lax6 wrote:It is great to remember that every single vote counts
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/vi ... 2f8edb520a


Greater even still.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/vi ... 5c21c6f89/

Re: Random Politics

Posted: Thu Dec 21, 2017 7:00 am
by wlu_lax6
cerrano wrote:
wlu_lax6 wrote:It is great to remember that every single vote counts
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/vi ... 2f8edb520a


Greater even still.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/vi ... 5c21c6f89/


Yeah saw this. Looks like this will go to a lottery and then another recount request by the loser.

Re: Random Politics

Posted: Thu Dec 21, 2017 9:05 am
by Brontoburglar
that ballot they counted for him is ... sketchy. I understand there were votes for other Republicans on it, but filling in both bubbles and then a line through her bubble means it's a vote for him?

Re: Random Politics

Posted: Thu Dec 21, 2017 9:34 am
by BSF21
Brontoburglar wrote:that ballot they counted for him is ... sketchy. I understand there were votes for other Republicans on it, but filling in both bubbles and then a line through her bubble means it's a vote for him?


This is pretty simple. You either go get a new ballot and that one is destroyed or it doesn't count because your dumb ass can't read/follow simple directions.

Re: Random Politics

Posted: Thu Dec 21, 2017 10:12 am
by mister d
Assuming we can prove it wasn't a post-count adjustment, its more intellectually consistent for me to argue intent over rulebook.

Re: Random Politics

Posted: Thu Dec 21, 2017 11:07 am
by Brontoburglar
mister d wrote:Assuming we can prove it wasn't a post-count adjustment, its more intellectually consistent for me to argue intent over rulebook.


not sure how you argue intent there because of how common voting for people from multiple parties in the same election is

Re: Random Politics

Posted: Thu Dec 21, 2017 11:19 am
by Gunpowder
Yeah, I'm not going to get into a tizzy on this one. If this lady truly meant to pick the GOP guy then they should get that vote. They also shouldn't gerrymander and enact voter suppression laws, but if they are ok with that tradeoff then so am I.

Re: Random Politics

Posted: Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:00 pm
by Rush2112
Gotta love that the next manner of deciding the election is to basically draw straws. Can say what you want about the NFL, but at least they have good tie-breaking rules!

Re: Random Politics

Posted: Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:01 pm
by Brontoburglar
Gunpowder wrote:Yeah, I'm not going to get into a tizzy on this one. If this lady truly meant to pick the GOP guy then they should get that vote. They also shouldn't gerrymander and enact voter suppression laws, but if they are ok with that tradeoff then so am I.


uh, what's the return on the trade of gerrymandering and voter suppression laws in this case?

Re: Random Politics

Posted: Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:03 pm
by Brontoburglar
this is the ballot, btw

Image

Re: Random Politics

Posted: Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:06 pm
by Johnnie
Our entire lives we've filled out bubble sheets with #2 pencils.

Then you get into a voting booth and have to use a ball point pen.

C'mon, man.

Re: Random Politics

Posted: Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:37 pm
by Gunpowder
Brontoburglar wrote:
Gunpowder wrote:Yeah, I'm not going to get into a tizzy on this one. If this lady truly meant to pick the GOP guy then they should get that vote. They also shouldn't gerrymander and enact voter suppression laws, but if they are ok with that tradeoff then so am I.


uh, what's the return on the trade of gerrymandering and voter suppression laws in this case?



My consistent positioning? I'm saying if I am against methods designed to suppress votes, I'm not going to say that I think this lady's vote should be discounted if she truly wanted to vote for the GOP guy.

Re: Random Politics

Posted: Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:38 pm
by Gunpowder
Rush2112 wrote:Gotta love that the next manner of deciding the election is to basically draw straws. Can say what you want about the NFL, but at least they have good tie-breaking rules!




Yeah, that was my biggest takeaway as well. But I actually like that better than letting a house or senate or whatever pick the guy from their majority party.

Re: Random Politics

Posted: Thu Dec 21, 2017 1:16 pm
by Brontoburglar
Gunpowder wrote:
Brontoburglar wrote:
Gunpowder wrote:Yeah, I'm not going to get into a tizzy on this one. If this lady truly meant to pick the GOP guy then they should get that vote. They also shouldn't gerrymander and enact voter suppression laws, but if they are ok with that tradeoff then so am I.


uh, what's the return on the trade of gerrymandering and voter suppression laws in this case?



My consistent positioning? I'm saying if I am against methods designed to suppress votes, I'm not going to say that I think this lady's vote should be discounted if she truly wanted to vote for the GOP guy.


the use of "they" in that threw me off, especially in the context of the GOP suppressing and gerrymandering *and* getting that vote

I'm still also not sure how intent is clear in this case when you consider what the Gillespie vote looks like

Re: Random Politics

Posted: Thu Dec 21, 2017 1:32 pm
by Gunpowder
Why couldn't they have just asked this lady before it became a news story?

Re: Random Politics

Posted: Thu Dec 21, 2017 1:37 pm
by Brontoburglar
Gunpowder wrote:Why couldn't they have just asked this lady before it became a news story?


because the identity of the voter isn't known?

I haven't seen anything identifying the voter as anything but "voter" and I also didn't see anything blurred out on the ballot indicating there would be a serial number that would allow it to be traced (which I'm not even sure is legal)

Re: Random Politics

Posted: Fri Dec 22, 2017 6:57 am
by Pruitt
Shine Coming Off Canada's Golden Boy

As a Prime Minister, Young Trudeau makes a great spokesmodel. Charisma, charm and ann embodiment of what we like to think of as Canadian values pitted against evidence of a growing cult of personality within his party, horribly unpopular changes to the tax code and what may become a major ethics scandal.

(Bear in mind that what passes for "scandal" up here is small potatoes compared to other countries)

Re: Random Politics

Posted: Fri Dec 22, 2017 9:23 am
by mister d
Line cutting at Tim Hortons?

Re: Random Politics

Posted: Thu Dec 28, 2017 10:27 pm
by Pruitt
From Ballon D'Or to President

George Weah. Amazing story.

Re: Random Politics

Posted: Fri Dec 29, 2017 11:35 pm
by The Sybian
Pruitt wrote:From Ballon D'Or to President

George Weah. Amazing story.


I hope this doesn't inspire his son, US Youth National Team star Tim Weah, to play for Liberia.

Re: Random Politics

Posted: Sat Dec 30, 2017 1:33 pm
by brian
The Sybian wrote:
Pruitt wrote:From Ballon D'Or to President

George Weah. Amazing story.


I hope this doesn't inspire his son, US Youth National Team star Tim Weah, to play for Liberia.


Weah has always been involved with Liberian politics. If Tim was going to play for Liberia he likely would have already.

Re: Random Politics

Posted: Tue Jan 02, 2018 3:25 pm
by Pruitt
Michelle Bachmann (Maybe) Is Back

Like a herpes flareup... may run for Franken's empty seat.

Dropped the hint on Jim Bakker's show.