Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > The Case Against Trump: Restocking swamp gators!

The Case Against Trump: Restocking swamp gators! (Page 20)
Thread Tools
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 14, 2016, 01:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
Certainly Trump's strong suits, his character and morals.
and still, Hillary is worse.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Nov 14, 2016, 03:51 PM
 
Depending on your priorities, sure.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 14, 2016, 07:07 PM
 
The GOP has totally forfeited the "experience" critique for the foreseeable future.

Donald Trump seems to be stunningly ignorant about what a president actually does | Vox.com

PS: And the "judgement", "temperament", and "character" critiques as well.
( Last edited by OAW; Nov 14, 2016 at 09:21 PM. )
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 14, 2016, 07:55 PM
 
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 14, 2016, 08:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Don't be so sure. Majority beliefs can change more "facts" than you think. People like Chongo believe that there is a group who campaigns for murder to (continue to) be legal, under the name of abortion. Most in the country believe differently, so it is not murder. If the ratio of believers changes, so will the "facts." Another example is child-marriage. Some groups believe it is not rape, but most of us think it is. If that fringe of believers in child-marriage managed to grow to a majority, then a campaign to legalize that form of rape would not be quelled a priori.
I think I'm reasonably safe in saying that views on child marriage/rape have moved fairly predominantly in one direction. Once upon a time it was the norm, even approved by the main religious rulebooks, now its considered awful. Same goes for murder. Its always been considered bad, there were exceptions. They exceptions have reduced and reduced.


Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
If you had a Chongo in your family who implemented the persistence strategy on you (re abortion), what do you think the outcome would be? Would his persistence make you come around to his perspective? Or would his persistence merely harden your opposition to him?
Abortion is a tricky one. At the end of the day there is a line to be drawn between conception and murder and its really hard to draw that line. Having continued to expose myself to arguments from others, I have at the very least become more thoughtful about it from an original position of being in favour without question. Though I never personally drew that line as to how far in it should be allowed. I still choose to cop out and let medical scientists make the distinction on that one, I'm no biologist after all.
On the issue of contraception a persistent onslaught on me would be akin to him banging his head on a brick wall. He doesn't have the reasoning to sway me, so he's not going to get anywhere, just annoy me. But if he had the reasoning, it would be different. And thats the key. These people are not open to reason. It has more to do with who is doing the reasoning, but for the most part anyone who tells them anything they don't want to hear will either be ignored on that one issue or discarded as some kind of 'closet libtard' and ignored on all issues going forward. I cannot think of who might be able to get through to them, but there is certainly no point in me trying.
So all I can do is just tell them I think their opinions are terrible, immoral, unprincipled etc. Like I say, I don't have to be so nasty as to call the idiots or assholes all the time, I can be far less hostile about it and I leave that approach to whoever is condemning, admonishing or reprimanding their terrible opinions or actions.


Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Oh god. People aren't children, not even stupid people. And they know it when you treat them like they are children, and they definitely don't appreciate it. You'll do more harm to your cause going down this path than any opponent of your cause could hope to do.
Yeah, I knew you'd like that as I was writing it. Mob mentality is actually quite childish, and even on an individual basis there is some very childish thought processes going on. A lot of rather childish selfishness too. Same is true of the fingers in the ears and loud humming approach to debate and the depressingly short attention span for boring stuff like politics. I'm not sorry I said it. I'm done pussyfooting around these people. They have zero qualms about insulting me.


Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Beware the facile strategy of selecting the absolute worst of the other side as your role model. Many of the other side remain on the high road too, even if they aren't the most visible attention-seekers.
I don't know how you can forgive someone who thinks groping women is ok or that Mexicans are rapists though. If you vote for a candidate because you think he will put more money in your pocket then fair enough. But if you put a few extra bucks for yourself above the rights of your fellow citizens, above respect for your wife/sister/daughter or the future of your environment, then you kinda suck.
And if you genuinely thought that Hillary was bad because she's in league with the Wall Street 1% and so you voted for one of the Wall Street 1% instead, or if you thought that Hillary email fiasco was a greater character flaw than the racism, narcissism, swearing, lack of impulse control, disregard for science, thin skin and creepy, rapey misogyny, then you're a ****ing moron.



Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
The time when I got the strongest feeling of "this.... is his exit plan" was when he didn't back down from his "founder of ISIS" comment. Runner up was when he started talking about rigged elections several weeks before the election. I think he expected one of those events to give him an excuse to fade away gracefully.
People have been mocking the Dems for trusting the polls and thinking they would win, but its very clear that no-one on either side expected them to lose.


Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
If deploring a viewpoint counts as "respect" for that view, then I have to wonder what definition of "respect" you are using.
You don't have to respect peoples views. You have to respect people to an extent and you absolutely must respect their rights, but if their views are stupid, then their views are stupid.


Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Yeah but that's exactly what both sides said. At that point, it falls back on the boilerplate issues, like abortion, second amendment, entitlements, yadda yadda yadda. The electorate is so close to break-even on those issues that it could go either way, and that's what happened.

I was listening to people being interviewed in Ohio earlier and one stood out in particular. She said she was unhappy not because her family were struggling to get by, but because they only had enough money to pay the bills and eat etc and no more. In other words, no disposable income.
The global economy is still recovering from the mess the last Republican government caused. Then the guy who was elected to make changes was hobbled after a couple of years and spent 6 being tied up by the same Republicans who left him with a pile of shit to deal with in the first place. And Republican voters still don't hold their own team to account for any of this. Its utter lunacy.
That aside, I suspect there was a lot of this at play in the voting. Nothing to do with hardship, its a lack of luxury. Now if you are prepared to sacrifice your fellow citizens rights in the hope you will get to eat, thats one thing. Doing it so you can have the leather seats option on your next car or take an extra holiday?
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 15, 2016, 06:30 AM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
The GOP has totally forfeited the "experience" critique for the foreseeable future.

Donald Trump seems to be stunningly ignorant about what a president actually does | Vox.com

PS: And the "judgement", "temperament", and "character" critiques as well.
It would help if you didn't cite the most biased and butthurt "news" sources around. They've been making shit up for a year and a half and you still haven't figured it out. No wonder when your chick lost it shocked you all so badly. I'm certain Community Organizer Obama didn't know shit from shinola when he took office, either, there's a steep learning curve involved for anyone stepping in.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 15, 2016, 08:46 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
I'm not sorry I said it. I'm done pussyfooting around these people.
...
I don't know how you can forgive someone who
...
If you vote for a candidate ... then you kinda suck.
And if you genuinely thought ... then you're a ****ing moron.
...
in Ohio ... In other words, no disposable income.
...
Republican voters still don't hold their own team to account for any of this.
..
Nothing to do with hardship, its a lack of luxury.
Seems like you don't want to talk about what works, only what people deserve. I don't care if people deserve to be treated like children. It doesn't work, so it's a waste of time.


You don't have to respect peoples views. You have to respect people to an extent and you absolutely must respect their rights, but if their views are stupid, then their views are stupid.
How can he have disrespected anyone's rights? He's never held power in elective office for a single day in his life. If you want to declare he's crossed the line from calling views stupid to violating any rights, then you have to read into his words, his campaign promises. If you do the same to Clinton's, you could find the same conclusion about her.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 15, 2016, 11:29 AM
 
This has nothing to do with "white nationalism" and everything to do with Bannon being one of those medieval Catholics. The same for Conway, Gingrich, Giuliani, Ingram, and his entire Catholic advisory board.

Father Jonathan Morris (Fox News contributor) posted this on his FB page.
I've known Steve Bannon as a close friend for nearly fifteen years. I've never heard or seen a racist word or action from him.
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Nov 15, 2016, 11:56 AM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
It would help if you didn't cite the most biased and butthurt "news" sources around.
If you're so concerned about reliable news sources, why didn't we see you bashing someone trying to cite Infowars?
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 15, 2016, 12:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
It would help if you didn't cite the most biased and butthurt "news" sources around. They've been making shit up for a year and a half and you still haven't figured it out. No wonder when your chick lost it shocked you all so badly. I'm certain Community Organizer Obama didn't know shit from shinola when he took office, either, there's a steep learning curve involved for anyone stepping in.
Yeah, you've been citing garbage sources too. You have zero grounds to complain about CNN.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 15, 2016, 12:31 PM
 
I somehow missed some discussion elaborating on Hillary's bad points. Except it didn't. Which has been the specific case all the way through the election.

She's corrupt;
She kills people;
Her husband is as bad as Trump when it comes to women;
She's crooked;
She's worse than Trump;
Email;
She's friends with bad people in the middle east;

As you can plainly see most of these are vague and therefore insubstantial. One is aimed at her husband which is not her fault. No-one is angry with Trump because his wife was a nude model, despite the outrage over Michelle Obama showing her arms in public. Bush had friends in the middle east, including relatives of Bin Laden and [b[none of you cared[/b].

Which explains why we kept on coming back to the emails. Which anyone who isn't hopelessly biased and/or brainwashed can see is also a non issue next to the frightfully similar behaviour of her predecessors and other colleagues with their own emails. Again, none of you cared.

You get points for one thing and one thing only: Not yelling "Benghazi!" over and over again. I guess someone thought RW voters would lose focus if they had two different scandals to yell about at the same time.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Nov 15, 2016, 12:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
One is aimed at her husband which is not her fault.
The story goes that she was the "enforcer" that made sure those women stayed quiet. And certainly staying married to a philanderer and alleged rapist counts as some kind of endorsement of his actions.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 15, 2016, 12:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Seems like you don't want to talk about what works, only what people deserve. I don't care if people deserve to be treated like children. It doesn't work, so it's a waste of time.
You say this like your play nice and be respectful approach is something new and original. Its what people always say and for the most part its what the left has done in the past. It hasn't worked. Why keep doing what hasn't worked?


Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
How can he have disrespected anyone's rights? He's never held power in elective office for a single day in his life. If you want to declare he's crossed the line from calling views stupid to violating any rights, then you have to read into his words, his campaign promises. If you do the same to Clinton's, you could find the same conclusion about her.
He made promises to reduce women's reproductive rights. He was caught saying things that infringed their right not to be sexually assaulted too. Some would say mass deportation of 11m would infringe a few peoples human rights. Especially the kids who can claim citizenship but are too young to stay by themselves.

People claimed they voted for him because he was honest. (I can see how dumb you have to be to believe that, I'm sure you can too, but thats what they claimed.) That means they believed he would enact these infringements and repeals. Hillary never even hinted she would remove or impinge on anyones rights.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 15, 2016, 12:42 PM
 
And Hillary never flip-flopped?
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 15, 2016, 02:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
You say this like your play nice and be respectful approach is something new and original. Its what people always say and for the most part its what the left has done in the past. It hasn't worked. Why keep doing what hasn't worked?
No, it has worked. Do you realize in 2016 the national debate was about bathroom rights for trannies? Bathroom rights for trannies! Ten years ago that would have been a punch-line in overall American society. Twenty years ago that would have been a punch-line in the secret back-room strategy meetings of the leaders of the MOST liberal elite fops. In 2016 it was reality. Society is moving in the direction of social justice, even in the USA.


He made promises to reduce women's reproductive rights. He was caught saying things that infringed their right not to be sexually assaulted too. Some would say mass deportation of 11m would infringe a few peoples human rights. Especially the kids who can claim citizenship but are too young to stay by themselves.

People claimed they voted for him because he was honest. (I can see how dumb you have to be to believe that, I'm sure you can too, but thats what they claimed.) That means they believed he would enact these infringements and repeals. Hillary never even hinted she would remove or impinge on anyones rights.
Campaign talk is cheap. If we learn one thing from this election it should be that you can't rely on your opponent's literal campaign talk any more than you can rely on your own candidate's campaign promises (which is not at all).
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 15, 2016, 05:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
If you're so concerned about reliable news sources, why didn't we see you bashing someone trying to cite Infowars?
That's not my job, you guys don't police your own side so there's no reason for us to do it either. You're trying to make your opponents adhere to a higher standard than you're capable of, while the Left is touting that they're morally superior, that tactic doesn't work anymore.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Nov 15, 2016, 06:41 PM
 
There it is again, someone assuming my side.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 15, 2016, 06:58 PM
 
That's what happens when you talk in memes and emoticons.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 15, 2016, 07:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Yeah, you've been citing garbage sources too. You have zero grounds to complain about CNN.
I know I have neither the time nor inclination to engage anyone on this so-called "lamestream media" foolishness. I'll continue to cite the NY Times. CNN. Fox News. The Washington Post. The BBC. Vox. etc. These things we call major media outlets with actual professional journalistic credibility. And I'll let others who are known to cite anonymous right-wing blogs and/or freaking Alex Jones continue to bitch and moan about it.

OAW
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 15, 2016, 07:26 PM
 
The NYT, CNN, Faux, TWP, and BBC are bad enough, but Vox? You might as well list MoJo, Slate, and Salon, too. No one is trustworthy right now, if you haven't noticed media trust is down to 6%, and it's for good reason. If you aren't pulling it off the direct feeds, before the spin, "flavor", and outright lies are added, you're being manipulated. Hell, you might as well be linking Wordpress blogs, for as much accuracy as you're receiving from the MSM, and then, even Reuters and the AP isn't as propaganda free as it once was.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 15, 2016, 08:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Hell, you might as well be linking Wordpress blogs, for as much accuracy as you're receiving from the MSM ....
Well this is your typical M.O. so you should know. But we'll just have to agree to disagree on whether or not the anonymous right-wing blogs you are keen on citing have "as much accuracy" as mainstream news outlets.

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
No one is trustworthy right now, if you haven't noticed media trust is down to 6%, and it's for good reason.
Perhaps you A) presume that people in general have a mistrust of the media for the same reasons, and B) lose sight of the reality that some people don't "trust" factual information that doesn't conform to their worldview?

But you see this right here is a prime example of why we so often find ourselves at odds around here. You just claimed "media trust is down to 6%". But based upon what?

Four in 10 Americans say they have "a great deal" or "a fair amount" of trust and confidence in the mass media to report the news fully, accurately and fairly. This ties the historical lows on this measure set in 2014 and 2012. Prior to 2004, slight majorities of Americans said they trusted the mass media, such as newspapers, TV and radio.

Americans' Trust in Media Remains at Historical Low | Gallup

Now there is a helluva difference between 6% and 40%! And so what I'm saying is I have no qualms relying up Sep. 2015 statistics from Gallup over CTP talking shit any day of the week. Now if you can produce credible information showing a 36% drop in this figure in the last year I'll entertain it. But I suspect you won't ... because you can't.

OAW
( Last edited by OAW; Nov 15, 2016 at 09:18 PM. )
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 15, 2016, 10:12 PM
 
Well a media that doesn't exclusively say things you agree with can't possibly be trusted can it?
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 15, 2016, 10:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
No, it has worked. Do you realize in 2016 the national debate was about bathroom rights for trannies? Bathroom rights for trannies! Ten years ago that would have been a punch-line in overall American society. Twenty years ago that would have been a punch-line in the secret back-room strategy meetings of the leaders of the MOST liberal elite fops. In 2016 it was reality. Society is moving in the direction of social justice, even in the USA.
And yet here we are after 8 years of unparalleled racist bile being spewed at the President and every single thing he ever tried to do with an undercurrent of tactical misogynist hatred for Hillary staring down the barrel of resident Trump.


Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Campaign talk is cheap. If we learn one thing from this election it should be that you can't rely on your opponent's literal campaign talk any more than you can rely on your own candidate's campaign promises (which is not at all).

Not sure what you mean by this. I haven't trusted many politicians since I was under 10 years old. Its very clear that many Trump voters absolutely believed everything he said, they even said so. And thats my problem with them because they believed it and still voted for him. Its a blessing for the rest of the world that he was lying through his ass, but it doesn't exonerate his supporters who condoned sexism and racism with their votes in their millions.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 16, 2016, 07:52 AM
 
Liberal assholes always think they see racism everywhere. They have been indoctrinated to be liberal stooges.
I wish they heard what others actually said instead of what they assume they meant.
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 16, 2016, 09:42 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
It hasn't worked. Why keep doing what hasn't worked?
No, it has worked.
And yet here we are after 8 years of unparalleled racist bile being spewed at the President
You buried the lead there. That president, black. Gay weddings in every state. Transgender considered for specific rights on the national stage. A woman wins the popular vote for the highest office.

"Well a media strategy that doesn't exclusively say win things you agree with can't possibly be trusted can it?"



...Trump voters absolutely believed everything he said...
Even BadKosh can muster more nuance than you're using.
     
el chupacabra
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 16, 2016, 10:59 AM
 
War, you act like Trump had some kind of major firm support base. He did not. I read Trump had less votes than McCain and Romney, and they were losers. The question was never "why did Trump win?", it was "why did Hillary lose?". The answer is weak candidate. Dems would have easily won if they'd put up anyone else.... or if Hillary hadnt cheated against Bernie she would've lost early on & we'd have Bernie for pres. But This election was between 2 people who resembled corporate loving Bush republicans, with Trump being the least establishment.
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 16, 2016, 12:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by el chupacabra View Post
War, you act like Trump had some kind of major firm support base. He did not. I read Trump had less votes than McCain and Romney, and they were losers.
That is actually not true. I know that the entire Internet seems to think so, but they were using numbers from before the count was complete. Romney had 60,933,504 votes, and McCain had 59,948,323. Trump is already over 61 million and the count is not done. By percentage of the vote, he is behind Romney but above McCain right now.

Originally Posted by el chupacabra View Post
The question was never "why did Trump win?", it was "why did Hillary lose?". The answer is weak candidate. Dems would have easily won if they'd put up anyone else.... or if Hillary hadnt cheated against Bernie she would've lost early on & we'd have Bernie for pres. But This election was between 2 people who resembled corporate loving Bush republicans, with Trump being the least establishment.
This meme that Bernie somehow had a chance but that the DNC cheated, or worse that Clinton did, is probably not going to die, is it? Post-truth politics indeed.

What was alleged by the DNC hack was that the DNC favored Clinton at the point when the primary was all but done and nothing less than a meteor strike could have saved Bernie. That didn't matter to the result. You can argue that it was shitty by the DNC, but Bernie had already lost by then. It wasn't even close.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 16, 2016, 12:55 PM
 
Bernie wasn't going to win either. Someone posted some of the oppo they had on him and it wasn't pretty. And despite America voting for Trumps economic promise and ignoring his glaring deficiencies, the biggest difference between Trump and Bernies economic promise was Trumps was a promise of regression to past times, while Bernies was a progression towards socialism. I don't think American s had a stomach for that kind of change.
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Nov 16, 2016, 01:04 PM
 
Bernie may have polled better against Trump at first, but the only thing Trump supporters could hate as much as a corrupt career politician would be a Jewish socialist.
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Nov 16, 2016, 01:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by P View Post
This meme that Bernie somehow had a chance but that the DNC cheated, or worse that Clinton did, is probably not going to die, is it? Post-truth politics indeed.

What was alleged by the DNC hack was that the DNC favored Clinton at the point when the primary was all but done and nothing less than a meteor strike could have saved Bernie. That didn't matter to the result. You can argue that it was shitty by the DNC, but Bernie had already lost by then. It wasn't even close.
This is the place where you cite your sources, otherwise it's just two people saying things.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 16, 2016, 01:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Bernie wasn't going to win either. Someone posted some of the oppo they had on him and it wasn't pretty. And despite America voting for Trumps economic promise and ignoring his glaring deficiencies, the biggest difference between Trump and Bernies economic promise was Trumps was a promise of regression to past times, while Bernies was a progression towards socialism. I don't think American s had a stomach for that kind of change.
I feel like this is an argument from before the election.

Americans didn't need to stomach the change, the Democratic base needed to.

Hillary lost in no small part because Democrats hated her ****ing guts.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 16, 2016, 01:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
Bernie may have polled better against Trump at first, but the only thing Trump supporters could hate as much as a corrupt career politician would be a Jewish socialist.
Yeah, I imagine the alt-right might not have cared for him either. Good reminder.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 16, 2016, 01:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I feel like this is an argument from before the election.

Americans didn't need to stomach the change, the Democratic base needed to.

Hillary lost in no small part because Democrats hated her ****ing guts.
When I look at the states she lost I see someone who failed to give the WWC hope and represented the past 20+ years of free trade. Her guts were a minor factor, if Trumps can get by on his actions during the election.

Edit: Look at her popular vote outside the Midwest. It's not so cut and dry.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 16, 2016, 01:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
This is the place where you cite your sources, otherwise it's just two people saying things.
My uncited supposition?

If Hillary didn't have 700 Superdelegates in the bag before the first vote was cast, Bernie would have won Iowa instead of losing by a c-hair.

That's a Clinton hair you dirty ****ers.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 16, 2016, 01:23 PM
 
sorry but I don't think the populace gave a flying **** or even knew what super delegates thought
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 16, 2016, 01:34 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
When I look at the states she lost I see someone who failed to give the WWC hope and represented the past 20+ years of free trade. Her guts were a minor factor, if Trumps can get by on his actions during the election.

Edit: Look at her popular vote outside the Midwest. It's not so cut and dry.
Can they be WWF, or WWE somehow?

Florida doesn't fit into Hillary's Midwest problem. If I did my math right, a Florida win would be a deadlock.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 16, 2016, 01:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
sorry but I don't think the populace gave a flying **** or even knew what super delegates thought
The only populace which matters in this context are Iowans, who take this shit more seriously than the country at large. It's the only time the state ever matters.
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Nov 16, 2016, 01:57 PM
 
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 16, 2016, 02:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Can they be WWF, or WWE somehow?

Florida doesn't fit into Hillary's Midwest problem. If I did my math right, a Florida win would be a deadlock.
Florida had increased turnout on both sides. I haven't seen in depth analysis so if you have something to share, please do.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 16, 2016, 02:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
The only populace which matters in this context are Iowans, who take this shit more seriously than the country at large. It's the only time the state ever matters.
Iowa doesn't determine the democratic nominee. It just gets to vote first. Using a terrible system and a population that poorly represents America.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 16, 2016, 03:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Iowa doesn't determine the democratic nominee. It just gets to vote first. Using a terrible system and a population that poorly represents America.
I'm arguing Bernie winning Iowa would have led to a different narrative going forward than him losing.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 16, 2016, 03:09 PM
 
I would argue Hillary barely winning the caucus was nearly the same result. She was mortal out of the gate. She then got crushed in NH. Very mortal.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 16, 2016, 03:33 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Florida had increased turnout on both sides. I haven't seen in depth analysis so if you have something to share, please do.
I'm just making the general observation the reasons Hillary lost Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Wisconsin are likely different than the reasons she lost Florida.

I know I'm just a soulless Libertarian data point of one, but I may have actually voted for Bernie in the general, despite the following facts...

1) We have radically different ideas on policy.
2) I don't live in a swing state, so the vote would be meaningless.
3) After getting burned twice in a row, until I move, I've sworn off voting Democrat for President ever again.

Instead, I spent most of the General sniping at her because she's ****ing awful, and I'm not her dancing monkey.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 16, 2016, 03:43 PM
 
Okay, I never said they were the same reasons and two your opinion only applies if you think you fairly represent the section of the populace that went trump.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 16, 2016, 03:43 PM
 
Wait, have you sworn off republican presidents after W?
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 16, 2016, 04:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Wait, have you sworn off republican presidents after W?
No. The big sticking point for me with Republicans is SCOTUS nominations. If it wasn't for that I would have voted Romney (as an example). Well... I voted for Johnson, but you know what I mean. If I had to vote one, I'd have voted Romney if it wasn't for his likely SCOTUS picks.

My swearing off of Democrats for President is because of the regret I've felt over casting votes for them. In retrospect they always turn out to be bad reasons.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 16, 2016, 04:56 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
No. The big sticking point for me with Republicans is SCOTUS nominations. If it wasn't for that I would have voted Romney (as an example). Well... I voted for Johnson, but you know what I mean. If I had to vote one, I'd have voted Romney if it wasn't for his likely SCOTUS picks.

My swearing off of Democrats for President is because of the regret I've felt over casting votes for them. In retrospect they always turn out to be bad reasons.
I guess I have to ask, what are dem presidents doing that you regret that republican ones won't?
     
el chupacabra
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 16, 2016, 09:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
Bernie may have polled better against Trump at first, but the only thing Trump supporters could hate as much as a corrupt career politician would be a Jewish socialist.
Yes people who always vote republican would hate him. Just like people who always vote democrat will hate whoever the "r" is. But the swing voters might of chosen Sanders, after all they elected a socialist for the last 8 years. At least Bernie seemed like a good person. With HRC there was nothing to like. The primary argument for HRC was "1st female pres" or "anything but Trump", the later being the same failed branding that lost Kerry the election against Bush.

The democrats who consistently remind of us of their intellectual superiority and edication, should have seen this coming a mile away. People need something new & exciting to start, not someone who we already watched campaign and lose to Obama. Basic marketing psychology. If not Sanders, put someone else up. So much for all that college.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 17, 2016, 01:32 AM
 
Originally Posted by el chupacabra View Post
The primary argument for HRC was "1st female pres" or "anything but Trump", the later being the same failed branding that lost Kerry the election against Bush.
Those ended up being the arguments but that wasn't the case all the way through and it shouldn't have been. She really was a highly qualified candidate and I remember seeing some comments from conservative commentators who pointed out how positive her campaign was at one early stage. They were furious she had a monopoly on optimism. I think we'd be giving too much credit to suggest that Trump's tactics were calculated to kill that optimism and turn it to negativity, but thats what happened and its understandable in hindsight.

Originally Posted by el chupacabra View Post
The democrats who consistently remind of us of their intellectual superiority and edication, should have seen this coming a mile away. People need something new & exciting to start, not someone who we already watched campaign and lose to Obama. Basic marketing psychology. If not Sanders, put someone else up. So much for all that college.
Sometimes when you're smart its difficult to think like a moron.

You make a good point about her loss to Obama, though its a little like having to choose between a Real Madrid team that rank second to Barcelona (widely held to be the best team ever) and a declining Manchester United who use money to project an image above their true status and have been scoring wins through dubious means for many many years. You lot chose United, who coincidentally also still have a rabid and deplorable following of scumbags that probably won't stick around very long.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 17, 2016, 03:43 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I'm arguing Bernie winning Iowa would have led to a different narrative going forward than him losing.
That is plausible.
But independently of that, having the all the states' primaries and caucuses all on the same day would be a big win regardless of outcome. Not only would it shorten the Presidential election cycle quite a bit (from currently ~1.5 years), and remove unnecessary drama, I believe it'd lead to a fairer outcome. You wouldn't have to worry about candidates gaining or losing momentum because of the sequence of states that primaries are held in. Iowa and the next few states after it aren't exactly representative of the United States as a whole. Moreover, why should Iowa be the state that gets to pick first, there are plenty of other (small) states who get much less attention from the candidates.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:23 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,