TTLG|Thief|Bioshock|System Shock|Deus Ex|Mobile

View Poll Results: How long will Trump be President?

Voters
144. You may not vote on this poll
  • 1 Term (4 Years)

    26 18.06%
  • 2 Terms (8 Years)

    51 35.42%
  • 1st Term Impeachment/Assassination

    50 34.72%
  • 2nd Term Impeachment/Assassination

    4 2.78%
  • I don't know what's going on!

    13 9.03%

Thread: ✮✮✮ !Trump Dump! ✮✮✮

  1. #13026
    Member
    Registered: Aug 2004
    Quote Originally Posted by Renzatic View Post
    Though to clarify, the DNC didn't rig the election.
    Yet that specific term is exactly what keeps getting bandied about.

    Quote Originally Posted by Renzatic View Post
    ...and it could be argued that the extra exposure is what allowed her to win the primaries.
    Pfff, she won by a lot, and had an amusing tendency to go lower in the relevant polls every time she got exposure. People made a lot of hay about her not going to Wisconsin but she might've won by not going to Pennsylvania.

    EDIT:

    Quote Originally Posted by catbarf View Post
    They also leaked debate questions to her campaign staff ahead of time...
    It's not like there were surprise questions in there.

    Quote Originally Posted by catbarf View Post
    ...and used the superdelegate count to reinforce the narrative that she was winning by a landslide the entire primary season.
    I mean, she was, though.

    Quote Originally Posted by catbarf View Post
    If 'rigged' has to mean falsifying ballot counts then sure, it wasn't rigged. I think that's overly reductionist.
    I think if we're going to get all loosey goosey about what counts as "rigged" than the general election was rigged against her way more than the primary was rigged for her.

  2. #13027
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    Quote Originally Posted by catbarf View Post
    They also leaked debate questions to her campaign staff ahead of time and used the superdelegate count to reinforce the narrative that she was winning by a landslide the entire primary season.

    If 'rigged' has to mean falsifying ballot counts then sure, it wasn't rigged. I think that's overly reductionist.
    I'm not being overly reductionist so much as stating that rigged is too strong a word. Fucked over would be the better phrase to use here.

    Plus, the superdelegate issue is an old one that people have been complaining about for years, and was hardly unique to Hillary. Hence why the rules have been changed for the 2020 election.

    edit: regardless of your politics or opinions, it's hard to deny this is absolutely hilarious. Go through them all. It's good fun. Reminds me of the days when we treated our politicians with proper derision, and not as Jesus Christ's Personal Earthly Avatars Who Will Save America From Itself.
    Last edited by Renzatic; 19th Feb 2020 at 20:11.

  3. #13028
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2001
    Location: Land of the crazy
    I don't like the term rigged either. More like stacked the deck, through use of influence and money. But in the end, she got more votes. If Bernie had won more votes, but the superdelegates swung it to Hillary, then you could say rigged. But that didn't happen, and we probably shouldn't assume the superdelegates would have stayed loyal to her if she lost the popular vote.

    And regardless of who they support, superdelegates are anti-democratic. The party needs to get rid of that baggage.

  4. #13029
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Quote Originally Posted by catbarf View Post
    My-candidate-or-bust voters have never been a serious issue for either party.
    Sufficient numbers of Bernie voters switched to Lord Dampnut in 2016 to give him the edge of winning.

  5. #13030
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    We don't really know how many Bernie Bros voted for Trump in 2016, or what effect it may have had on the election. We only know that some did.

  6. #13031
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Sure, surveys are not precisely an exact science. But Lord Dampnut also won with razor-thin margins.

  7. #13032
    Member
    Registered: Dec 2001
    Location: OldDark Detox Clinic
    Remember also that Trump was helped by people who voted Democrat right down the ballot, but left president blank, feeling that neither candidate was a good choice. He would have lost in Michigan for example, had all those Dems filled the ballot with what they felt was a better choice.

  8. #13033
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    Quote Originally Posted by Starker View Post
    Sure, surveys are not precisely an exact science. But Lord Dampnut also won with razor-thin margins.
    Yeah, though I'd say it's more likely that Trump won that razor margin through independent Obama voters taking a chance on the crazy new Washington outsider, assuming he'd "become presidential" (remember that?) were he to win the office. They're a larger group than those hardcore, truly rabid Bernie Bros who would've voted for Trump out of simple spite because their favored candidate was scorned by the DNC.

    ...though I consider them more a contributing demographic, rather than a major one, I still think they're the stupidest people on the face of the earth. Yeah, go around espousing the wonders of universal healthcare and affordable education, then turn around, and vote for the guy who will do everything in his power to bury these initiatives. Why? Because fuck Hillary, that's why!

    Yeah, way to cut off your own nose to spite your face, dipshits.

  9. #13034
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Yeah, it looks like there were a not insignificant number of people who cast a protest vote or just wanted to make some sort of a statement. And only a bit more than 1/10 of Bernie voters switched their vote to Lord Dampnut nationally (though it was closer to 1/5 in some states). But there were still enough of them that if half of them had stayed home in crucial swing states, Clinton would have won.

  10. #13035
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    So, what's the deal with Tom Steyer? Looks like he's another filthy rich guy throwing money around in the race. If he should win the nomination, are the more progressive people going to stay home in disgust like they say they will with that Bloomberg guy?

  11. #13036
    Member
    Registered: Aug 2004
    I think most people aren't taking Steyer's candidacy seriously at all.

  12. #13037
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    Quote Originally Posted by Starker View Post
    But there were still enough of them that if half of them had stayed home in crucial swing states, Clinton would have won.
    I'm gonna say maybe and possibly. The race was close enough in a few key states that it's not entirely improbable to assume they could've been responsible for being a couple of those few hundreds who swung things Trump's way.

    As for Steyer, he could pop up again in 2024, but for now, he's an also-ran. Anyone who's polling south of Biden is pretty much out of the race by this point.

  13. #13038
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Few tens of thousands, to be more precise. And the estimated amount is more than double of Lord Dampnut's winning margins in those key states.

    But anyway, if you have a hate boner for Bloomberg, I think you will want to watch the last debate and you might even be glad he made it there. If it was up on a porn site, the category would have to be something like humiliation gangbang.

  14. #13039
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    So I've heard. I actually expected him to do better, even with the gang up, considering he has previous political experience. From what I gather, even when they were discussing straight policy, he came across as flat and listless.

  15. #13040
    Member
    Registered: Dec 2006
    Location: Washington DC
    Quote Originally Posted by Starker View Post
    Sufficient numbers of Bernie voters switched to Lord Dampnut in 2016 to give him the edge of winning.
    That's only relevant if you assume that those were left-wingers so dedicated to Bernie that they would hack off their nose to spite their face, rather than populists looking for an outside-the-establishment candidate. I haven't seen any polling to indicate that it was actual Democrats/liberals switching to Trump; Bernie had a lot of support from independents.

    Anecdotally I know several people in rural areas of NY who were in for both Bernie and Trump- I can only assume they weren't paying any attention to the candidates' stances on the issues, but they exist.

  16. #13041
    Member
    Registered: Aug 2012
    Location: France
    Quote Originally Posted by lowenz View Post
    He's a troll. Or a madman from Tea Party european equivalents (and believe me, they're simple crazy isolated strange people - not necessary bad, but crazy and I'm totally NO pro-state - oh the joke! )
    The Europe reality is this:
    I'm from Germany, the land of Merkel, where they are constantly trying to restrict freedom of speech even further, people have been fined for sharing right wing meme videos (just sharing, not even creating them!) while being a radical antifa activist is somehow okay, every political party including the conservatives refuse to work together with the AfD which are referred to as "far right" when all their positions would have been considered dead center 30 years ago, and the green party with its obsession about restrictive regulations is growing ever more powerful.

    The reality in Germany is that leftism has become mainstream, and even holding positions that would have been considered reasonably conservative 30 years ago makes you a "right-winger" today.

    The growth of the right which you perceive is merely a reaction to the mainstream going ever more left with each passing year. Not just here, but in the US too: you can't possibly claim that everything is moving further to the right when your mainstream media constantly uses left-wing talking points, keeps bashing the president for being too right wing, and SJWism is spreading widely through universities and big cities.

  17. #13042
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Location: Canuckistan GWN
    If only those pesky leftists and SJWs weren't so persistent, I wouldn't have to shoot brown people!

    You are going to have to try a lot fucking harder, Earl. Or try a softer target.

  18. #13043
    Moderator
    Registered: Jan 2003
    Location: NeoTokyo
    "Mainstream" is probably not a useful metric. E.g. transgenderism is becoming more mainstreamed, but it's still a miniscule minority and a vastly bigger issue in rhetoric and people's ideas of what's happening in society (they're everywhere and changing everything) than actual political or social influence. It's better just to simply ask what is the spectrum of influences for left and right in different dimensions, and if you did that you'd get a really complicated mix of influential in some contexts and besieged in others at the same time.

    To take just one dimension, there's a generation gap. The older generation has shifted right and active, and the younger generation left and inchoate. The left is influential in colleges and among certain elites, but college societies and elites themselves are not all that influential in vast stretches of middle America.

    The thing I've learned researching lots of social issues is that it's almost always a mixed bag with pros and cons for each side. And if one thinks a situation is a simple one-sided story, that's typically my go-to hint that I don't understand the issue well enough, because reality is very often never that simple. Or rather, individual pieces can be pretty simple, but there are usually countless pieces that cross cut in countless directions.

  19. #13044
    Member
    Registered: Dec 2006
    Location: Berghem Haven
    Quote Originally Posted by JarlFrank View Post
    I'm from Germany, the land of Merkel, where they are constantly trying to restrict freedom of speech even further, people have been fined for sharing right wing meme videos (just sharing, not even creating them!) while being a radical antifa activist is somehow okay, every political party including the conservatives refuse to work together with the AfD which are referred to as "far right" when all their positions would have been considered dead center 30 years ago, and the green party with its obsession about restrictive regulations is growing ever more powerful.

    The reality in Germany is that leftism has become mainstream, and even holding positions that would have been considered reasonably conservative 30 years ago makes you a "right-winger" today.

    The growth of the right which you perceive is merely a reaction to the mainstream going ever more left with each passing year. Not just here, but in the US too: you can't possibly claim that everything is moving further to the right when your mainstream media constantly uses left-wing talking points, keeps bashing the president for being too right wing, and SJWism is spreading widely through universities and big cities.
    Perfect example of victimhood complex.
    But hey, Hanau killer is surely a damn leftist SJW! (and speaks like you?)

    I'll tell you, "alt-right" is OF COURSE "pseudoleft" since its birth -> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_Strasser
    Today conservative people (GOP and friends) simply use the alt-right "left" rhetoric and it's the exact reason why the alt-right is keep alive.

    This is not "leftism", this is a simple yet high-manipulative political strategy.
    Last edited by lowenz; 20th Feb 2020 at 09:49.

  20. #13045
    Member
    Registered: Apr 2001
    Location: Switzerland
    Yeah, JarlFrank, I'm going to read that as complete bullshit when recent political murders in Germany were very clearly done by right-wingers and when several of the AfD's main exponents are explicitly anti-democratic. It also shows that you have a highly selective view of what is and what isn't left-wing.

  21. #13046
    Member
    Registered: Dec 2006
    Location: Berghem Haven
    Quote Originally Posted by Thirith View Post
    Yeah, JarlFrank, I'm going to read that as complete bullshit when recent political murders in Germany were very clearly done by right-wingers and when several of the AfD's main exponents are explicitly anti-democratic. It also shows that you have a highly selective view of what is and what isn't left-wing.
    Here in Italy some right wingers have already said that the murder was a Merkel "secret staff" tool perfectly organised and timed



    He's a university professor and a journalist.

    No, there's no space for conspiracy here, the man killed his mother too.
    A deranged right-winger with the mind totally burned out (thanks to politically-driven paranoia spreading)

    See the post-truth world? Beautifully mad and totally brain-dead (I repeat, the man killed his mother too)
    Some SJW are a pain in the ass, but the right wingers are playing with fire (they daily feed fools like Hanau killer), 'cause they're damn dangerous morons.

    Give "freedom" to this kind of people (politicians and journalists spreading social paranoia), please go ahead.....in the funeral.
    Last edited by lowenz; 20th Feb 2020 at 10:29.

  22. #13047
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2001
    Location: Land of the crazy
    Quote Originally Posted by Starker View Post
    Yeah, it looks like there were a not insignificant number of people who cast a protest vote or just wanted to make some sort of a statement. And only a bit more than 1/10 of Bernie voters switched their vote to Lord Dampnut nationally (though it was closer to 1/5 in some states). But there were still enough of them that if half of them had stayed home in crucial swing states, Clinton would have won.
    Scroll down to the third bar chart:

    https://www.npr.org/2017/08/24/54581...p-survey-finds

    It appears that more Republican voters turned out for Sanders in the primary than the number who switched back to Trump in the general election. Those voters weren't looking for another center-right stooge of the investment banking industry to deliver four more years of stock market expansion, record corporate profits, trade liberalization, and manufacturing job loss.

    So what's your strategy for getting these people to vote Democrat in 2020? Offer the same deal again, only worse this time, and hope that four years has made them hate Trump as much as you do? That's probably not a winning strategy. Wouldn't it make more sense to nominate someone who's actually demonstrated the ability to get some people to cross party lines in a Presidential election?

    Quote Originally Posted by Starker View Post
    So, what's the deal with Tom Steyer? Looks like he's another filthy rich guy throwing money around in the race. If he should win the nomination, are the more progressive people going to stay home in disgust like they say they will with that Bloomberg guy?
    As Pyrian said, he's not a serious candidate. He's using this run to introduce himself, and will probably run for Governor of California.

    Besides that, he's a different guy, with a different record, different campaign approach, and different goals. He is another filthy rich guy throwing money around, but that's where the comparison ends.

    He blanketed us with TV and YouTube ads for three straight months, but wasted most of it repeating the same introductory ads over and over. I'm Tom Steyer, I left big business to become an activist, and I can beat Donald Trump. That's all he ever really said in ads. I went to one of his campaign events so my daughter could meet him. She was taken by his ads, lol. I have nothing memorable to report. Just another politician.

  23. #13048
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Roger Stone just got off with a 40-month sentence, less than half of the originally recommended 7-9 years in accordance with federal sentencing guidelines. Well, I don't know enough about the judge or US law to say otherwise, so I assume she knew what she was doing.

    Anyone want to bet whether the pardon is coming before or after the election?

  24. #13049
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Location: Canuckistan GWN
    Before. Trump, is already scraping the bottom of the barrel and he still needs a campaign manager.

  25. #13050
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Quote Originally Posted by heywood View Post
    Scroll down to the third bar chart:

    https://www.npr.org/2017/08/24/54581...p-survey-finds

    It appears that more Republican voters turned out for Sanders in the primary than the number who switched back to Trump in the general election. Those voters weren't looking for another center-right stooge of the investment banking industry to deliver four more years of stock market expansion, record corporate profits, trade liberalization, and manufacturing job loss.

    So what's your strategy for getting these people to vote Democrat in 2020? Offer the same deal again, only worse this time, and hope that four years has made them hate Trump as much as you do? That's probably not a winning strategy. Wouldn't it make more sense to nominate someone who's actually demonstrated the ability to get some people to cross party lines in a Presidential election?
    Looks like there were plenty of moderate to strongly Democrat-leaning voters among those who switched to Lord Dampnut. And quite a lot lot more among those who didn't vote. It's to be expected though -- those swing states are far less liberal than New York or California are. And yes, I would guess that the populism was the main appeal. That's what Bernie does.

    I don't hate Lord Dampnut. Most of the time I think he's a hilarious joke. There are some things I strongly abhor, like his inhumane policies towards asylum seekers, the general stoking of xenophobia, racism, and bringing out the worst elements of US, failing the people of Puerto Rico in their greatest need, etc... The vast majority of the things he does, though, like eroding the rule of law in the US, don't affect me in the slightest, so other than some general sympathy to the victims of his policies, he doesn't really perturb me. Entertain, yes. US politics have never been as interesting to me before he entered the arena.

    As for policies, those voters may not have been looking for another center-right stooge of the investment banking industry to deliver four more years of stock market expansion, record corporate profits, and manufacturing job loss, but they voted for one anyway. Trade liberalisation, yes, on that he delivered, though I would argue that his trade wars are not really having the effect he's thinking it does and his goal of reducing the trade deficit smacks of ignorance about how trade works.

    As for what I would recommend for your Democratic candidates, from what I've seen of Rick Wilson on Bill Maher and other shows, I think he generally nails it -- make this about Lord Dampnut, a check on decency. Obama didn't win because of his policies, he was winning on a message of hope. All of Lord Dampnut's policies fit on a trucker hat. You really need to get out those black voters, those suburban moms, everyone who is sick and tired of the chaos and corruption, everyone whom Lord Dampnut has alienated or failed. And you need them not in liberal California, but in the not so liberal swing states. And I bet it's not going to happen by promising free college and government healthcare for everyone -- something the executive alone can't really deliver in the first place.

Page 522 of 558 FirstFirst ... 22272422472477482487492497502507512517518519520521522523524525526527532537542547552557 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •