Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
December 02, 2016, 09:25:17 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Be sure to enable your "Ultimate Profile" for even more goodies on your profile page!

  Show Posts
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 1239
26  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Conservatives consider abolishing the Supreme Court by refusing to fill it on: October 26, 2016, 08:31:42 pm
That would be the breaking point that would cause me to leave the Party.
27  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Michigan Republicans Cancel Election Night Party (LOL) on: October 25, 2016, 01:51:05 pm
To my knowledge, it was never scheduled to begin with.
28  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Donald Trump Might Surprise Us on: October 23, 2016, 05:20:03 pm
Trump doesn't have a "1-5%" chance of winning the election. Voting has already started. It's simply far too late for him to make a comeback.

That's a very naive approach. Sure, it's unlikely, but anything could still happen.
29  Atlas Fantasy Elections / Voting Booth / Re: October 2016 Federal Election on: October 23, 2016, 05:14:10 pm
PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT OF ATLASIA


[ 2 ] Blair2015/Kingpoleon
Labor Party/United Alternative



[ 1 ] North Carolina Yankee/Rpryor03
Federalist Party/United Alternative



[  ] Write-in:______________________________
-__________________



[  ] None of the above



HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES - NINE SEATS


[ 6 ] EarlAW/Hatman of Ontario
Washburnist Socialist Revolutionary Party



[ 2 ] Enduro of Pennsylvania
Federalist Party



[ 7 ] Fitzgerald of Montana
Labor Party



[ 8 ] NeverAgain of Virginia
Labor Party



[ 9 ] Peebs of North Carolina
Labor Party



[ 1 ] Republitarian/Goldwater of California
Federalist Party



[ 3 ] Santander of Alabama
Federalist Party



[ 4 ] SecureAmerica/Heisenberg of New Mexico
Federalist Party



[ 10 ] Siren of Puerto Rico
Independent




[ 11 ] Southern Gothic/White Trash of Louisiana
Labor Party




[ 5 ] tedbessell of California
Federalist Party



[  ] Write-in:______________________________
-__________________



[  ] None of the above
30  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Sen. Jeff Flake: Hillary's going to be President, let's confirm Garland on: October 21, 2016, 11:18:50 pm
He should be confirmed. I'll take a YEA vote even if it's for the wrong reason.
31  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Who are you rooting for to win Utah? on: October 21, 2016, 11:14:56 pm
McMullin
32  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: This is what the Michigan Republican Party decided to spend its time on today... on: October 17, 2016, 08:16:25 pm
I'm of course disgusted that she was removed, but there is no love lost between myself and any "#NeverTrump" Republican (cough Inks cough Vosem cough couch RogueBeaver cough) who wouldn't afford the same clemency, say, to a Ron Paul supporter who didn't support Mitt Romney as a "matter of conscience."

Eff your consciences. You guys don't have 'em.

I don't think I've ever called for removal of someone from a party position for failure to support the nominee; in fact, I've known people who've refused to support state-wide GOP candidates, and I've still supported them for intra-party positions.  I can't say I never would, because who knows what circumstances would come up, and I certainly continued to attempt to persuade Ron Paul supporters to back Romney, but that's not the same as booting them from a position.

But even if I were to advocate for it, I certainly wouldn't be intentionally blowing it up on social media and in the press like the instigator here did, and I certainly wouldn't worry about it before the election.
33  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: This is what the Michigan Republican Party decided to spend its time on today... on: October 17, 2016, 07:36:46 pm
Is Ronna Romney McDaniel related to those Romneys?
Mitt's aunt, IIRC.

No, Ronna Romney McDaniel is Mitt's neice.  Ronna Romney (Ronna Romney McDaniel's mother), was Mitt Romney's sister-in-law, as she was married to Scott Romney (although the two are now divorced).
34  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Trump Left Off Official Alaska Voter Guide After Missing Deadline on: October 17, 2016, 07:13:57 pm
Just more proof that the election is rigged.  Seems like Russia was probably involved due to the close geographical proximity.
35  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: This is what the Michigan Republican Party decided to spend its time on today... on: October 17, 2016, 07:11:43 pm
There are a few reasons this was the wrong move:

1. Perhaps the most important, the plain language of the bylaws actually doesn't give the chair the power to remove an officer for refusing to back the party's presidential nominee. The bylaws state, "The Chairman shall have the power to declare vacant the seat of any officer who refuses to support the Republican nominee for any office within the State of Michigan." The office of President is not an office within the State of Michigan. There's an argument to be made that the chairman should have the power to boot an officer for refusing to support the Republican nominee for any position on the ballot in Michigan, but that's not what the bylaws actually say. For being the party that supports judicial conservatism, interpreting the bylaws any other way is pure hypocrisy.

Even if you want to be pedantic that the office of President is not technically within the State of Michigan, the office of Elector certainly is. Otherwise, I agree with your post, but making this technicality your most important point is ludicrous.

But she's never come out and said she won't support the Republican electors.  If the party is going to make that technical argument, then they're really wrong, because she hasn't indicated she's refusing to support the nominee for any elector position.
36  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / This is what the Michigan Republican Party decided to spend its time on today... on: October 17, 2016, 06:27:01 pm
Sorry if this should have gone on the 2016 board, but as it fits in more with the whole downward spiral of the GOP and has effects that go beyond 2016, I figured it fit best here.  Feel free to move it if I was incorrect.

Quote
A Michigan Republican Party official has been ousted from her post after refusing to back presidential candidate Donald Trump and declining to resign, calling her opposition to the bombastic businessman a “matter of conscience.”

Grassroots Vice Chair Wendy Day had her seat vacated Monday under the order of Chairwoman Ronna Romney McDaniel, an unprecedented move in an election year marked by internal fights over the GOP nominee.

Party bylaws allow Romney McDaniel to remove any official who does not support the full ticket, but it’s the first time the provision has ever been invoked, according to spokeswoman Sarah Anderson.

Full story: http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2016/10/17/gop-ouster-trump/92300180/

There are a few reasons this was the wrong move:

1. Perhaps the most important, the plain language of the bylaws actually doesn't give the chair the power to remove an officer for refusing to back the party's presidential nominee. The bylaws state, "The Chairman shall have the power to declare vacant the seat of any officer who refuses to support the Republican nominee for any office within the State of Michigan." The office of President is not an office within the State of Michigan. There's an argument to be made that the chairman should have the power to boot an officer for refusing to support the Republican nominee for any position on the ballot in Michigan, but that's not what the bylaws actually say. For being the party that supports judicial conservatism, interpreting the bylaws any other way is pure hypocrisy.

2. It accomplishes pretty much nothing, brings further attention to the fact that the party is in shambles, and draws attention to the fact that key Republican leaders aren't backing Trump. If the intent is to help the nominee, drawing attention to the fact that people aren't backing him doesn't further the goal.

3. It's bad PR when the party ousts someone for not backing the nominee when it did nothing to oust people who have done far worse to hurt the image of the party. If we oust people from their positions for not backing the nominee, but we won't oust convicted felons (Google Darwin Jiles, Jr., Trucker Randy, and Bill Rauwerdink to see what I'm talking about) or people who spout homophobic and Islamophobic rants on social media (Dave Agema... I think we've had threads on him here), what message does that send?

4. There are much better things to focus on, like spending time, money, and resources on getting Republican candidates across the state elected. Instead of doing that, key figures in state party leadership decided to spend a couple days talking to lawyers, the media, and other party leaders about an intra-party scuffle. What harm would have waiting until November 9th to do this caused?

Sometime in the near future, MIGOP leaders are going to be asking, "Why do we have so many Democrats elected in this state?" The answer, in part, will be because of nonsense like this.
37  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: "How Millennial are you?" test on: October 13, 2016, 09:30:00 pm
74.  Born in 1989.
38  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Faithless Elector watch: EC member in Washington won't vote for Hillary. on: October 13, 2016, 09:17:52 pm
So, I guess we have to call it the "271 EV freiwal" from now on, at least until someone else steps forward.  Otherwise, I don't see how it might impact the actual result of the election.

This was a terrible idea when Republican electors were threatening to ditch Trump and it's a terrible idea now. More evidence, as if we needed it, that the electoral college needs to be scrapped immediately.

Or we could amend the constitution to bind electors to their state's result.  No need to throw out the baby with the bath water.

At that point, you're eliminating one of the last remaining purposes of the EC.
39  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Cook Report founder Charlie Cook calling the race for Clinton on: October 13, 2016, 09:16:23 pm
Anything could still happen. i hope Clinton isn't going to start campaigning as if the race is over.
40  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: How do you pay your car insurance? on: October 12, 2016, 10:00:15 pm
the rates are calculated for 6 months, it's then divided by 6 and I pay that each month.  I assumed that was normal...it's not?  I don't THINK I'm paying more for this feature, but I could be wrong.


edit-FYI, State Farm, full coverage on a 08 Mazda CX7 and liability on a 97 Miata (just two adult drivers). Plus term life for me at 500k and the wife for 100k all adds up to 140ish a month.  Most of it is the full coverage on the SUV.

Well Progressive charges less if paid in full for six months instead of the monthly.

I have Progressive too (it was the best price I found, and then the Snapshot program helped even more), and I pay the full 6 months to get the discount.
41  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Why aren't Black Lives Matter disrupting Columbus Day parades? on: October 12, 2016, 09:48:43 pm
Cities have Columbus Day parades? I never knew that.
42  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Limbaugh: The left calls the "rape police" if there's no consent on: October 12, 2016, 09:47:58 pm
The left? How about people with a conscience, or even half a conscience. This rape stuff coming from some Republicans is just utterly disgusting.
43  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: What's the purpose of Registration Deadlines in the Digital Age? on: October 12, 2016, 09:46:21 pm
At least in Michigan, signing in to vote is still done on paper, so you'd have to keep at least a minimal gap, but it seems that the 30 day period we have now is excessive, given what you've pointed out.
44  General Discussion / Constitution and Law / Dred Scott v. Sanford on: October 11, 2016, 06:26:44 pm
I got into a debate with a history teacher friend who thought I was crazy for thinking that description was such an oversimplification that it made it an inaccurate description of the Supreme Court's opinion.

I argued that the holding, at least with respect to individual slaves, was that people of African descent could not be U.S. citizens and that this was different than saying they weren't human beings. So I'm curious if my view that the two are completely different is way out there.
45  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Who won the debate? on: October 09, 2016, 10:07:38 pm
We must have a bunch of newbies. That explains why this thread is such cancer.

TRUMP failed and shot himself in foot. He did not win the debate and will go down in the polls.

Going down in the polls could be, and likely will be, completely disconnected from the debate.
46  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Who won the debate? on: October 09, 2016, 10:05:39 pm
Trump, narrowly. He was able to get under Clinton's skin and will be able to perpetuate the idea that the media is out to get him. The moderators lack of control and subsequent attempts to regain it will hurt Clinton.
47  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Dave's Mock Election 2016 is now open!!! on: September 23, 2016, 11:13:13 pm
So why is that Evan McMullin guy green instead of Jill Stein?

Independent has always been green
48  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Has anyone seen this bizarre video of Hillary? on: September 23, 2016, 10:12:15 pm
Yeah, it is bizarre because she was video conferencing into a LIUNA assembly and was shouting over the crowd. Playing it without that context makes it sound like a Dean scream moment, but, well, who cares?

Well, In a world where voters (and increasingly, even the media) doesn't care to look into the context of something, the video won't play well for her. I'm sure those on the right will start talking about some sort of medical condition causing this.
49  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: If you're a Clinton supporter, how would you describe your mood about the polls? on: September 07, 2016, 10:32:04 pm
They should be at least nervous. I think Trump is going to vastly outperform the polls; I think we'll see that there are a lot of Trump voters out there who weren't willing to admit to supporting Trump to pollsters but will do so in the secrecy of the voting booth.

thus far there has been no evidence of that. Only evidence of the opposite: people who are saying they'll vote for Trump, but as soon as they get in that voting booth, reconsider that choice. And admittedly, even evidence of that is scant.

Well there can't be any definitive evidence for it (or against it for that matter) until the results of the election are in. But we do have some circumstantial evidence that supports my concern, and that is that Trump does better I online polls than in live polls.

do you mean legit online polls or online polls where it's like "vote 15 times for Trump"?

Because the NBC Survey Monkey poll does show Clinton up 6 as opposed to CNN (which I believe is live) showing Trump up by 2.

I mean legit online polls.
50  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: If you're a Clinton supporter, how would you describe your mood about the polls? on: September 07, 2016, 10:08:04 pm
They should be at least nervous. I think Trump is going to vastly outperform the polls; I think we'll see that there are a lot of Trump voters out there who weren't willing to admit to supporting Trump to pollsters but will do so in the secrecy of the voting booth.

thus far there has been no evidence of that. Only evidence of the opposite: people who are saying they'll vote for Trump, but as soon as they get in that voting booth, reconsider that choice. And admittedly, even evidence of that is scant.

Well there can't be any definitive evidence for it (or against it for that matter) until the results of the election are in. But we do have some circumstantial evidence that supports my concern, and that is that Trump does better I online polls than in live polls.
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 1239


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines