Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
January 16, 2017, 02:27:22 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 8 9 ... 696
76  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Most Conservative of the "Big 3" US cities? on: January 05, 2017, 05:54:53 pm
Does anyone have data for the Trump vote in the city of Los Angeles?

I have
New York - 17.0%
Chicago - 12.4%
Los Angeles County - 22.5%
77  Forum Community / Off-topic Board / Re: Opinion of Serbia on: January 05, 2017, 01:36:48 pm
Great country.
78  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Morning Consult: Trump 45, Obama 44 on: January 05, 2017, 12:10:55 am
This poll definitely takes the cake for most worthless Q's (Bruno Mars' popularity?)

Age gap
18-29 61% Obama 28% Trump
30-44 49% Obama 41% Trump
45-54 40% Obama 48% Trump
55-64 39% Obama 51% Trump
65+ 35% Obama 55% Trump

"Economc anxiety"

Under 50k 46% Obama 42% Trump
50k-100k 43% Obama 47% Trump
100k+ 43% Obama 50% Trump
79  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Mark Zuckerberg 2020? on: January 04, 2017, 10:46:09 pm
#2 is an interesting comment because it's pretty clear that FB's business model fits perfectly with the idea of a US economy increasingly dominated by rentseeking.

True. Facebook should be regulated like a public utility.
80  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Trump working on plan to cut CIA, restructure intelligence on: January 04, 2017, 10:39:43 pm
Immediate scenario that popped into my head:

1 - Trump guts the CIA, making a big public show about it.
2 - ISIS-linked terrorist attack hits US, at least on level of Pulse nightclub shooting
3 - Media narrative begins to form that Trump has made America less safe, egged along by disgruntled CIA agents leaking that the attack could have been prevented.

Doubt it. Homeland Security and the FBI are more responsible for preventing domestic attacks. All ISIS attacks benefit Trump anyway, since he has positioned himself as the "law and order" candidate.

What I'm more worried about is the CIA is purged of professionals who won't become syncophants to Trump, and it starts churning out politically motivated intelligence to match up with Trump's views. This then leads to the same situation as when they said Iraq had WMD in 2002 and 2003.
81  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Julian Assange continues to be a douchebag part 88732467 on: January 04, 2017, 10:26:27 pm
I find myself in the strange position of being solidly in the "Russia hacked Podesta and should pay for it, go Obama, go CIA, Trump is nuts / compromised / borderline treasonous" camp, but I also have a lot of admiration for Julian Assange. He is making himself into a historical figure of importance and the world owes him a great debt of gratitude for Wikileaks. However, he does need to face the law for his rape accusations.

Cross post:

Quote
Nobody cares about whether or not the Russians hacked a private political party's emails that exposed their corruption, lies, and primary election rigging.

People (outside the Coastal cities/college campus bubble) aren't outraged that the DNC got hacked, regardless of who (if anyone) did it. Though there are a few who are outraged at rigging the primary for Hillary.

I just want to point out why liberals are outraged. They're not angry at the Democratic party for orchestrating a coronation. Just like they aren't outraged that Hillary set up a private server for pay-to-play politics.

They're only outraged at the people who exposed them.

Liberals are becoming off the wall unhinged. They're exposed, and they just don't know what to do.

I'll admit I'm pissed because I think if the RNC had been similarly exposed, worse stuff would have come out than for the DNC, but they didn't get exposed. However I'll admit partisans like me are much more likely to care about that than the average person.

However, it's one thing not to care about the hack, it's another thing for the POTUS to be obsessively in the corner of Russia and sh**t on our own people in doing so, as opposed to evaluating the evidence objectively like a president should.

It just stinks when you have major politicians like Trump and Tulsi Gabbard who seem to be fanatically in the corner of certain foreign powers, to the extent where they'll seemingly never say anything bad about them no matter what. Previously, only AIPAC was like this, and everyone hated them. Now it seems like these types are popping up all over.
82  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: What are you listening to? on: January 04, 2017, 10:12:51 pm
Dixie Chicks - Travelin' Soldier
83  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: teens live stream their torturing of bound and gagged trump supporter on: January 04, 2017, 09:45:00 pm
I'm not watching the video. I think we can all agree this is terrible and the perpetrators should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.
84  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / International Elections / Re: If Marine Le Pen loses the 2017 French election, how will it affect Trump? on: January 04, 2017, 02:17:54 pm
It would hurt him by puncturing the myth of far right invincibility, having a similar impact as the Battle of Leipzig (1813) or the Soviet counterattack at the gates of Moscow (1941). A win would have the opposite effect, and people would wonder if the far right can be beaten at all.
85  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Julian Assange continues to be a douchebag part 88732467 on: January 04, 2017, 01:55:11 pm
I find myself in the strange position of being solidly in the "Russia hacked Podesta and should pay for it, go Obama, go CIA, Trump is nuts / compromised / borderline treasonous" camp, but I also have a lot of admiration for Julian Assange. He is making himself into a historical figure of importance and the world owes him a great debt of gratitude for Wikileaks. However, he does need to face the law for his rape accusations.
86  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Why the pessimism about Donald Trump here? on: January 04, 2017, 01:38:32 pm
The election result was a disaster. Put aside all policy, partisanship, or politics.

A man who lacked common decency, who acted like a bully, who repeatedly exploited prejudice, and who was accused by some 15 women of sexual assault, was elected over one of the most qualified candidates in modern history, who would have been the first woman president, who was running on a comprehensive program of jobs and inclusiveness. What does this say to our kids? We've spent the last 10 years teaching them to stand up to bullies, only to elect one. We teach our kids good manners and to treat people with respect, only to elevate a person who doesn't do that to the highest level. I know some people will say "polite people have messed up", but respect for each other is a fundamental part of our society as well. We teach our girls that they can do anything if they work hard, yet humiliated an intelligent woman who worked extremely hard and never gave up, sending the message that no, hard work doesn't pay off. Instead we've taught them that men can do anything to their bodies and get away with it. We teach our kids not to engage in racism only to make a person who does this the most powerful person in the world. What is open to all to see, is that empathy, compassion, respect, hard work, policy knowledge and tolerance do not work, whereas insults, bullying, disregard for the truth, gaudy self-promotion, fear mongering and race baiting do work. I truly believe that 70 years worth of damage has done to our society, due to the impact this has on the current generation of children and young adults. They have learned all the wrong lessons and these wrong lessons will stay with them to varying degrees their entire lives. We will never know the full extent of the damage but we will be paying for it for the rest of our lives.

As for Trump since the election / going forward, I cannot say. It is too early to tell what his presidency will be like. It's my genuine hope that people will look back at him as a president who oversaw peace and prosperity.
87  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: What would happen to the Wisconsin GOP if Roe v. Wade were overturned? on: January 04, 2017, 01:20:27 pm
So you could have people who are pro-life and would otherwise support the D candidate voting R

How many of those people actually exist? It seems there are far more Rs who are only Rs due to a few wedge issues like guns, abortion, gay marriage, criminal justice, etc. than there are Ds. You have anti-abortion/anti-gay, etc. activists campaigning for Ds who are personally socially conservative and they mostly respond by shrugging it off saying that they don't vote on those issues politically (see the gay marriage debate before the supreme court legalized gay marriage). On the other hand, you have Rs who might otherwise be Ds, who only vote R due to those issues.

What this has the potential to do, is unlock those gop suburban women that Hillary was trying to court, what would they do if republicans were actually able to fully implement their agenda unrestrained?

It would be dumb to trade away women's rights in a bid to get votes. This is like saying let the GOP gut Obamacare/Medicare to help Democrats win in 2018. There are some Dems who think this way, but it's misguided.
88  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: What would happen to the Wisconsin GOP if Roe v. Wade were overturned? on: January 04, 2017, 12:51:42 pm
It would basically be debated forever. Every state level election would be partially over abortion. So you could have people who are pro-life and would otherwise support the D candidate voting R in the governors race due to abortion, and vice versa. Every time a new batch of legislators came in you would have changed in abortion law, only to be overturned by the next group.
89  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Should the Clinton campaign have pre-emptively leaked the Podesta e-mails? on: January 04, 2017, 12:02:29 pm
In retrospect it seems obvious. There must have been a time when they knew they were hacked, yet the e-mails had not been released.

How would Podesta know his gmail had been hacked? Unless they did something obvious to leave a trace.

The Smoking Gun reported in late June of a late March "broad spear phishing" attack using a fake gmail login page ensnared a Clinton volunteer. Presumably the same kind of attack that went to Podesta. That's the absolute latest they could have known

http://thesmokinggun.com/documents/crime/hfa-gmail-attack-723571

Edit: Original June 16 SecureWorks report:
https://www.secureworks.com/research/threat-group-4127-targets-hillary-clinton-presidential-campaign
90  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Mark Zuckerberg 2020? on: January 04, 2017, 01:57:32 am
1. He turns 35 in 2019.

2. He probably thinks of himself as a more successful businessman than Donald Trump, given that a) He's multiple times richer than even Trump's most ambitious boasts, b) He earned his money in a fraction of the time Trump did, c) He actually created something original and changed the world by his business, instead of just collecting a bunch of rents and waiting land values to rise, and d) He actually started out middle class with a dentist dad and psychiatrist mom, and didn't just inherit their business.

3. Who the hell knows? Why not? Every Jack and Jill thinks they can be president now. I mean, it makes at least as much sense as Kanye West.
91  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Should the Clinton campaign have pre-emptively leaked the Podesta e-mails? on: January 04, 2017, 01:24:18 am
In retrospect it seems obvious. There must have been a time when they knew they were hacked, yet the e-mails had not been released. They must also have known Wikileaks had them. At that time, they should have tried to reach out to the hackers to work out a deal. Perhaps monetary compensation in exchange for a promise to keep the data confidential, secured by the identities of the hackers. That would have been a longshot, but it should have been tried.

Plan B should have been to pre-emptively leak the material all in one dump early in the campaign. For instance, after the Dallas shootings in early July, the incident dominated the headlines. Releasing them then would have kept the story competing with the other. They would have taken a one-time polling hit, but would have the advantage of being positioned as more of an underdog going into the GE.
92  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: Are PA and MI more socially conservative than the US as a whole? on: January 03, 2017, 11:12:23 pm
Given that they voted Trump and "the US as a whole" voted for Hillary, then arguably yes.
93  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: North Korea wont be testing nuclear weapons on: January 03, 2017, 08:56:16 pm
http://

The 'China card' you mean not starting WW3? As much as I don't like North Korea, as long as they're not attacking anyone they're good. It's frightening how so many people have a bloodlust when it comes to China/North Korea. These are the same people who are hysterically warning about war with Russia when there's zero chance Trump would do that.

You mean like bombing Serbia would start WW3? exactly, no because Russia, despite its nukes was simply not in a practical position to resist at the time. Even now when Russia has somewhat recovered, when Ukraine underwent a color revolution Putin did not send tanks into Kiev.

And Ukraine is far more important to Russia as a buffer, than North Korea is to China.


Ukaine had a peaceful revolution... it wasn't invaded by the U.S. while under Yanukovych rule. There weren't US planes bombing the Donbass. Also, Ukraine wasn't a nuclear power. Besides, the other stuff I've already said should rule out attacking North Korea.

Why didn't Russia invade if buffer states are so important? come on just give it up.

Because Ukraine wasn't being used to host U.S. armies like South Korea is. Besides, it did invade.

A half assed "invasion" supplying volunteers . Had Putin been serious it would have looked like Hungary in 1956.

But anyway the US military presence is just an excuse. The status of a unified Korea can easily be negotiated behind their back.

Sure, if it was negotiated before a war starts. Not if the war starts before a deal is worked out. But even then, you have the problem of how do you disable North Korea's nukes and artillery before it uses them.

This is where is lay the blame on the previous presidents for not acting in the 1990's, while the United States enjoyed hegemony, and North Korea was not nuclear. As for the artillery, Yes that is problematic, but unless you have a peaceful coup some sort of bloodbath is inevitable anyway. Better for future generation not to have to deal with it.

It's not inevitable. There could be a coup, or Kim Jong Un could die, or they could be brought back to the table by negotiations. Again, a war would result in the deaths of thousands, maybe millions. And if instigated by the U.S. when the status quo is peace, it would be tantamount to mass murder. Not to mention thousands of American troops would die and the global recession to follow. Finally, China would not likely agree to such a plan. I oppose this.
94  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: North Korea wont be testing nuclear weapons on: January 03, 2017, 08:47:20 pm

The 'China card' you mean not starting WW3? As much as I don't like North Korea, as long as they're not attacking anyone they're good. It's frightening how so many people have a bloodlust when it comes to China/North Korea. These are the same people who are hysterically warning about war with Russia when there's zero chance Trump would do that.

You mean like bombing Serbia would start WW3? exactly, no because Russia, despite its nukes was simply not in a practical position to resist at the time. Even now when Russia has somewhat recovered, when Ukraine underwent a color revolution Putin did not send tanks into Kiev.

And Ukraine is far more important to Russia as a buffer, than North Korea is to China.


Ukaine had a peaceful revolution... it wasn't invaded by the U.S. while under Yanukovych rule. There weren't US planes bombing the Donbass. Also, Ukraine wasn't a nuclear power. Besides, the other stuff I've already said should rule out attacking North Korea.

Why didn't Russia invade if buffer states are so important? come on just give it up.

Because Ukraine wasn't being used to host U.S. armies like South Korea is. Besides, it did invade.

A half assed "invasion" supplying volunteers . Had Putin been serious it would have looked like Hungary in 1956.

But anyway the US military presence is just an excuse. The status of a unified Korea can easily be negotiated behind their back.

Sure, if it was negotiated before a war starts. Not if the war starts before a deal is worked out. But even then, you have the problem of how do you disable North Korea's nukes and artillery before it uses them.
95  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: North Korea wont be testing nuclear weapons on: January 03, 2017, 08:37:25 pm

The 'China card' you mean not starting WW3? As much as I don't like North Korea, as long as they're not attacking anyone they're good. It's frightening how so many people have a bloodlust when it comes to China/North Korea. These are the same people who are hysterically warning about war with Russia when there's zero chance Trump would do that.

You mean like bombing Serbia would start WW3? exactly, no because Russia, despite its nukes was simply not in a practical position to resist at the time. Even now when Russia has somewhat recovered, when Ukraine underwent a color revolution Putin did not send tanks into Kiev.

And Ukraine is far more important to Russia as a buffer, than North Korea is to China.


Ukaine had a peaceful revolution... it wasn't invaded by the U.S. while under Yanukovych rule. There weren't US planes bombing the Donbass. Also, Ukraine wasn't a nuclear power. Besides, the other stuff I've already said should rule out attacking North Korea.

Why didn't Russia invade if buffer states are so important? come on just give it up.

Because Ukraine wasn't being used to host U.S. armies like South Korea is. Besides, it did invade.
96  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: North Korea wont be testing nuclear weapons on: January 03, 2017, 08:30:56 pm

The 'China card' you mean not starting WW3? As much as I don't like North Korea, as long as they're not attacking anyone they're good. It's frightening how so many people have a bloodlust when it comes to China/North Korea. These are the same people who are hysterically warning about war with Russia when there's zero chance Trump would do that.

You mean like bombing Serbia would start WW3? exactly, no because Russia, despite its nukes was simply not in a practical position to resist at the time. Even now when Russia has somewhat recovered, when Ukraine underwent a color revolution Putin did not send tanks into Kiev.

And Ukraine is far more important to Russia as a buffer, than North Korea is to China.


Ukaine had a peaceful revolution... it wasn't invaded by the U.S. while under Yanukovych rule. There weren't US planes bombing the Donbass. Also, Ukraine wasn't a nuclear power. Besides, the other stuff I've already said should rule out attacking North Korea.
97  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: North Korea wont be testing nuclear weapons on: January 03, 2017, 07:58:17 pm
Yep, we're going to war with North Korea. It is among the safest ways to boost his legacy early on, who would stick up for the North Korean anyway.

Well the obvious answer is China. I sincerely hope he doesn't start his "legacy" by starting WW3. I mean Obama was bad, but not this.

I blame the current situation on H.W bush. And Bill Clinton. China was weaker back then! and of course there were people pulling the china card back then as well as an excuse to do nothing, and its only getting worse.

The 'China card' you mean not starting WW3? As much as I don't like North Korea, as long as they're not attacking anyone they're good. It's frightening how so many people have a bloodlust when it comes to China/North Korea. These are the same people who are hysterically warning about war with Russia when there's zero chance Trump would do that.

Quote
But no, I do not think the CPC is really stupid enough to send millions of troops to prop up an Orwellian regime, and destroy any domestic and international credibility they have.

The whole reason North Korea exists is as a strategic buffer for them. They would definitely send in troops. Anyway, North Korea on its own could destroy Seoul, a city of tens of millions of people. This would easily be the biggest loss of life since WWII, 10x the size of Iraq.
98  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Fake News on: January 03, 2017, 07:51:01 pm
The Right, as I said, has a long history of error prone non-factual journalism. I referred to Iraq, in which a lot of the conservative media relentlessly pushed Bush's war as grounded in fact, when it wasn't.
I just have to reply to this one more point. It wasn't just Fox that backed Bush's war. It was most of the liberal media as well. the NYT, WaPo, NBC, CNN, the BBC etc. This should not be particularly surprising. Neo-Conservatism is not a particularly right wing philosophy. Back in the day it was supported by liberal media outlets, as I've mentioned and center left politicians both in the US (e.g. Hillary Clinton) and elsewhere (e.g. Tony Blair).

To this day these two center left liberal politicians continue to back, and indeed be the leading supporters of neoConservative policies in places like Syria, Libya, Russia etc. In this election of course the leading opponent of neoCon foreign policy was the candidate of the right and its leading supporter the candidate of the right. Of course its also opposed from the left by the far left but that doesn't make it a right wing policy.

In a way its unsurprising that the GWB's most famous policy should be one of the center left. Both he and his father were NeverTrumpers who hinted at supporting Hillary in the General election. They were both 'moderate' Republicans who occasionally pretended to be conservative for electoral purposes. Of course HW's father Prescott Bush was a 'moderate' Rockerfeller Republican and one of those Republican lawmakers who led the charge to stab joe Mccarthy in the back so perhaps the apple doesn't fall far from the trees.

Hold on, neoconservatism was definitely a right-wing strategy. The NeverTrump movement was to the right of Trump on foreign policy, not the left. Yes, the NYT, WaPo, etc. shilled for the war too, but they were acting as right-wing agents then (just as they were this year, with their constant focus on Hillary's e-mail scandals, which dominated he election, and giving Trump massive coverage, although these were less deliberate).

Even now, you see the most hawkish people, way more hawkish than Obama or even Hillary Clinton (who supported the Russia reset, the Iran deal, wanted to open relations with Cuba), are people like Lindsey Graham and John McCain. They will even go against their own party leader to push their hawkish views.

I'm not totally convinced Trump is a dove, either. There's talk today he wants to start a war with North Korea, and he could start one with China. Either or both of those would dwarf Vietnam or Korea, let alone Iraq.
99  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: North Korea wont be testing nuclear weapons on: January 03, 2017, 07:43:28 pm
Yep, we're going to war with North Korea. It is among the safest ways to boost his legacy early on, who would stick up for the North Korean anyway.

Well the obvious answer is China. I sincerely hope he doesn't start his "legacy" by starting WW3. I mean Obama was bad, but not this.
100  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / U.S. Presidential Election Results / Re: Why have Republicans won more counties than Democrats? on: January 03, 2017, 06:32:23 pm
The Free Soilers were farmers who wanted independent proprietorship free from the influence of large plantation power. They spread out across the whole rural America outside of the cotton belt and the declining tobacco belt. To fight the Slave Power, they founded the GOP in Wisconsin.

Martin Van Buren was a Dutch immigrant who founded the Albany Regency in New York. He married urban machine power to the western populist appeal of Andrew Jackson. However once slavery became an issue, the GOP seized power in the farms outside the cotton and tobacco belts, as I said above. The Democrats were left only with rural power in the south, plus urban, immigrant machines.
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 696


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines