Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
February 23, 2017, 02:00:29 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Election 2016 predictions are now open!.

  Show Posts
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 625
76  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Will Trump go after gays next? on: January 31, 2017, 12:37:31 pm
Looks like the Northern Strategy in place. Take away gay rights as a battle to gain traction in blue urban areas.

Normally I'd have some reply like "He'll lose more from his base than he gains by going pro-LGBT," but apparently that's not true. The Religious Right has cuckishly latched on to him and exposed themselves as has no backbone or sincere beliefs.
77  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Will Trump go after gays next? on: January 31, 2017, 09:58:48 am
WH denies the reports:

Obamas Protections for L.G.B.T. Workers Will Remain Under Trump (nytimes.com)

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/30/us/politics/obama-trump-protections-lgbt-workers.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0

Haha! Trump cucks the Religious Right again,!
78  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Vanity Fair says Kushner is furious at Trump and unable to control him. on: January 31, 2017, 09:56:54 am
None of these people had any intention of winning
79  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: (Democrats) obstructionism and hypocrisy on: January 31, 2017, 08:05:08 am
3. Obama used the Executive Order ("only need a pen and a phone") like no one before.

Trying to decide whether you really don't know that Obama used fewer Executive Orders than any recent president, or if you do know that and you're just trolling around.

If it's the former, it's ok - lots of longtime posters here have apparently forgotten that fact over the last month. Sad
80  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Trump FIRES acting AG for not defending Muslim Ban on: January 30, 2017, 10:23:55 pm
Regardless of your feelings on the actual ban, this is entirely appropriate.  If the Attorney General is not going to defend the position of the government, she has to go.  You all would be saying the same thing if Obama's AG suddenly decided he wasn't going to defend Obamacare.  GMAFB.

Of course he's within his legal right to do it, and if Yates were Trump's actual AG pick it would make a lot of sense, but considering how she was stepping down from her job within the week AND would obviously not be the one defending in Court anyway if she were willing (Trump would certainly wait on Sessions to do that rather than trust an Obama holdover), it's just really petty (and typical) of Trump.
81  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Ralph Nader has, hands down, the best explanation on why Hillary/Dems lost. on: January 30, 2017, 10:20:53 pm
It's not uncommon to vote for a third-party, because you think that third party would be a superior President or want to make a statement, but still have a preference among the top two candidates. For instance, I voted for Gary Johnson, but would've preferred Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump. (For the record: I do not think Gary Johnson's presence on the ballot swung the election; his supporters were pretty 50/50 in their preferences. But I do think Jill Stein cost Hillary the election, much as Ralph Nader cost Al Gore 2000 and Frank Hanly cost Charles Hughes 1916).

Stein costing Hillary the election is not that likely. For Michigan, Hillary would need ~22% of Stein voters (doable), but for Wisconsin Hillary would need about 74% of Stein voters (unlikely), and for PA she'd need ~88% (almost impossible) of Stein voters. (These numbers assume that no Stein voter would ever vote for Trump) There aren't enough Stein voters to do it period in FL, NC, or AZ.

Meanwhile Gore only needed a pathetic 0.6% of Nader voters to get Florida. Even if you adjust that a few % upward to accommodate for a few going for Bush, it's still pretty clear that Nader did it.

The numbers I quoted above show that even 22% may have been too much.

If Stein hadn't run, her supporters wouldn't have heard and believed Stein's right-wing lies about Hillary, so it's impossible to say how many of them would have voted for her.

Because Jill Stein was such a powerful voice being covered everywhere. /sarcasm

I don't even know if that's supposed to be a rebuttal? She got enough coverage to spread her conservative lies and misinformation to scam 1.5 million people into voting for her.

Granted, a lot of those people would have just gotten hoodwinked by Johnson or "write in Bernie!!!!11" or whoever instead if Stein hadn't run, but it's impossible to say exactly how the votes would have fallen had no one ever had the misfortune of hearing Wormtongue Jill's falsehoods.
82  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Place your bets: What are Trump next EOs going to be about? on: January 30, 2017, 10:09:45 pm
"Lines around the states"
83  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Trump FIRES acting AG for not defending Muslim Ban on: January 30, 2017, 10:07:23 pm
It's NOT illegal to fire her.

But Trump could have released a legal memo explaining the legal reasoning. Or just waited a couple days for Sessions to replace her. He chose shock. He chose something that reminds people of the worst of Nixon.


It REEKS of authoritarianism, of wanting an obedient army of bureaucratic Yes-Men.


Only to hang-wringing leftists who think that they are still in charge. The people that put Trump in office have been waiting for a leader with a spine.


"The people" put Hillary in charge. A fluky quirk of the system put Trump in charge in violation of the people's will.
84  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: New EO will target gay parents with adoptive kids on: January 30, 2017, 08:18:36 pm
We settled this a year and a half ago, Trump. Get over it.

-Who's this "we", Justice Kennedy?

If you want to bang your head against a wall trying to get rid of Obergefell, feel free. I'll stay with the 70%+ of Americans, who regardless of our personal views, know it's not worth fighting SCOTUS over marriage contracts, provided Polygamy remains illegal and Churches aren't forced to marry gays.

Why did you leave off bakers, florists, photographers, and the like being forced to participate in gay weddings?

Unless cake is eaten as an integral part of the ceremony, the baker of a wedding cake for a reception (ie, an afterparty) is not a "participant" of a gay wedding.
85  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: DNC Chair Candidate: My job is to tell white people when to shut their mouths on: January 30, 2017, 07:16:21 pm
Quote
So it seems the DNC has decided that doubling down on identity politics and bashing white people is a good strategy to win in 2018 and 2020.

Huh? I mean maybe they do end up doubling down on identity politics, but this is just from one candidate. What is there to suggest she is the new front-runner? You can't just take every statement from every candidate and act like, yup, that's how the DNC is going to be now. That doesn't make any sense. I didn't watch the GOP primaries and think every single policy or idea stated by any of the candidates was going to become official GOP policy.

If a candidate for the RNC chair said that about women, gays, or people of color, many here would be demanding that the whole of the GOP condemn him/her, run him/her out of their present party postion, and run them out of the party on a rail.  Even that wouldn't be enough; you'd be ranting about her very presence as a contender as evidence of the irredeemably racist/sexist/homophobic/anti-bedwetting GOP.  No protestation would ever be enough in your eyes. 

So I'll play that game.  I demand that the whole of Atlas Red Avatars actively condemn this woman for her lack of inclusiveness, demand her withdrawal from the DNC race, demand her resignation from her present party position, disavow all she's done, and meekly accept criticism of your party for allowing her to even man a phone at a Democratic Phone Bank.

Your first paragraph is obviously an extreme over-exaggeration, and every red avatar here has condemned her remarks and mocked her.

If a Republican contender said something like that about gays, women, etc., (well realistically they'd be saying something much worse than this relatively mild statement), half the blue avatars here would be explicitly agreeing with it.
86  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: SCOTUS-Watch: Gorsuch + Hardiman are finalists, announcement Tuesday 8PM on: January 30, 2017, 03:10:04 pm
If he picks Hardiman, I will be really upset and maybe even tilt into "disapprove" territory

I mean, isn't it your own damn fault for believing that Trump was something that he's obviously not (and something you knew he wasn't a year ago)?
87  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Poll: Most Approve Trump Refugee Action on: January 30, 2017, 03:08:46 pm
#fakepoll
88  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Are white evangelicals the biggest hypocrites? on: January 30, 2017, 01:13:28 pm
Quote from: Fuzzy Bear link=topic=257452.msg5496324#msg5496324


And if I do so, and that candidate wins, what becomes the consequences?

+++ SCOTUS Justices that will expand abortion rights beyond what is in place now

+++ SCOTUS Justices entrenching euthanasia in law

+++ Use of the IRS to persecute religious schools, charitable organizations, and legitimate ministries.

+++ Justice Department officials that will actively move against Christians who preach the Biblical view of homosexuality as "hate speech"

+++  Justice Department officials taking action to force Christian schools and organizations (and other religious schools and organizations) to employ open homosexuals, even when being a believing Christian manifesting a Christian lifestyle is a legitimate job requirement (including forcing churches to ordain women and homosexuals, regardless of doctrine)

+++ Initiatives to remove church tax exemptions

+++ Political operatives infiltrating churches in deliberate attempts to change their doctrines (the "Catholic Spring" of Podesta's e-mails)

There is no proof that Donald Trump "sexually assaults women".  There is certainly proof that Bill Clinton did, and that Hillary Clinton ran a smear campaign to discredit his accusers (for HER benefit, not his). 

Hillary Clinton is anti-Evangelical.  If she could, she would use her Presidential power to silence churches that preach that homosexuality is sin.  The Bible says it is, and Evangelical Christians believe that Scripture is authoritative.  Hillary Clinton is a candidate that would actively work to force believers to disobey their God and conform to a humanist vision of how things should be.  The election of 2016 was a binary choice, and one choice would have the effect of inviting persecution onto the Church.  Neither Clinton nor Trump are particularly Godly folks, but policy matters, and I am not favorably disposed to supporting someone whose desire is to twist my arm when it comes to what I know God's Word to be.


Even though I know you and millions of others honestly believe Hillary would do all that, I have a hard time fathoming how that's possible. None of that is anywhere close to anything Hillary has ever advocated.

It's scary how unscrupulous preachers and Internet trolls on the Right have hoodwinked so many people into believing such nonsense...
89  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Ralph Nader has, hands down, the best explanation on why Hillary/Dems lost. on: January 30, 2017, 01:09:13 pm
It's not uncommon to vote for a third-party, because you think that third party would be a superior President or want to make a statement, but still have a preference among the top two candidates. For instance, I voted for Gary Johnson, but would've preferred Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump. (For the record: I do not think Gary Johnson's presence on the ballot swung the election; his supporters were pretty 50/50 in their preferences. But I do think Jill Stein cost Hillary the election, much as Ralph Nader cost Al Gore 2000 and Frank Hanly cost Charles Hughes 1916).

Stein costing Hillary the election is not that likely. For Michigan, Hillary would need ~22% of Stein voters (doable), but for Wisconsin Hillary would need about 74% of Stein voters (unlikely), and for PA she'd need ~88% (almost impossible) of Stein voters. (These numbers assume that no Stein voter would ever vote for Trump) There aren't enough Stein voters to do it period in FL, NC, or AZ.

Meanwhile Gore only needed a pathetic 0.6% of Nader voters to get Florida. Even if you adjust that a few % upward to accommodate for a few going for Bush, it's still pretty clear that Nader did it.

The numbers I quoted above show that even 22% may have been too much.

If Stein hadn't run, her supporters wouldn't have heard and believed Stein's right-wing lies about Hillary, so it's impossible to say how many of them would have voted for her.
90  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Who will be the SCOTUS Nominee? on: January 30, 2017, 01:03:47 pm
My guess is Hardimann...he's not Ivy Leauge and looks like your average every day joe. Grousch comes from privilege and literally looks like a gray hair clone of Roberts

Georgetown is ranked 10 and Cornell is ranked like 14. Its still an "upper class" law school but looks "middle class" compared to Harvard, Yale, and Columbia, ranked 1,2, and 4 by USNWR.

Maybe but Hardimann would throw a wrench into Dems plan to filibuster...this is the guy who literally volunteers on weekends to help Hispanics who cant speak English with legal problems. He has no known record on abortion, and actually has a personality.

He's the perfect candidate to cause the Dems filibuster to blow up in their face. Trump is literally trolling the Dems with Looney Toon tactics

Yeah we might better just confirm him and let the Religious Right go on the warpath. He's an improvement over Scalia
91  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Who will be the SCOTUS Nominee? on: January 30, 2017, 12:34:09 pm
Garland, in a shocker.
92  Forum Community / Off-topic Board / Re: Countries Survivor Game on: January 29, 2017, 10:01:13 pm
Argentina - 5
Australia - 7
Austria - 6
Bangladesh - 5
Belgium - 4
Brazil - 5
Canada - 8
Chile - 5
China - 3
Colombia - 5
Czech Republic - 5
Denmark - 6
Egypt - 5
Finland - 5
France - 5
Germany - 5
Greece - 5
Hong Kong - 5
India - 5
Indonesia - 5
Ireland - 5
Israel - 6
Italy - 5
Japan - 5
Malaysia - 5
Mexico - 5
Netherlands - 5
Nigeria - 5
Norway - 7
Pakistan - 5
Philippines - 5
Poland - 6
Portugal - 4
Romania - 5
Saudi Arabia - 2
Singapore - 5
South Africa - 5
South Korea - 6
Spain - 5
Sweden - 6
Switzerland - 6
Taiwan - 6
Thailand - 5
Turkey - 5
United Arab Emirates - 6
United Kingdom - 6
Venezuela - 4
Vietnam - 5

Sweden up, Venezuela down
93  Forum Community / Off-topic Board / Re: Countries Survivor Game on: January 29, 2017, 09:56:30 pm
Argentina - 5
Australia - 7
Austria - 5
Bangladesh - 5
Belgium - 4
Brazil - 5
Canada - 8
Chile - 5
China - 3
Colombia - 5
Czech Republic - 5
Denmark - 6
Egypt - 5
Finland - 5
France - 5
Germany - 5
Greece - 5
Hong Kong - 5
India - 5
Indonesia - 5
Iran - 2
Ireland - 5
Israel - 7
Italy - 5
Japan - 5
Malaysia - 5
Mexico - 5
Netherlands - 5
Nigeria - 5
Norway - 7
Pakistan - 5
Philippines - 5
Poland - 6
Portugal - 4
Romania - 5
Saudi Arabia - 1
Singapore - 5
South Africa - 5
South Korea - 5
Spain - 5
Sweden - 5
Switzerland - 6
Taiwan - 6
Thailand - 5
Turkey - 5
United Arab Emirates - 6
United Kingdom - 6
Venezuela - 5
Vietnam - 5

UAE up, Saudi Arabia down.
94  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Would you ever buy a car built during the Trump years? on: January 29, 2017, 09:45:35 pm
I would, but not one made in Michigan or any other Obama state that flipped to Trump.
95  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: How do you write the number 4? on: January 29, 2017, 09:37:56 pm
closed, which I thought was normal, but I guess not
96  Forum Community / Off-topic Board / Re: Countries Survivor Game on: January 29, 2017, 09:32:24 pm
Argentina - 5
Australia - 7
Austria - 5
Bangladesh - 5
Belgium - 5
Brazil - 5
Canada - 8
Chile - 5
China - 4
Colombia - 5
Czech Republic - 5
Denmark - 6
Egypt - 5
Finland - 5
France - 5
Germany - 5
Greece - 5
Hong Kong - 5
India - 5
Indonesia - 5
Iran - 3
Ireland - 5
Israel - 6
Italy - 5
Japan - 5
Malaysia - 5
Mexico - 5
Netherlands - 5
Nigeria - 5
Norway - 7
Pakistan - 5
Philippines - 5
Poland - 5
Portugal - 4
Romania - 5
Saudi Arabia - 2
Singapore - 5
South Africa - 5
South Korea - 5
Spain - 5
Sweden - 5
Switzerland - 6
Taiwan - 6
Thailand - 5
Turkey - 5
United Arab Emirates - 5
United Kingdom - 5
Venezuela - 5
Vietnam - 5
97  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Will any Senators or Representatives defect from the Republican Party? on: January 29, 2017, 09:29:46 pm
Not necessarily to join the Democrats. Just switching to Independent out of disgust over Trump would suffice.

Murkowski and McCain were just re-elected last year and have been very critical of Trump, so they might be the best bets.
98  Forum Community / Off-topic Board / Re: Countries Survivor Game on: January 29, 2017, 09:21:09 pm
Argentina - 5
Australia - 7
Austria - 5
Bangladesh - 5
Belgium - 5
Brazil - 5
Canada - 7
Chile - 5
China - 4
Colombia - 5
Czech Republic - 5
Denmark - 6
Egypt - 5
Finland - 5
France - 5
Germany - 5
Greece - 5
Hong Kong - 5
India - 5
Indonesia - 5
Iran - 3
Ireland - 5
Israel - 6
Italy - 6
Japan - 5
Malaysia - 5
Mexico - 5
Netherlands - 5
Nigeria - 5
Norway - 7
Pakistan - 5
Philippines - 5
Poland - 5
Portugal - 4
Romania - 5
Saudi Arabia - 3
Singapore - 5
South Africa - 5
South Korea - 5
Spain - 5
Sweden - 4
Switzerland - 6
Taiwan - 6
Thailand - 5
Turkey - 5
United Arab Emirates - 5
United Kingdom - 5
Venezuela - 5
Vietnam - 5
99  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: BREAKING: Federal Court Issues National Stay of Trump's Refugee Ban on: January 29, 2017, 04:50:08 pm
Any chance states try to nullify it? I realize that states can't actually nullify federal executive orders, but the court case designed to force them into compliance could instead throw out the EO permanently
100  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: What will be Trump's approval rating one week from now? on: January 29, 2017, 03:54:28 pm
The polls are fake news. According to the pollsters, Hillary should be having a nice honeymoon right now.
Hillary won the pv by 3 million so they weren't that wrong
They were wrong in the states.

No they weren't. The results were only outside the margin of error in a few landslide states.

Even if you count that as still "wrong," it was only by a few points
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 625


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines