Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
August 21, 2017, 04:50:22 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 65 66 67 68 69 [70] 71 72 73 74 75 ... 404
1726  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Sanders gets testy after being asked about Sandy Hook on: April 06, 2016, 05:05:18 pm
So this milquetoast bullsh**t that's at least as much a sop to trial lawyers as it is a meaningful form of gun control is now being held up as a litmus test for the Democratic nomination? Huh.

Sanders' record on gun control is nothing to be proud of, but it's a testament to how thoroughly Democrats have ceded the issue that this and a couple of similar votes are (apparently) the most potent charge that Clinton has on the subject despite the duration of Sanders' tenure in Congress.

(Maybe I'm being hyperbolic, but, as someone who is militantly pro-gun control, even anti-"gun rights", can anyone tell me why suing gun manufacturers is something that I should care about except as a stealth tactic to drive them out of business and increase the cost of firearms, eventually reducing the number that are held in private hands? I can't believe that the actual goal is that radical.)
1727  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: The Clinton campaign goes PUMA on: April 06, 2016, 04:41:52 pm
Romney's 47% comment is another good comparison. Don't demean people who aren't voting for you.
1728  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: The Clinton campaign goes PUMA on: April 06, 2016, 04:36:45 pm
Lol how is calling someone a corrupt liar not a personal attack?!

I'm not sure what Sanders has said or done that equates to calling Clinton a corrupt liar.


... you're kidding, right?

He's spent his whole campaign painting the picture of "us versus them," "good versus bad," "honest versus corrupt." True, the evil boogeyman is Wall Street and the super-wealthy, but if you spend all your days building up that boogeyman and then allege even subtly that Clinton is a part of that, you don't have to actually connect the dots in order for your supporters too... It's still a shady attack meant to undermine her character. Except because he cleverly doesn't say it outright he gets to think of himself as taking the moral high road? Uh, that's not how it works.

And I think it is absolutely hilarious for a Sanders supporter to suddenly care about party unity. At this juncture, there is value in deflating the Bernie balloon. It'll show that Hillary doesn't sit and take it, is prepared to win the nomination with force, and will bring that same vigor to the general election campaign. You talk about party unity, but perhaps there are enough soft Sanders supporters who would be more easily drawn to the Clinton camp by her arguments against Sanders than if the primary went on for months and months with her not hitting back and these supporters getting further indoctrinated into the Cult of the Bern. Bring the guy down to earth and maybe a few of his less entrenched supporters will see reason too. Clearly he will make no effort to unite the party when loses, so Hillary has to force the unity on her own. Good for her.

None of which amounts to a personal attack. It's a serious criticism of the political system that (some) Democrats make quite frequently. I believe that it is a fair criticism and I will vote accordingly; others will disagree on substance, and that's another discussion. But if you can't recognize that, it's a failure of critical thinking.

Deliberately stoking the fire to heavily imply that your opponent is one of the corrupt and morally bankrupt bad guys, without being able to provide any evidence that the person's political work has actually been hijacked by big money, doesn't count as a personal attack? The "substance" is actually pretty clear.

I think that's an ignorant and simple-minded caricature. Clinton and other elected officials are influenced by the system of political (esp. fundraising and consulting) networks in which they are immersed. It doesn't mean that she's evil or "morally bankrupt." It just means that she and others are biased toward certain ways of understanding issues and analyzing policy, and predisposed toward favoring the interests of certain groups at the expense of others.

(I know that their are a lot of campaign surrogates and supporters who are out there who are saying pretty stupid things. It helps not to pay much attention to that and I'll make no secret of the fact that I don't bother to stay caught up in it.)

Quote
I mean, if you truly can't see the strategy Sanders is employing to debase Clinton's candidacy and malign her character, I'm afraid it's actually a case of you wilfully missing the forest for the trees. And, you know, yeah: It's a strategy that comes with the territory. But I'm not obliged to think it's honourable, especially now that it's clear he can't win the nomination. Any lasting harm he does to Clinton is actually an act of self-sabotage if he really believes in his cause (in fact, you could argue that it's a sabotage of the American people), because like it or not, she's the one who will be in the position of carrying his cause forward once we get to the summer.

And frankly, since he's shown no sign of backing off, it's about time she took the gloves off too.

There is no evidence that Sanders has damaged Clinton's favorability among either Democrats or independents. There is no evidence that Sanders has damaged Clinton's odds of winning the general election. We're not even seeing temporary changes in her standing in the polls as a result of what you are interpreting as a "debase and malign" strategy.

Clinton had historically low favorability ratings for a (presumptive) major party nominee when this campaign began, and she continues to have historically low favorability ratings for a major party nominee. Sanders and the primary campaign have had nothing to do with this.

This is almost entirely driven by poor performance among independents, by the way. Clinton remains as popular among Democrats as most of the party's major figures. She just has disastrously low ratings among those outside of the party, which obviously makes it very fortunate that she's likely to face a badly divided Republican Party and weak and (at least) equally unpopular Republican nominee.

By the way, at the risk of appearing thin-skinned, nothing has upset me more than the nasty comments that Clinton has made about Sanders supporters - the idea that those who support him are young, naive simpletons who'd be supporting her if only they hadn't been bamboozled by Sanders' impossible dreams. Much like Obama's "guns and religions" comment in 2008, it's not good politics and it's not good leadership. I'm much less bothered by any of Clinton's attacks on Sanders than I am by this.
1729  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: George Mason University to Rename Law School after Antonin Scalia on: April 06, 2016, 04:14:50 pm
It's nice to see an American university naming something after someone who isn't a major donor for a change.

Oh, wait a second:

Quote
Officials at the Fairfax, Virginia-based school said the new moniker is part of a $30 million donation to George Mason. An anonymous donor who gave $20 million required the name change as part of the gift; the other $10 million was provided by billionaire conservative activist Charles Koch.

In conclusion, I can only manage a flippant "lmfao." Amazing what passes as a "gift" in the world of non-profits, isn't it?
Yeah, those asshats should just keep their money!

I'm genuinely not clear on what your point is. A quid pro quo is not a gift. It is a transaction. Why should what is effectively buying the naming rights to a law school qualify as a charitable donation?

Moreover, how does naming a school after someone because donations were contingent on that renaming any kind of tribute to that person's achievements? It's a statement about power - and not even Scalia's power, in this case - and nothing more than that.
1730  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: The Clinton campaign goes PUMA on: April 06, 2016, 12:25:26 pm
Lol how is calling someone a corrupt liar not a personal attack?!

I'm not sure what Sanders has said or done that equates to calling Clinton a corrupt liar.


... you're kidding, right?

He's spent his whole campaign painting the picture of "us versus them," "good versus bad," "honest versus corrupt." True, the evil boogeyman is Wall Street and the super-wealthy, but if you spend all your days building up that boogeyman and then allege even subtly that Clinton is a part of that, you don't have to actually connect the dots in order for your supporters too... It's still a shady attack meant to undermine her character. Except because he cleverly doesn't say it outright he gets to think of himself as taking the moral high road? Uh, that's not how it works.

And I think it is absolutely hilarious for a Sanders supporter to suddenly care about party unity. At this juncture, there is value in deflating the Bernie balloon. It'll show that Hillary doesn't sit and take it, is prepared to win the nomination with force, and will bring that same vigor to the general election campaign. You talk about party unity, but perhaps there are enough soft Sanders supporters who would be more easily drawn to the Clinton camp by her arguments against Sanders than if the primary went on for months and months with her not hitting back and these supporters getting further indoctrinated into the Cult of the Bern. Bring the guy down to earth and maybe a few of his less entrenched supporters will see reason too. Clearly he will make no effort to unite the party when loses, so Hillary has to force the unity on her own. Good for her.

None of which amounts to a personal attack. It's a serious criticism of the political system that (some) Democrats make quite frequently. I believe that it is a fair criticism and I will vote accordingly; others will disagree on substance, and that's another discussion. But if you can't recognize that, it's a failure of critical thinking.
1731  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: The Clinton campaign goes PUMA on: April 06, 2016, 11:25:19 am
Lol how is calling someone a corrupt liar not a personal attack?!

I'm not sure what Sanders has said or done that equates to calling Clinton a corrupt liar.
1732  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: The Clinton campaign goes PUMA on: April 06, 2016, 10:50:35 am
Bad politics and permanently setting Democrats up for charges of hypocrisy - some fair, some unfair - wrt campaign finance and government corruption. Maybe you don't agree with Sanders on these questions, but to treat this critique as a personal attack on Clinton is inaccurate and, I think, a significant misunderstanding of what he and most of his supporters believe.
1733  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: The Clinton campaign goes PUMA on: April 06, 2016, 07:28:26 am
Early reporting today suggests that she'll be reporting the "I wish he spent as much time criticizing George W. Bush as he does criticizing Obama" line, which is a, uh, interesting choice. Where's the stuff about Sanders being a tax-and-spend Manchuriab hippie communist sex pervert that we keep hearing about from certain people?

The sad part is that she's going to win NY by a pretty wide margin, and probably beat expectations because of great organization - which should be praised - but we'll inevitably see simpleton pundits reporting that going negative was Clinton "finding her voice." Ugh.
1734  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: National county maps as of tonight on: April 06, 2016, 12:08:50 am
Direct links should work now, by the way. No idea why they weren't before.

Why not just host the images here, in the gallery.  Are they too large for that?

Yes, posting them here is usually a pain because I need to resize (often in a different format), tag them with titles and descriptions, and verify that they're saved to the correct part of the gallery. Plus they're incomplete; I'd at least want to wait until I had official results from all of the included states.
1735  About this Site / The Atlas / Re: Are pictures on the forum not working for anyone else? on: April 05, 2016, 11:52:21 pm
That's a shame. As an aside, maybe we could increase the size limits in the gallery? That doesn't address most of the problem, but it would be nice if we could at least upload national maps that aren't ludicrously tiny.
1736  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: National county maps as of tonight on: April 05, 2016, 11:49:03 pm
This "imgur doesn't work on the Atlas" sh!t is getting old. Adam's trick for fixing them doesn't seem to work anymore, either. Refer to the URLs for now, I guess.
1737  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / National county maps as of tonight on: April 05, 2016, 11:40:38 pm
Follow the links bc image embedding w/imgur is broken on this forum:

Democrats (Clinton, Sanders, Uncommitted)
http://imgur.com/zYn4ObL.png


Republicans (Trump, Cruz, Rubio, Kasich, Carson)

http://imgur.com/dJrB9f9.png
1738  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Democratic Wisconsin Primary results thread (polls close at 9pm ET) on: April 05, 2016, 11:37:51 pm
1739  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Republican Wisconsin Primary results thread (polls close at 9pm ET) on: April 05, 2016, 11:37:30 pm
1740  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Politico: Trump campaign in disarray, laying off staff on: April 05, 2016, 04:17:01 pm
So, is this more characteristic of the self-sabotage thesis, or is it more a matter of, "Let's dispel with the fiction that Donald Trump knows what he is doing?"
1741  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: "Big Oil" Bernie has investments in fracking companies on: April 04, 2016, 11:38:37 am
I mean, by the same standard, so do I. So do most working-age people reading this, probably. Mutual funds are how middle class people save for retirement in an era when employer-based pensions are in decline and even the long-term future of Social Security is in doubt. If you went through every investment that many ordinary families have, you could practically make a full-time occupation out of picking through the ethically dubious investments that are bundled together. It's just not possible for someone with a modest amount of investments that need to be highly diversified to manage them that closely.
1742  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Clinton: “I Feel Sorry For Young People Who Believe Sanders” on: April 04, 2016, 07:33:30 am
Yikes. Getting uglier every day.
1743  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Sanders apparently has 11 point lead amongst AA voters in Wisconsin on: April 03, 2016, 07:50:24 am
The title of this thread briefly made me think that some lunatic was going around Wisconsin conducting formal polls at AA meetings.
1744  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: predict wisconsin margins on: April 02, 2016, 10:25:15 pm
52% Sanders
48% Clinton

45% Cruz
30% 🚽
25% Kasich
1745  General Politics / Political Debate / Re: How would you solve the student debt crisis? on: April 02, 2016, 03:55:50 pm
For students looking at public universities, but are worried about debt, I recommend community college for the first couple of years. Most courses, especially required courses, ohlne would take in the first two years can be found at community colleges. I know a number of students in the last decade who managed costs very well this way.

Do you think that students at community colleges have access to anything resembling the academic or social support available to the most successful students at four-year public schools? It's difficult to find data that shows how comparable students perform at different kinds of institutions because the student populations are so different. I know that many students do very well by starting out at a community college, but I'm skeptical of the idea that it provides a comparable learning environment for students.

Also, for what it's worth, it's difficult for me to put my personal experience aside: The best thing that happened to me when I left for college was that I was surrounded by other highly motivated students. I know plenty of people who have enrolled at community colleges, and all of them complained about how the lack of seriousness from (at least some of) their classmates affected their studies. In the most extreme cases, this extended to students involved in violent crime and gang activity on campus. In other words, some of our community colleges in New York State are beginning to the kinds of problems that we usually associate with the worst urban high schools. If debt were my only alternative to avoiding that, I would take on the debt.
1746  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Bernie Sanders has turned to the Dark Side on: April 02, 2016, 03:18:45 pm
I don't think the tone of the campaign has changed.

Of course you don't, it's not like the article provides any evidence of such a change.

I'm glad that we agree on something!
1747  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: COWARD Sanders refuses ALL THREE of Clinton's proposed NY debates!! on: April 02, 2016, 03:16:37 pm


Or maybe you could, you know, make better jokes? Maybe even ones that aren't repulsive?

You're unhinged man. It's sad that underneath all your wonky exterior lies a little dictator who wants to censor jokes that aren't to his liking.

Far from it; I'm not sure why you're insulting my size, but any right-thinking person should be happy to leave folks like you uncensored. Bad-taste jokes can be a reliable sign of either good character or bad character, depending on their context and tone. If you're not interested this (admittedly pretty silly) meditation on whether your joke was in bad taste, maybe you should not have initiated this equally amusing argument about whether osteoporosis and arthritis are truly "deadly."

By the way, I take it that you're not interested in admitting that you were wrong about bone disease mortality? I'm sure that it's no reflection on your character, even experts make mistakes sometimes.
1748  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: COWARD Sanders refuses ALL THREE of Clinton's proposed NY debates!! on: April 02, 2016, 03:01:07 pm
I'm not sure why I feel compelled to point this out, but as both of them are chronic conditions associated with increased mortality, yes, they are "deadly disease."

Sorry to say that but you don't know what you're talking about. My mother suffers from both for years and she is as strong as any woman in her 70's can be. And she is far from the only person I know with these conditions that lives a normal and fruitful life.

lmfao, while I am (seriously) glad that your mother is doing well, I can't help laughing at the idea that you'd mention that rather than referring to mortality data or medical literature. Are you that statistically illiterate? Do you not understand how rates and averages work? And why on earth have you gone from trolling about Sanders personal health to arguing about mortality rates for people with bone disease, anyway? What a world we live in.

I happen to work on the health sector and I know pretty well the statistics of both diseases.

OK, then. What's the six-month mortality rate following a hip fracture for people living in Greece?

Quote
So stop that BS and admit that you're a Sanders supporter with poor sense of humor rather than lecture me about stuff that I know for 20 years.

Or maybe you could, you know, make better jokes? Maybe even ones that aren't repulsive?
1749  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: COWARD Sanders refuses ALL THREE of Clinton's proposed NY debates!! on: April 02, 2016, 02:52:26 pm
I'm not sure why I feel compelled to point this out, but as both of them are chronic conditions associated with increased mortality, yes, they are "deadly disease."

Sorry to say that but you don't know what you're talking about. My mother suffers from both for years and she is as strong as any woman in her 70's can be. And she is far from the only person I know with these conditions that lives a normal and fruitful life.

lmfao, while I am (seriously) glad that your mother is doing well, I can't help laughing at the idea that you'd mention that rather than referring to mortality data or medical literature. Are you that statistically illiterate? Do you not understand how rates and averages work? And why on earth have you gone from trolling about Sanders personal health to arguing about mortality rates for people with bone disease, anyway? What a world we live in.
1750  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Bernie Sanders has turned to the Dark Side on: April 02, 2016, 02:44:05 pm
I don't think the tone of the campaign has changed. The impression that I'm getting is of a Clinton campaign that wants to call for Sanders withdrawal but isn't confident that doing so wouldn't backfire on them. So the strategy seems to be expressing indignation that he's still, you know, actually running the campaign that he wants to run, rather than becoming a de facto Clinton surrogate.
Pages: 1 ... 65 66 67 68 69 [70] 71 72 73 74 75 ... 404


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines