Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
August 25, 2016, 10:13:32 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

  Show Posts
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 606
76  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Trump cancels the RNC's planned Hispanic Engagement Tour on: July 30, 2016, 11:22:24 am
If he's actually campaigning in Mississippi, that's beyond sad. (Sorry, I mean.... Sad!)

He sent Donald Trump, Jr. to campaign for him in the Neshoba County Fair because he couldn't make it. On one of my local news stations, one thing they talked about was that damn rebel flag (Hint, I'm Black so naturally, I would take offense.) that's still the state flag and of course they are obsessing over it and Junior even defended the flag and disapproved of them disposing the flag at the Democratic Convention.

Later, the news station confirmed that he is coming back to Mississippi next month (Don't know why, but I wished he would stay away so that he wouldn't win it by such a large margin).


PLEASE don't leave after the election!! We are SOOOO PAINFULLY WHITE around here! Tongue

(Not joking. Please stay because your posts seem well thought out Smiley)

I'm right here!
77  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Trump cancels the RNC's planned Hispanic Engagement Tour on: July 29, 2016, 11:27:24 pm
Still awaiting more info on this "Hispanic engagement tour"
78  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / International Elections / Re: United Nations Secretary-General selection, 2016 on: July 29, 2016, 05:20:08 pm
Idiot.
79  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / International Elections / Re: United Nations Secretary-General selection, 2016 on: July 29, 2016, 05:19:01 pm

Turnbull continues to be a petty piece of sh*t.

Jesus Christ people how many times must I say that the process has already started. The time for nominations has long passed; the Security Council is already voting. It's been a year now. It's completely ridiculous to complain about someone doing the impossible.
80  About this Site / The Atlas / Re: ATTN MODS: one of your forum members is demanding that others commit suicide on: July 29, 2016, 04:58:23 pm
The idea that AAD is superior to this site in regards to comments like the one being discussed is laughable when you consider that had it been said there, it would have elicited no such reaction and no repercussions would have been forthcoming given the absence of punitive moderation. Indeed the concern shown here would have likely been received with derision unless it had been raised by the "right kind of person".

The atmosphere of AAD is of a teenage clique, and the absence of abusive behavior is not due to moderation but selectivity and pervasive groupthink. Just remember how ironic Trump support was the thing to do, until it wasn't.
81  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Fake billionaire Trump bashes real billionaire "little Bloomberg" on Twitter on: July 29, 2016, 04:32:02 pm
Can you imagine a Trump-Bloomberg debate? All Donald would have is personal insults if he couldn't talk about how much more wealth he had.
Cheesy

Bloomberg, out of exasperation, would probably end up challenging Trump to compare the size of their hands. Trump, being the stubby-fingered coward he is, would refuse, and Bloomberg would tell Trump to stop banging on about about his height if he doesn't want to talk about his hands. Tongue
82  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Fake billionaire Trump bashes real billionaire "little Bloomberg" on Twitter on: July 29, 2016, 04:29:17 pm
I don't think there's anything necessarily wrong with that-- given that wealth is used as a proxy, as it is in Bloomberg's case, for success in business--

I don't see success in business as something inherently deserving of praise. For every business(wo)man who made their wealth through socially useful activities, there is another who made it through shamefully parasitic ways (if anything, considering the way our modern economic system works, there are probably more of the latter).

Well sure. But when it isn't "parasitic", there's no reason why that shouldn't be something to applaud and look up to. Unless you want to give Trump some suggestions, I think the idea that Bloomberg's career has been "parasitic" is transparently basis. Not that you necessarily meant that, but it was implied...

I was just saying that Democrats shouldn't start worshiping "success" the way Republicans do just because a successful guy happen to support them.

One could have an endless philosophical debate on what constitutes "success", but I think that Republicans are not alone in placing great value in it, whatever it is.
83  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Trump's tax returns on: July 29, 2016, 04:13:17 pm
At least options #2, #3, and #4.

Donald Trump is not billionaire. He's probably worth $50 million-$250 million. He's a terrible businessman and he's donated almost nothing to charity. Options #1 and #5 are also plausible.

If he was worth that little, his plane alone would be ruinous. Bloomberg, Forbes, and other wealth lists have gone over Trump's assets in detail and have come up figures, while considerably less than what he claims his net worth is, are clearly in the billions. Now there could be some debts they don't know about, but $3-4 billion, given the relative size of his assets, would be pushing the limits of plausibility. But who knows what he could be hiding.
84  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Fake billionaire Trump bashes real billionaire "little Bloomberg" on Twitter on: July 29, 2016, 04:06:05 pm
Ugh guys, I know Drumpf is awful, but Democrats should never fawn over billionaires regardless of their politics.

Because... being a billionaire is morally wrong, or what?

Because admiring wealth and valuing people based on their wealth is morally wrong.

I don't think there's anything necessarily wrong with that-- given that wealth is used as a proxy, as it is in Bloomberg's case, for success in business-- but you throw me off further by adding "regardless of their politics"? Why can't billionaires be fawned over for their politics?

Furthermore, Trump is someone who definitely values people based on their wealth, and there's an irony one can appreciate in him attempting to denigrate someone who, by his own metric, ought to be considered his better.
85  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Fake billionaire Trump bashes real billionaire "little Bloomberg" on Twitter on: July 29, 2016, 03:57:38 pm
Ugh guys, I know Drumpf is awful, but Democrats should never fawn over billionaires regardless of their politics.

Because... being a billionaire is morally wrong, or what?
86  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Fake billionaire Trump bashes real billionaire "little Bloomberg" on Twitter on: July 29, 2016, 01:57:55 pm
I haven't seen any actual evidence to suggest Trump isn't actually a billionaire, first things first.

Otherwise, what a joke. Bloomberg is everything Trump claims to be-- a self-made entrepreneur, someone with a net worth in the tens of billions and (still!) rising, a generous philanthropist, a successful politician, in-demand in the most rarefied parts of Society. Bloomie has done everything Trump wishes he could, so he's left to knock Bloomberg, like a child, on the only thing he can-- his height. I bet every night, Trump goes to sleep wishing he was like Bloomberg, Buffett, the Kochs, Li Ka-Shing, and so forth; that he lived up to his own hype.

Bloomberg's last term as mayor was the exact opposite of a disaster, and if he actually ran for Mayor again (which he could, given that NYC term limits apply to consecutive terms) as I dearly wish he would, he would handily defeat de Blasio in a rout.

87  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Who is more trustworthy? on: July 29, 2016, 01:39:00 pm
Hillary Clinton may not mean what she says, but she at least knows what she means. In other words, she may be lying, but she knows what she is doing.

Donald Trump, on the other hand, also does not mean what she says, but it seems that he almost always doesn't know what he actually means-- or what he is saying means, for that matter. He is not only being untruthful, but doesn't know what constitutes "the truth" is in the first place (in which case you can't really call it lying), or what being untruthful is supposed to achieve.

In short, I would much rather be led by a competent liar than an incompetent one. Trump has an seemingly pathological aversion to giving a straight answer on virtually anything, no matter how innocuous, far more than the worst careerist hack.
88  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Trump and Russia on: July 29, 2016, 01:17:11 pm
I struggle to see a way where Trump could be prosecuted for colluding with a foreign power in a manner that precludes criticism of it being a partisan set-up. But if there is any way for that to happen, I definitely think it should.

We need to find a rabid anti-Communist federal judge to preside over the trial, and it goes without saying rabid anti-Communists would be a) Republicans b) anti-Putin in general.

This all boggles the mind, though. Imagine if Obama had said this sort of thing about Bush in 2008. Or Dukakis in 1988 ("I hope the Russians release any missing Iran-Contra files..."). The GOP would crucify them, and rightly

Yes, it's impossible to imagine. Your example demostrates well how weak the US has become under Obama. It has lost its position of the superpower. How you are afraid of Russians now. This is the most prominent result of Obama's rule.

What it demonstrates is how dysfunctional our political system has become, where a candidate can nakedly support a foreign leader and his country's subversion of our government, and somehow manage to retain the blind loyalty of 40%+ of the electorate.

I blame, at least in part, the fragmented media landscape. Now everyone can pick the version of the facts that best aligns with their preconceived biases, and hear only what they want to hear. The internet is great and all, but if it was still just ABC, NBC, and CBS (and equally non-partisan cable news networks) delivering the facts on the evening news, and the national broadsheets and regional papers reporting (if online) on the campaign, the entire Trump phenomenon would have never even gotten off the ground, and even if it had, the Russia angle would have killed him. Conversely, if you had had cable news, social media, partisan online outlets in 1964, there could have never been a landslide victory for LBJ.

We'd be in a much better place if there was someone with the stature of an Edward Murrow or Walter Cronkite, who could make a substantive impact if they were to denounce Trump.
89  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: MO-Mason-Dixon: Trump down 1 BEFORE the DNC on: July 29, 2016, 12:49:08 pm
This is where the polls should be, but I would take this with a heaping serving of salt.
90  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / No EV winner, could Johnson win in the House? on: July 28, 2016, 06:42:58 pm
Suppose Gary Johnson begins climbing in the polls over the next few months. He receives several high-profile endorsements-- inter alia, Mitt Romney, Rand and Ron Paul, Brian Sandoval, Susana Martinez, Justin Amash, Angus King-- while carefully toeing the line of stressing his differences with the Republican establishment. He is backed by the Club for Growth and other pro-business groups. He notably distinguishes himself by calling for marijuana legalization, whereas Trump nor Clinton despite an emerging bipartisan majority remain opposed*.

By September Johnson is averaging 16-18% in the polls and qualifies for the debates, where he does well**, frequently teaming up with Hillary against Trump; his weakest performance is in the foreign policy debate (but decisively outperforms Trump in all three). Weld, meanwhile, is narrowly declared the winner of the VP debate, although many say it's a draw. Hillary remains stuck in the polls while reality appears to set in for Trump, who drops.

The election day result is this, and the GOP retains a reduced majority in the House:



Hillary Clinton (D-NY) / Tim Kaine (D-VA) - 39.2% (263)
Donald Trump (R-NY) / Mike Pence (R-IN) - 34.4% (234)
Gary Johnson (L-NM) / Bill Weld (L-MA) - 25.9% (41)
Others - 0.5%

Given this scenario, could Johnson win the resultant election in the House of Representatives? Could he win in a scenario where he received approximately ~15% of votes and won one or two states?

*Disclosure: This isn't some personal fantasy; I too remain opposed.
**Note: To be honest, I've seen little evidence to suggest Johnson is actually good in debates.
91  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Romney considers endorsing Gary Johnson on: July 28, 2016, 05:49:27 pm
The only problem is that if Romney, Jeb, Kasich, et al endorse him, it makes him look more like an "moderate Establishment Republican", which would reduce his crossover appeal (although, all things considered, that would probably be a good thing-- Johnson is harmless as long as he-- unlike Stein-- isn't drawing votes away from Hillary) and more generally, hurt the Libertarians' attempt to capitalize on a strong showing by Johnson for long-term gain.

Johnson, in accepting the endorsement, would have to reiterate the distinct parts of his platform while finding a way to repudiate those parts of Republican orthodoxy with which he is at odds (abortion, foreign policy, drug policy) without insulting his hypothetical endorsers. Squaring the circle, in that regard, would particularly hard, for example, in the case of an endorsement from any member of the Bush family.

What's Rand Paul been up to, for that matter? And his father, aside from hawking GOLD? More helpful endorsements might be from Amash, Chaffetz (especially in Utah!), and so forth. I wonder what Johnson's strategy is, anyway; he can't be delusional enough to think he could win an EV majority. If I were him, I'd aim, aside from maximising his share of the popular vote, to get the election thrown to the House, in the hope that the GOP House majority would find the former Republican governor more palatable than Trump, and elect Johnson president (and perhaps that there's still be a Republican Senate to elect Weld). That is a semi-plausible scenario, I think.
92  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Trump and Russia on: July 28, 2016, 05:31:43 pm
I struggle to see a way where Trump could be prosecuted for colluding with a foreign power in a manner that precludes criticism of it being a partisan set-up. But if there is any way for that to happen, I definitely think it should.

We need to find a rabid anti-Communist federal judge to preside over the trial, and it goes without saying rabid anti-Communists would be a) Republicans b) anti-Putin in general.

This all boggles the mind, though. Imagine if Obama had said this sort of thing about Bush in 2008. Or Dukakis in 1988 ("I hope the Russians release any missing Iran-Contra files..."). The GOP would crucify them, and rightly so. What kind of double standard do GOP politicians have so they can be a gung-ho, flag-waving, "if-you-don't-love-this-country-you-can-leave" patriots in 2006, yet stand behind a candidate supporting an unambiguously hostile foreign leader's-- the Russians, for Christ's sake-- attempts to undermine our government and political process?

Sure, you can say the GOP has been bigoted, reactionary, retrograde, populist, "the same as Trump". Whatever. But supporting foreign subversion? No one can argue the GOP has ever been in favor of that.
93  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Will day 4 speeches be a letdown compared to day 2/3? on: July 28, 2016, 05:17:54 pm
I would be more than happy re-electing Obama or Bill Clinton after their speeches. I'm skeptical this speech would make me happy about the idea of voting for Hillary Clinton, but I'll watch. She has a lot of baggage to overcome here.
94  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Things Clinton Democrats don't seem to get on: July 28, 2016, 05:01:22 pm
Southern Gothic has a clear point on the DNC's short-sightedness: just look at their performance on the state level and during the midterms. Those could have been avoided had there been an attempt to capitalize on Obama's winning coalition and boost turnout.

Talking about winning the next two elections won't do anything to change the fact that Democrats will continue to face an obstructionist House, gerrymandered past 2020 by Republican state legislatures. Yes, the demographic trends remain in their favor and the Republicans are clearly doing nothing to change that. Hispanics and other minorities are not simply going to spontaneously start voting Republican. But that should not be an excuse to avoid formulating any kind of long-term strategy.

Also, if Hillary is unpopular now, just think how unpopular she'll be in four years' time! Given this election's failure, until now, to be the Clinton blowout one would expect it to be, I have to imagine the GOP could nominate pretty much anyone, and they'd win (especially given the fact that a mild downturn, at least, is almost certain-- unless you want to argue we're going to go a historically unprecedented 12+ years without a recession) ; even a rock, or, heck, Donald Trump again.
95  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Politico: Democrats Now the National Security Party on: July 28, 2016, 04:53:14 pm
Maybe there will be a state realignment this cycle, but something tells me the GOP won't like it.

Erm, do you have evidence for this?
96  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Romney considers endorsing Gary Johnson on: July 28, 2016, 04:32:49 pm
This would only matter for Utah, if at all. No one else cares about Mitt Romney's opinion.

It's not so much Romney's opinion that matters than the effect of making Johnson a legitimate alternative for disenchanted Republicans. More people would probably be won over simply by the extra media attention an endorsement would generate than the actual endorsement.
97  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: USC Dornsife/L.A. Times Daybreak National Tracking: 7/26 - Trump +7 on: July 28, 2016, 09:40:57 am
There's no logical reason for this election to be close, yes. But it is. As distressing as that may be we shouldn't nitpick about crosstabs, while sticking our heads in the sand and ignoring the broader trend. I mean, people are now trying to claim RCP are right wing hacks. RCP!

There's little we can do to impact the outcome of the election, but no good will come out of dismissing or ignoring the polls we don't like; God willing, this won't haplen, but if we continue in this manner, we on the Atlas may be in for a devastating shock on election day-- despite the polls having forcasted it.
98  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: USC Dornsife/L.A. Times Daybreak National Tracking: 7/25 - Trump +5 on: July 28, 2016, 08:16:22 am
And here come Atlas's resident Baghdad Bobs to come in and yell, "junk poll!" Shades of 2012 Romneyites and the "unskewing" of polls.

I agree. It's questionable.
99  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / International Elections / Re: United Nations Secretary-General selection, 2016 on: July 24, 2016, 11:37:25 pm
The process is already underway. There's no way for him to jump in, just like Romney cannot jump in the US election at this point.

Russia is known to be insisting that the rotation be followed. So while this would apparently give Turk the lead, there will be a lot of gnashing of teeth if a woman is not chosen.
100  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / International Elections / Re: United Nations Secretary-General selection, 2016 on: July 23, 2016, 08:44:34 am

Helle Thorning-Schmidt would be a good choice.

Neither of these people are candidates.
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 606


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines