Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 29, 2017, 10:28:39 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Election 2016 predictions are now open!.

  Show Posts
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... 299
101  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: During the course of this election, how have your political views changed? on: December 06, 2016, 02:44:23 pm
The difference is, they would essentially be liquidating themselves through their own stupidity. I'm not necessarily saying I support this. Just that they'd get what they unknowingly asked for and maybe learn something. I see the appeal of that part of the situation even though I would not actually support deliberately making their lives close to unliveable.
102  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: President Donald Trump vs Hillary Clinton on: December 06, 2016, 02:36:46 pm
"Shove Clinton?"

I know it's in vogue to forget, but it took immense political skill and years of hard work proving herself to clear the field in '16. And after achieving that, she managed to win millions and millions of votes more  than her closest opponent in the primary. She was chosen by the party. She was the people's choice at literally every juncture this year. Anyone could have challenged her and competed to amass more votes in the primary. Few did, and the ones that did failed to defeat her. She won. Period.
103  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: During the course of this election, how have your political views changed? on: December 05, 2016, 11:00:53 pm
Literally zero people switched from Obama to Trump because of immigration and big government. Nice try, though.

If Trump fails us and caves to that heartless coward sociopath Paul Ryan, just see how swiftly we abandon him too.

"Literally zero."

Okay, pal. Okay. Roll Eyes

Trump gave them scapegoats and bogeymen that distracted voters from the truth. Maybe they'll get a better understanding of reality when they lose their health insurance.
104  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Another massively stupid aspect of the Clinton campaign... on: December 05, 2016, 10:57:24 pm
How delusional can people be?

"It is okay to vote for a bigot"  -  Voting against bigotry is the privilege of the rich. The poor vote to earn decent wages & have a decent life


"Progressives assumed that Swing state rust belt voters cared more about social issues" - No they didn't. People have to incredibly stupid to even believe that. Any default Dem candidate by default is strong on social issues, you don't need Clinton for that. People cared about the economy in every major poll that was available

"Voters didn't give a sh** about gay rights" - Some of them do, but they care more about their lives than gay rights. And if they cared about gay rights they would have voted en mass for Sanders over Clinton in a landslide victory.

"We were naive etc" - Not everyone of us. You guys were delusional, we were shouting after every debate & rally that Clinton should talk about infra n minimum wage etc. It is a matter of shame that Trump outflanked Clinton in Trade & talked about infra spending etc much more (core Dem point)

It is weird how much blame is placed on a rust belt voter for voting for Trump when there is no question mark on how pathetic of a candidate Clinton was.

I mean you're argument for winning is Gay Rights? Seriously??

These kind of posts are self-explanatory why Clinton lost - She literally had no positive economic message at a time the economy was the most important topic in almost every single poll !


Looking past your assholery, you are basically agreeing with me. I'm not saying the argument is "gay rights." I invoked gay rights because it was one clear example of the country moving forward. We assumed the the move forward represented an overall rejection of the GOP message and that the new majority rested with the Democrats... and that it would be very hard to "stop the train." I am saying as clearly as I can that WE WERE WRONG, so I'm not sure why people like you are getting so f-cking defensive.

Also, the quotes you are using are not even direct quotes from my posts. Not sure what that's about.
105  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Another massively stupid aspect of the Clinton campaign... on: December 05, 2016, 10:50:22 pm
Re-read my post and try again. I disparage the white working-class often, but I did not do so here. Unless you think it's disparaging to point out that they ultimately decided it was okay to vote for a bigot, even though they cast their ballots for reasons unrelated to their own degree of bigotry.

I voted for an authoritarian elitist with a laughably hawkish foreign policy even though I am none of those things.

Would you hold me responsible for American casualties in a hypothetical Syrian war in the Clinton administration?

When you vote for a candidate, you enable that candidate's agenda because your vote is what helps put them in power. Is this news to you?

The difference is, it's hard to see how things like sexual assault, denying apartments to black people, and playing coy with the KKK could have any reasonable defense. On the other hand, there is plenty room for reasonable justifications in the hypothetical situation of an unfortunate war with Syria.
106  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: During the course of this election, how have your political views changed? on: December 05, 2016, 10:42:42 pm
They have become more liberal on social issues and more conservative on fiscal issues.  I used to be more for a populist message on the economy... lift everyone up type of thing.  Now as a natural reaction to the ilk that Trump has brought out I have a much more hard line stance on fiscal issues.  Cut taxes, cut social programs, support as much free trade as possible, stop sending money directly from the two coasts to support social programs in the Midwest and South (we pay way more in taxes than we get back). Basically, I want a sink or swim economy.  But I want it to be "fair" on social policies, which means there shouldn't be racial discrimination, gays should have equal treatment, and we shouldn't waste a ton of money on dumb wars.  So on balance, I still support democrats.

 you, buddy.

That being said, I see the appeal of cutting off all of the support that flows from the coasts to the heartland, if only to show these folks how much they rely on the elites that they decry so much. If some temporary tough love is what it takes to show them that they should be voting for Democrats, well... so be it.

 you, buddy.

This experiment would be funny.

 you, buddy.

you, buddy.

...

Those two words are not as clever as you think.
it's the profanity filter lol

Yeah, the f-word is before each 'you'. I'm pretty sure the posters in question have enough experience with the profanity filter to be able to tell.

There are enough ways to say f**k without setting off the filter that it never occured to me that someone who knew of its existence would type the four letters knowing they would get erased and creating the bland " you, buddy." instead of the more impactful "F**k you, buddy".

I wanted the cheap satisfaction of typing the word and hitting 'post' without spending time editing.

You really think it's good that the country has legions and legions of economically struggling people who think the root cause of their problems is immigrants and big government, so vote for candidates  who would literally take away the only support they're actually getting? How do you propose these people be swayed to vote in their own interest? The evidence, logic, and facts that we would want to use would be seen as untrustworthy elitist hogwash. The only language they know is "feeling" like something is true. It makes things incredibly difficult.
107  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Has Trump's level of support always been there? on: December 05, 2016, 10:34:54 pm
I think the more interesting question is at what points in the race would Hillary actually have won if the election were held that day. It seems like we can't really trust what the polls had said and that it was always much closer than it appeared. So when was she actually winning?
108  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Another massively stupid aspect of the Clinton campaign... on: December 05, 2016, 10:30:25 pm
I think it was easy to believe that all the progress the country had made on things like gay rights over the last eight years meant the country was heading full-steam towards becoming a more progressive place. I know I was feeling like "history" was happening in an irreversible way with more and more people jumping on board.

Turns out we were wrong. We didn't want to believe that these working-class whites just didn't give a damn about the rights of their even more vulnerable neighbours. All the progress of the last few years was just incidental because these people had chosen to trust Barack Obama over the corporatist establishment figure Mitt Romney. So this election was definitely a sh-tty way to learn that progress and justice are not inevitable, but... it's a valuable lesson.

Most white people don't really care about the rights of those who have been Othered. It's not that they're against social progress and equality. They're just willing to look past a pretty large degree of hatred, bigotry, and discrimination if it means they can feel like they're being "heard." I think it's awful and inexcusable, but it is what it is, and I guess it's not AS BAD as outright bigotry. But they've still enabled it.

You're lecturing working Americans about the progress they made.  Isn't that a tad pretentious?  

I doubt you work for a living.  I doubt you have a family depending on you working.  Someday that may happen for you, but I doubt it's the case now.  And, yes, that is relevant.  I was as snotty as you toward folks I regarded as Archie Bunker types in my youth when I had no idea of the pressure one takes on when they support a family.

These hard-working Americans you so disparage have (for the most part) families to support.  Even if they're divorced, they have child support.  And they have been economically screwed.  I can take you to a place in Jackson, OH, where the Meridian Automotive plant once was.  The jobs are now in Mexico and the lot now has a retail shopping center that may provide 10 jobs that could support a family, where there was once a plant where there were hundreds of such jobs.  These folks have moved on, but not to something better (for the most part).  And, yet, you want them to support the Goddess of NAFTA as opposed to someone whose trade policies might actually help THEIR situation.  

They are, by the way, well aware that the "Othered" folks have no more care for the lot of these hard working Americans than you say they have for the "Othered" folks.  The "Othered" folks don't care about the welfare of them, or their families; they care about their own welfare.  Let's not attach virtue to the "Othered" folks that don't apply.  The "Othered" folks are hardly more altruistic than the folks you disparage.

You're proof that the Clinton crowd hasn't learned a thing about the past election.

Re-read my post and try again. I disparage the white working-class often, but I did not do so here. Unless you think it's disparaging to point out that they ultimately decided it was okay to vote for a bigot, even though they cast their ballots for reasons unrelated to their own degree of bigotry. And if so, I would respectfully ask what fantasy you're living in, because it's pretty clear that Donald Trump has said and done some pretty bigoted things. I would also add that this is an incredibly big concession for me to make, because it represents my attempt to at least give these voters the benefit of the doubt and concede that bigotry was not the motivating factor behind their decision to support Trump. Not everything has to be an argument, boo.

Anyhow, what I am explaining is why I think progressives did not see this loss coming and why the mistake was made. We assumed that the swing voters of the Rust Belt cared about the progress America had made with regards to social justice, and that it was the inevitable march forward to the right side of history. I'm not saying they should feel like they've seen progress personally (although the job numbers should speak for themselves). I'm saying the country did turn corners on things like gay rights. Turns out, though, that these Obama '12/Trump '16 voters didn't really give a sh-t about equal rights one way or the other. But Democrats were not really open to the possibility of the firewall falling because we thought the progressive march forward could only gain steam, not crumble away.

We were wrong, because it turns out that these people were never voting for the march forward that we thought they were voting for, even when they did vote Democrat. It was only ever about their own insecurities. Which yes—is how it seems anyone ever votes. We were naïve and took for granted the fact that different branding was needed to connect with those types (she did actually have solid policies for the white working class whether you care to admit it or not).

The election just sears a little more because of all the things they were willing to look past in Donald Trump to cater to their insecurities with their vote. And why they were willing to do so is the million-dollar, realistically unanswerable question.
109  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: During the course of this election, how have your political views changed? on: December 05, 2016, 05:53:48 pm
I am hoping Non Swing Voter's post here is more of a direct response to Trumpism than a representation of his actual beliefs. Even I believe the government should help the working class and the poor and struggling.

That being said, I see the appeal of cutting off all of the support that flows from the coasts to the heartland, if only to show these folks how much they rely on the elites that they decry so much. If some temporary tough love is what it takes to show them that they should be voting for Democrats, well... so be it.

Except that the people who get money from federal programs aren't the ones generally voting GOP. So you might get the attention of the non voters and democrats of the red states.

I know this is just a small example, but you really think Hillary Clinton won the Medicare demo...? A lot of Republican voters rely on social programs and still vote against their interests.
110  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Another massively stupid aspect of the Clinton campaign... on: December 05, 2016, 05:42:48 pm
I think it was easy to believe that all the progress the country had made on things like gay rights over the last eight years meant the country was heading full-steam towards becoming a more progressive place. I know I was feeling like "history" was happening in an irreversible way with more and more people jumping on board.

Turns out we were wrong. We didn't want to believe that these working-class whites just didn't give a damn about the rights of their even more vulnerable neighbours. All the progress of the last few years was just incidental because these people had chosen to trust Barack Obama over the corporatist establishment figure Mitt Romney. So this election was definitely a sh-tty way to learn that progress and justice are not inevitable, but... it's a valuable lesson.

Most white people don't really care about the rights of those who have been Othered. It's not that they're against social progress and equality. They're just willing to look past a pretty large degree of hatred, bigotry, and discrimination if it means they can feel like they're being "heard." I think it's awful and inexcusable, but it is what it is, and I guess it's not AS BAD as outright bigotry. But they've still enabled it.
111  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: During the course of this election, how have your political views changed? on: December 05, 2016, 05:32:02 pm
I am hoping Non Swing Voter's post here is more of a direct response to Trumpism than a representation of his actual beliefs. Even I believe the government should help the working class and the poor and struggling.

That being said, I see the appeal of cutting off all of the support that flows from the coasts to the heartland, if only to show these folks how much they rely on the elites that they decry so much. If some temporary tough love is what it takes to show them that they should be voting for Democrats, well... so be it.
112  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: What are the chances that Bernie Sanders runs in 2020? on: December 05, 2016, 03:16:09 am
Way too high. 50-50, even if Warren is already in. You will see that this man is more power-hungry than Hillary ever was.
How exactly is a man who waited until the age of 75 to run for President after decades as an independent politician in the small, politically insignificant state of Vermont power hungry?

He didn't know what being a celebrity tasted like for all those years.
113  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: How would you feel if Clinton won the EC while losing the PV? on: December 05, 2016, 03:07:46 am
Given the choices in this election, I am not ashamed to say that I care less about democracy than I do about having the obviously better person become president.
114  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: During the course of this election, how have your political views changed? on: December 05, 2016, 02:49:37 am
Globalist elitist cosmopolitan Democrat. And proud. Wink
115  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Was this the most significant election of recent times? on: December 02, 2016, 09:54:32 pm
I think so. It also depends on how many left-leaning Supreme Court Justices are able to hang onto life over the next four years.
116  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: If this were the Democratic field going into Early 4 on: November 29, 2016, 11:58:52 pm
Believe it or not, this scenario actually probably helps her keep some of her populist,"WCW" appeal, as no single candidate would have a monopoly on that demographic. She'd emerge from this primary in a much stronger position with a much stronger general election message than she did in reality.
117  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: What are the chances that Bernie Sanders runs in 2020? on: November 29, 2016, 11:27:58 pm
Way too high. 50-50, even if Warren is already in. You will see that this man is more power-hungry than Hillary ever was.
118  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Stein Misses PA Recount Deadline, Says PA State Department. on: November 28, 2016, 08:38:35 pm
If there are large voter discrepancies found in Wisconsin and Michigan, then it won't matter. No one expected this to change the results.

Edit: Although I'd like a better source than the Washington Examiner please.

What are these large voter discrepancies that justify an expensive effort to determine whether Trump won a state by 27000 or 28000 votes?

Why should we care about semantics when Donald Trump never has? This is all about political theatre. The more we can delegitimize this monster, the better.
119  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Will Hillary run again? on: November 28, 2016, 08:26:26 pm
I don't know if she will have the stamina for it, even in the recent pictures that have surfaced of her she looks like she's 90 years old and add 4 years a what would certainly be a much more difficult primary for her. Even in the last campaign she had the incident where she collapsed, several public coughing fits, and cut down on her public appearances in the final months

Dude, this is so sexist. The woman has been hiking every day. She looks old because she is old. It's how she looked during the campaign but she knew she had to doll herself up to meet the patriarchal expectations (double standards!) of society.

"Stamina" is not an issue for Hillary Clinton. Roll Eyes
120  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Does Elizabeth Warren have any leadership skills outside Wall Street topic? on: November 28, 2016, 04:35:56 pm
I dispute the premise of this thread. Donald Trump has no leadership skills at all and is set to be sworn in as president.
121  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Which 2020 candidates do you ship? on: November 28, 2016, 04:33:46 pm
Hillary Clinton. <3
122  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Which of the other 16 could have beaten Hilary? on: November 28, 2016, 04:32:06 pm
The only one who might have is Kasich.

But yeah. Sanders would've been toast against most of them except, like, Ben Carson.
123  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Was Trump the most electable Republican? on: November 28, 2016, 04:28:29 pm
He was exactly what disaffected whites wanted. If Romney couldn't even make a dent in those Rust Belt states, I have a hard time seeing how weaklings like Cruz, Rubio, or Kasich could've. And if you don't make that dent, you don't break the "Blue Wall," which you need to do to win.
124  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Did the Sanders challenge cause HRC to lose the general election? on: November 28, 2016, 03:08:37 am
Of course.
125  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Clinton Campaign Counsel: "We'll participate in recount" on: November 26, 2016, 04:26:04 pm
Yep. We honestly need to spend the next four years kicking and screaming. I'm not being sarcastic.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... 299


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines