|
The Pope is Climate Change Pope.
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 21:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 10:01 |
|
|
DaveWoo posted:I wonder how far back you have to go in American history to find another example of a presidential frontrunner openly espousing rhetoric as vicious and hateful as the sort of stuff Trump is saying now. Any historical exports want to weigh in here? I'd posit that Joe Lieberman's 2000 campaign came pretty close but he still wasn't quite as open about it. The thing about Trump's rhetoric is that it is like doping in baseball in the 90's. There is a gentleman's agreement that nobody will do it because anyone who does will obviously gain a massive advantage over everyone else. So the only time anyone gets upset about it is when you have enough proof to show that the doping is why a certain person is so far ahead of everyone else. So that is my sports analogy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 21:55
|
|
|
Radbot posted:The Pope is Climate Change Pope.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 21:55
|
|
|
JT Jag posted:Incidentally, this is the post that finally convinced me you were a troll and not a true believer, because the proper term is "climate change skeptics" Look I'm never sure which liberal buzzwords will trigger the mods here, so consider it protective coloration. Anyway take a look at this hateful rhetoric, worthy of the Donald himself: http://www.nytimes.com/2000/10/11/us/the-2000-campaign-the-ad-campaign-attacking-bush-on-pollution.html quote:ON THE SCREEN -- The Houston skyline shrouded in smog. An image of Mr. Bush signing papers gives way to smokestacks churning out white clouds, and children's empty swing sets. The Seattle skyline appears and grows hazy. Of course, air quality continued to improve during GWBs Presidency....
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 21:56
|
|
|
Radbot posted:The Pope is Climate Change Pope. Yeah, the new pope is cool and good.* *compared to the last several popes
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 21:56
|
|
|
Radbot posted:The Pope is Climate Change Pope. GOP is doing their damndest to stick their fingers in their ears and ignore that, though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 21:57
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:If Hillary wins and Donald comes up on stage and high five's her, the GOP will explode. Sydin posted:p.sure the whole country would explode. when this inevitably happens, this will be me irl: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1DcqnkzGEFQ I will basically never stop rocking out, even if Tom Hardy or Charlize Theron punch me off a moving vehicle
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 21:57
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:I always love that Gore is the go to guy for the Climate Change Denial guys. It is much easier to attack a person than an idea that supported by mountains of evidence. People still attack Darwin as if the truth of evolution depends on what an English guy wrote 150 years ago.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 21:58
|
|
|
Internet Webguy posted:The thing about Trump's rhetoric is that it is like doping in baseball in the 90's. There is a gentleman's agreement that nobody will do it because anyone who does will obviously gain a massive advantage over everyone else. So the only time anyone gets upset about it is when you have enough proof to show that the doping is why a certain person is so far ahead of everyone else. So that is my sports analogy. You're right, though. Trump isn't really saying anything differently than the other GOP candidates. He's just refusing to use the agreed-upon dog whistles, which the media isn't used to and is thus eating up. It's also putting the other candidates in a tight spot, because now they have to walk the line of using the dog whistle while immediately talking down the what Trump is saying, despite it being the underlying message of said dog whistle. It's also why the crazies are all flocking to Trump - to their ears he's the only one with a consistent message that appeals to them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 22:03
|
|
|
Don't forget years of being told that being a True Conservative means being unafraid to 'tell it like it is'. So now we've got a guy dropping the dogwhistles and they've all been primed to respond to him strongly.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 22:05
|
|
|
Sam Wang says that it's not just population clustering favoring the GOP in the house, but that redistricting gave about 11 house seats to the GOP post 2010. http://election.princeton.edu/2015/...tes/#more-13110 quote:It is possible to quantify the effects of population clustering and partisan redistricting separately. In my SSRN paper, I estimate that population clustering was responsible for a net shift of 9-10 House seats towards Republicans. The total effect of post-2010 redistricting added a net gain of 11 additional seats for Republicans. (this combines 14 seats in seven GOP-controlled states with 3 seats in two Democrat-controlled states). In other words, partisan redistricting in just seven states created a distortion that exceeded the effects of population clustering in all 50 states combined.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 22:06
|
|
|
Yeah I remember Texas was expecting like 2 seats and got 4 instead. A side effect of people moving South plus the relatively fertile immigrant population. I think I remember seeing that black people are heading back south en mass too because there's better work opportunities and they have familial connections to support them too.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 22:10
|
|
|
Mitt Romney posted:Sam Wang says that it's not just population clustering favoring the GOP in the house, but that redistricting gave about 11 house seats to the GOP post 2010. Independent redistricting commissions are legal now, at least. It's a baby step, and no red states in their right mind are going to let it happen to them barring legislation at the federal level, but it's something. Hopefully by the time the next census has rolled around we can roll back a little bit of this bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 22:20
|
|
|
Local radio was trying to blame the liberals for Trump's comments somehow. It was a hilarious damage control tail-spin about he's really a liberal and doesn't represent republicans.(Same guy has supported Trump on the air multiple times before)
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 22:20
|
|
|
wilderthanmild posted:Local radio was trying to blame the liberals for Trump's comments somehow. I've seen three articles from three separate sources today to the same effect. It goes towards the mentality that conservative ideas and conservative politicians cannot be bad, so if something is bad it must be liberal. imgur is loving up so I can't post the tweet pic but here's the text quote:Ben Carson's campaign is canceling TV in huge numbers in IA & SC. In IA so far, $343k canceled. Cancelling half a million in ad buys is deffo something a serious candidate for president does. zoux fucked around with this message at 22:31 on Dec 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 22:22
|
|
|
wilderthanmild posted:Local radio was trying to blame the liberals for Trump's comments somehow.  ing?
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 22:25
|
|
|
CalmDownMate posted:In order for progressives to achieve things they have to learn to use populost rhetoric. Bernie has done ok with it but he's not very interesting. Check his twitter, he has a lot of punchy messaging honestly. It's just that TV/Radio etc won't broadcast it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 22:26
|
|
|
 2016 is gonna be great!
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 22:29
|
|
|
zoux posted:Cancelling half a million in ad buys is deffo something a serious for president does. Carson had his 15 minutes and made a complete rear end of himself, and not in the good Trump way. He's eating poo poo and the fact that he's only just realized it is pretty sad.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 22:30
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 22:34
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:
Am I reading this correctly, that Hispanics and blacks are more likely to support Trump's idea?  I guess as a whole those demographics are typically Christian and/or socially conservative.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 22:34
|
|
This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!
|
JT Jag posted:I wanna question how scientific this poll is Its powered by Bing, how can it be wrong?
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 22:35
|
|
|
JT Jag posted:I wanna question how scientific this poll is Assuming that "other" includes Muslims, they should have a comfy majority in that particular bar of the chart, so I'm going to say it's probably not very scientific at all
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 22:36
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:
Is this a phone/text vote thing? If so then why worry. About as reliable as a gun show background check.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 22:36
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:
can we put some kind of primer on polls in the op next time because jesus christ dude, live tv polls are the definition of meaningless
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 22:38
|
|
|
happyhippy posted:Is this a phone/text vote thing? If so then why worry. About as reliable as a gun show background check. It appears to be some kind of voluntary online feedback service, so garbage.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 22:39
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:
Uh yeah pretty sure this is totally wrong lol
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 22:41
|
|
|
haveblue posted:It appears to be some kind of voluntary online feedback service, so garbage. But this online poll says that Bernie is ahead of HRC by 80 points?
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 22:41
|
|
|
Muscle Tracer posted:can we put some kind of primer on polls in the op next time Better than talking about Al Gore garbage pope or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 22:41
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Top notch floor chart game from Chuck today. so if guns are planes would guns be able to lift off after you put them on a giant treadmill
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 22:42
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 22:43
|
|
|
I think we're all gonna be pretty loving dismayed when the actual polls start coming out.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 22:44
|
|
|
zoux posted:On American soil, he claims. So I made the mistake of looking up a list of major shootings. This is up to 2012 by the way. http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/12/14/1337221/a-timeline-of-mass-shootings-in-the-us-since-columbine/ It literally gave me a psychosomatic headache made from depression. EDIT: Here's another list from 2015-1985. http://ktla.com/2015/12/03/san-bernardino-rampage-is-6th-most-deadly-among-us-mass-shootings-since-1949/ If San Bernandino is the 2nd worst, then its neck and neck with about a dozen other shootings. Shageletic fucked around with this message at 22:47 on Dec 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 22:45
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:
Id say no i want him to go further and wreck his party
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 22:49
|
|
|
Shageletic posted:So I made the mistake of looking up a list of major shootings. This is up to 2012 by the way. http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/12/14/1337221/a-timeline-of-mass-shootings-in-the-us-since-columbine/ And don't forget Oklahoma City. Not a shooting but was a terrorist attack.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 22:50
|
|
|
I think it's amazing how quickly we forgot about Virgina Tech. Much more deadly than San Bernardino, though possibly less emotional impact than the Sandy Hook shootings.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 22:51
|
|
|
Gravel Gravy posted:And don't forget Oklahoma City. Not a shooting but was a terrorist attack. I literally didn't even know about half of these horrors. I wish I still didn't. The only killings that reverberate are the ones used to oppress other innocents.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 22:54
|
|
|
Yeah of that list, only the Hasan shooting would count for him.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 22:55
|
|
|
Radbot posted:I think it's amazing how quickly we forgot about Virgina Tech. Much more deadly than San Bernardino, though possibly less emotional impact than the Sandy Hook shootings. It isn't that we've forgotten, it's that our collective consciousness is habituated by a sea of gun-related violence.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 22:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 10:01 |
|
|
 Don't you understand you fools!! It's me you should be covering!! Meeeeee!!!!!!
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 22:56
|
|