|
Metapod posted:What does this gently caress have to do for my state to stop being dark red I hear ya metapod.
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 04:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 21:39 |
|
|
FLIP. TEXAS.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 04:47
|
|
|
Personally, I'm just disappointed that Donald Trump isn't quite bad enough to permanently sink Paul Ryan, and that Scott Walker isn't a) up for reelection and b) tanking in the polls for being even vaguely associated with Trump.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 04:48
|
|
|
No. Violence should not be rewarded.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 04:49
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:Insult a baby? And when you stare persistently in to the base, the base also stares into you...and starts humming a
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 04:51
|
|
|
Oh how amazing would it be for Texas to flip blue. They've talked about it for a while now how it's moving that way but Texas flipping blue would be great.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 04:52
|
|
|
Gyges posted:I will accept a great many things a plausible. But the libertarian option coming in dead last on the internet? Get the gently caress out of here with that bullshit. At least people who believe the moon landing was hoaxed have a couple of seconds of asking plausible questions before they get decked by Buzz Aldrin. Eh, well that's what I'm looking forward to. Clinton ain't gonna do better than LBJ, but I want Trump to do worse than Goldwater, and think it's a solid possibility.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 04:52
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Personally, I'm just disappointed that Donald Trump isn't quite bad enough to permanently sink Paul Ryan, and that Scott Walker isn't a) up for reelection and b) tanking in the polls for being even vaguely associated with Trump. I'm really aching for Walker to lose reelection in 2018. The celebrations around Madison would be deafening.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 04:52
|
|
|
How hard up for fame are you when you depend on the story of you murdering an innocent teenager for recognition?
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 04:55
|
|
|
Hollismason posted:Oh how amazing would it be for Texas to flip blue. They've talked about it for a while now how it's moving that way but Texas flipping blue would be great. If Trump's polls continue to collapse, the next state to go blue is Missouri.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 04:55
|
|
|
My Dad, an Ohioan and the biggest Hill-hater in the room, just told me today that: Kasich is dead to him because he sabotaged the RNC and apparently canceled a bunch of appearances locally without informing anyone. He's a big Kasich guy as of a month ago. He'd never vote for Trump but will vote straight R otherwise. The only two policies he really disagrees with for Hillary are gun control and some small aspect of banking regulations. Literally two weeks ago he was saying she had people killed. He's either protest voting lib or maybe actually for Clinton. Never thought I'd see the day.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 04:57
|
|
|
Eifert Posting posted:My Dad, an Ohioan and the biggest Hill-hater in the room, just told me today that: This is what happens when you go after a gold star family. A lot of boomers are vets or know vets personally because of Vietnam. Suddenly when one candidate openly goes after one... well... Play stupid games.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 05:03
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:i dunno man you're the one saying that opposition to welfare is because of political propaganda and not just homespun mess of defining an in-group, protestant work ethic, and racism So now you are disagreeing? Okay, but I think the historical record shows otherwise, and I think your explanation of a "homespun mess" is as much a shrug-and-hands-in-the-air as your opinions on free trade. Leveraging anti-black bias by working class whites to target social programs has been a primary strategy of conservatives and the Republican party since Lee Atwater at least. It is the southern strategy. There's a huge amount of writing on this subject. Here's a random rear end Coates article from 2012, grasping for someone you'll accept because I'm still confused about your ideology. http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/09/we-are-all-welfare-queens-now/262512/ The Atlantic posted:You can paint a similar history of the welfare state, which was first secured by assuring racist white Democrats that the pariah of black America would be cut out of it. When such machinations became untenable, the strategy became to claim the welfare state mainly benefited blacks. And as that has become untenable, the strategy has become to target the welfare state itself, with no obvious mention of color. At each interval the ostensible pariah grows, until one in two Americans are members of the pariah class. Popular Thug Drink posted:it's entirely feasible to support free trade and then blame free trade to agitate your base into voting for you based on empty promises to bring back jobs, that's pretty much all the GOP did for the last twenty years. you can blame the EPA No, it's not. The GOP has been resolutely pro-free trade since the Reagan-era. NAFTA received far more support from Republicans than Democrats in congress. NAFTA passed 234-200 in the House with 76% of Republicans voting for it. It was largely a Republican victory, and one they championed and campaigned on. I think you're confused. Also you've weirdly racialized opposition to NAFTA in a way that seems very ahistorical. Prominent members of the black caucus opposed NAFTA, probably a majority. It's beyond my present time/abilities to quickly get a list of the 1992 members and cross-reference, but most of the prominent members I'm aware of voted no. Jon Lewis voted no. Rangel, Kweisi Mfume, Conyers voted no. I can't confirm this, but everything I've seen strongly suggests that black congressional Democrats were generally opposed to NAFTA. It's an interesting question, and I could be wrong if you put in the work, but it definitely looks like black Democrats opposed NAFTA. It sounds like a fun short project, regardless. https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/103-1993/h575 Further, you and others have claimed that NAFTA opposition was rooted in anti-Mexican racism and denialism of free trade, but that seems like a truly wild oversimplification of criticism of NAFTA at the time, and seems more like a reaction to 2016 than 1992. I was curious so I looked up the LAC's report on NAFTA. Given that this is the organization specifically designed to represent labor during the process, I think it's reasonable to take this as the mainstream opinion of labor opposition at the time. The report does not oppose free trade out of hand, and largely is critical in very specific, reasonable ways, laying out policy failures point by point over the course of 22 pages. It also foreshadows much of the criticism of NAFTA that will follow it's passing. Here's an excerpt from the introduction, which lays out their objections in general terms. Apologies that the linked version is an ugly, difficult to read scan of the document. https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.31822015070683;view=1up;seq=27 The LAC posted:The agreement, as drafted, is a complete rejection of the Committee's advice. The LAC, therefore, believes that the draft agreement does not promote the economic interests of the United States ... Indeed, the Committee believes that this agreement will worsen the serious economic and social problems facing the United States today. Periodiko fucked around with this message at 05:19 on Aug 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 05:04
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:As if it needed to be any more obvious that his not guilty verdict was wrong and he likely did escalate the situation. Seems to me this lends more credence to the idea of Martin jumping him, since he's clearly the type of rear end in a top hat you punch in the jaw at first opportunity
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 05:06
|
|
|
Eifert Posting posted:My Dad, an Ohioan and the biggest Hill-hater in the room, just told me today that: My dad's going through the same conversion. He's been second guessing the rest of my family when they bring up Hillary smears telling them to double-check their sources and such. I haven't said anything because he seems to be going through the transformation himself. Trump is literally breaking the Reagan revolution.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 05:07
|
|
|
I so far see no change in the Evangelicals I know.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 05:11
|
|
|
Mr.Radar posted:Brad Jones (The Cinema Snob) and his friend Dave reviewed Dinesh D'souza's Hillary's America: I like how angry the glasses guy gets until he talks about his kid 
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 05:14
|
|
|
Eifert Posting posted:My Dad, an Ohioan and the biggest Hill-hater in the room, just told me today that: I can't imagine bringing up the idea of actually using nuclear weapons plays that well with people who lived through the Cold War, either.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 05:15
|
|
|
My dad posts racist memes to Facebook literally ten times per day.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 05:16
|
|
|
What would happen if Paul Ryan spent the next two years sending bills that *weren't* "Defund Obamacare and also Hillary Clinton has smelly feet Act of 2017"? Like, what if he governed? Passed laws, helped people by improving the country? In 2018, when the country is actually functioning, would he be primaried from the right? Because if the R's hold on to like a 4-seat majority, the writing's gotta be on the wall that refusing to even name a post office is not gonna be OK.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 05:16
|
|
|
Luminous Obscurity posted:FLIP. For reference, the 538 NowCast is predicting 365.9 electoral votes for Hillary. 365 would only tie Obama in 2008. (Quoted wrong thing). Name Change fucked around with this message at 05:20 on Aug 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 05:17
|
|
|
Dr. Angela Ziegler posted:What would happen if Paul Ryan spent the next two years sending bills that *weren't* "Defund Obamacare and also Hillary Clinton has smelly feet Act of 2017"? This has never been the case. A majority will always lord that majority no matter how marginal it is.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 05:19
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Personally, I'm just disappointed that Donald Trump isn't quite bad enough to permanently sink Paul Ryan, and that Scott Walker isn't a) up for reelection and b) tanking in the polls for being even vaguely associated with Trump. Trump has already put a ceiling on Ryan. He is out of presidential races until an EMP wipes out all record of him reaffirming his support for Trump after every horrible thing Trump has said. This is true even if Trump wins in November. Ryan will be speaker of the house until he gets stabbed in the back and then he will become a small no name congressman that gets Trump clips played the minute he opens his mouth.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 05:19
|
|
|
iospace posted:This is what happens when you go after a gold star family. A lot of boomers are vets or know vets personally because of Vietnam. Suddenly when one candidate openly goes after one... well... Play stupid games. I always wonder who the people are that say they'll vote Trump one week then the next go for Hilary, but this makes a lot of sense. If people really feel this way, and it seems like it's not some isolated thing, it's not something you can easily come back from. Even if Hillary has some scandal pop up, I don't think you would see people who gave up supporting Trump because of his issues with vets in the last week or so go back to supporting him because they suddenly don't trust Hillary. Was there ever a moment in the primary where he severely dipped in the polls because of something he said and then came back? I feel like it was just a flavor of the week thing with Carson and Fiorina. Nothing like the poo poo with the purple heart or going after Khan.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 05:19
|
|
|
TyrantWD posted:Trump has already put a ceiling on Ryan. He is out of presidential races until an EMP wipes out all record of him reaffirming his support for Trump after every horrible thing Trump has said. This is true even if Trump wins in November. Ryan will be speaker of the house until he gets stabbed in the back and then he will become a small no name congressman that gets Trump clips played the minute he opens his mouth. Yeah but I want him to be gone forever. It's super embarrassing to have him be the guy representing my district. It could be worse, I guess. Who's that guy from Iowa who is openly pro-Confederate and white supremacist? I guess I could live in his district.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 05:21
|
|
|
Artificer posted:I so far see no change in the Evangelicals I know. I'm only seeing this shift occurring in people who were truly deaf to the dogwhistle. There's actually a fair number of them and they're all completely disgusted with what's happening. It seems like most of them were also in denial about things until the RNC solidified it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 05:26
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Yeah but I want him to be gone forever. It's super embarrassing to have him be the guy representing my district. Steve King.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 05:26
|
|
|
Necc0 posted:I'm only seeing this shift occurring in people who were truly deaf to the dogwhistle. There's actually a fair number of them and they're all completely disgusted with what's happening. It seems like most of them were also in denial about things until the RNC solidified it. I think some are so single issue that they literally cannot agree with a candidate that supports some platform that their religious views do not coincide with, come hell or high water.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 05:28
|
|
|
Artificer posted:I so far see no change in the Evangelicals I know. I wouldn't be surprised if the Evangelical vote split between Trump (common ground: bigotry) and Cruz (common ground: overly religious and pretentious dickholes) and cast their lot in with Trump. The fact that he said he'll get the Johnson amendment repealed only helps his support with them. On Terra Firma posted:I always wonder who the people are that say they'll vote Trump one week then the next go for Hilary, but this makes a lot of sense. If people really feel this way, and it seems like it's not some isolated thing, it's not something you can easily come back from. Even if Hillary has some scandal pop up, I don't think you would see people who gave up supporting Trump because of his issues with vets in the last week or so go back to supporting him because they suddenly don't trust Hillary. When you get the VFW, an organization who does not get involved in politics, involved in politics, YOU'VE DONE hosed UP. As for the second part, not that I recall, hence why "LOL NOTHING MATTERS" became popular in primary season. Tangential story here: back when I was in college the first time around, I was in summer school when the moving Vietnam Wall was there. A vet said, "Yeah, I can put it together, it's just pieces then. But now that it's together, I can't look at it because I'm afraid I'm going to see a name of a buddy I lost."
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 05:28
|
|
|
Artificer posted:I think some are so single issue that they literally cannot agree with a candidate that supports some platform that their religious views do not coincide with, come hell or high water. I always thought it was funny that Liberty University hosts politicians from all sides of the spectrum, but the students are only allowed to vote for Republicans
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 05:38
|
|
|
We'll have to see what the Evangelicals end up doing. They hate Democrats, but they also are realizing precisely how unchristian Trump is.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 05:39
|
|
|
Necc0 posted:I'm only seeing this shift occurring in people who were truly deaf to the dogwhistle. There's actually a fair number of them and they're all completely disgusted with what's happening. It seems like most of them were also in denial about things until the RNC solidified it. This actually describes a couple of people in my family. They're solid Democratic voters and have been for decades, but they still absolutely refused to believe that the GOP or its policies were at all based in racism or hate. This election has been a huge eye opener for them and it's actually been kind of a dark experience watching their faith in humanity shattered by a cheeto golem.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 05:39
|
|
|
sarmhan posted:We'll have to see what the Evangelicals end up doing. They hate Democrats, but they also are realizing precisely how unchristian Trump is. Yeah and most don't give a poo poo Best case scenario is they don't turn out. I don't see the movement centered around the Prosperity Gospel and Southern Baptist Churches voting for a Midwest Methodist, even if they didn't believe she was the spawn of Satan
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 05:40
|
|
|
Captain Stalin posted:Does this mean we have have faith in the average american voter again? I mean there's a real chance Clinton takes Georgia, and on current polling she could maybe even steal South Carolina, a Great Plains state, or Utah*, and could put Missouri back into contention. So now that the average American voter is no longer a white dude... maybe just a tiny bit? * I know none of these are really likely, but that the Clinton campaign could realistically take a look at the map and say "Okay, we're taking some of our money and spending it in SC and Montana, we might not win but we'll make the other guys have to defend in those places, and who knows, maybe we WILL win!" is complete insanity. Georgia has only gone D once since 1980, Montana only once since the 70s, story's even more extreme with the Dakotas and Utah. Both of Wyoming's residents appear to be devoted Trumpees though. Again, I'm not predicting Clinton will sweep these states or even take more than maybe one, and even that is optimistic, but that they are even potentially places she can attack to make Trump spend resources on defense is totally bugfuck insane. Also Love Me's a bit of a wild card with Utah and who knows what happens there?
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 05:40
|
|
|
The one guy I know who loves Trump is literally having some kind of schizophrenic meltdown right now. He's convinced that Hillary is slowing down his internet because he's a Trump supporter, thereby cutting down on the amount of pro-Trump rhetoric on social networks.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 05:41
|
|
|
Taima posted:The one guy I know who loves Trump is literally having some kind of schizophrenic meltdown right now. He's convinced that Hillary is slowing down his internet because he's a Trump supporter, thereby cutting down on the amount of pro-Trump rhetoric on social networks. He's right *steps down a little harder on tube labelled "CONSERVATIVE INTERNETS"* *cashes joint FEMA / Clinton Foundation check*
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 05:42
|
|
|
sarmhan posted:We'll have to see what the Evangelicals end up doing. They hate Democrats, but they also are realizing precisely how unchristian Trump is. You have to remember a non-trivial amount of these people believe that government helping others out is taking away from their ability to help others, and thus lessening them in the eyes of god.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 05:45
|
|
|
My generally conservative/religious relatives are posting more stuff along the lines of being disappointed with both candidates. I doubt they'll vote Hillary, they'll probably still vote Trump, but I doubt they'll be out and advocating for him because of the stigma associated with him. You can't stick your neck out for someone so unpredictable that could make you look bad tomorrow. These recent statements have killed enthusiasm for him among many but the most fervent right. If the GOP doesn't outright break in half, I still have to imagine that we'll see a shift back in his direction and against Hillary soon. The media demands a horse race because it's good for business.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 05:48
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:This actually describes a couple of people in my family. They're solid Democratic voters and have been for decades, but they still absolutely refused to believe that the GOP or its policies were at all based in racism or hate. This election has been a huge eye opener for them and it's actually been kind of a dark experience watching their faith in humanity shattered by a cheeto golem. My Dad, once a staunch fiscal conservative, recently asked me what was going on with this election and why the party he once supported had become so terrible. Without pulling any punches, I told him the modern GOP was built on a foundation of racism and other forms of bigotry. He had a little trouble wrapping his mind around the idea that the answer was something so blunt and simple, but ultimately couldn't disagree with it. This is a man who literally hisses when he hears Hillary Clinton's name, and he just might vote for her this year. He certainly won't vote for Trump. Too bad we live in West Virginia so our votes don't mean much, but it's encouraging at least.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 05:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 21:39 |
|
|
Have Some Flowers! posted:My generally conservative/religious relatives are posting more stuff along the lines of being disappointed with both candidates. I doubt they'll vote Hillary, they'll probably still vote Trump, but I doubt they'll be out and advocating for him because of the stigma associated with him. You can't stick your neck out for someone so unpredictable that could make you look bad tomorrow. Eh... the media is starting to shift to "Holy poo poo this could be a legitimate blowout and look at this campaign melt down!" mode.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 05:54
|
|