|
Brainiac Five posted:That's +45.
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 22:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 17:49 |
|
|
The US Hispanic Chamber of Commerce wants to put a Taco Truck at every polling site this November: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=11705080 I think you elections just took a turn for the positive. If I'm lucky, I can get a steak-and-cheese pie and a Lamington after voting.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 22:46
|
|
|
straight up brolic posted:lol brain fart, the point still stands though? What is the point, again? Anyone regular posting ITT already knew that HRC is historically unloved. It's a direct result of decades of ref-working by the GOP.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 22:46
|
|
|
Hey goons, with respect to the news posted recently about the native american protesters and the pipelines being built on what they claim are ritual lands: Aren't native american nations treated as sovereign lands? Is the land in question not undisputed native american lands?
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 22:48
|
|
|
straight up brolic posted:lol brain fart, the point still stands though? No. http://www.gallup.com/opinion/polling-matters/192362/clinton-negatives-among-dems-sanders.aspx quote:Clinton is seen favorably by 67% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents, while 28% see her unfavorably.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 22:49
|
|
|
Trump is Joffrey if he didn't eat that pie.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 22:50
|
|
|
BetterToRuleInHell posted:Hey goons, with respect to the news posted recently about the native american protesters and the pipelines being built on what they claim are ritual lands: Yep, but it turns out if you ignore them, you can do whatever you want on their land!
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 22:51
|
|
|
A Winner is Jew posted:No.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 22:52
|
|
|
Inspector Gesicht posted:Trump is Joffrey if he didn't eat that pie. Would that make Pence Pycelle and Hillary Lady Stoneheart?
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 22:52
|
|
|
A Winner is Jew posted:No. Obama was at 70% favorability nationally (not just dems) on Nov 6-8 2008. I'm still not sure what point the poster in question is trying to make, though
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 22:54
|
|
|
straight up brolic posted:I literally just posted that. That's +39 in her own party (which is not good). Obama was +45 with the entire electorate 28% of her own party is significant?
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 22:54
|
|
|
Distorted Kiwi posted:The US Hispanic Chamber of Commerce wants to put a Taco Truck at every polling site this November: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=11705080 called it 
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 22:55
|
|
|
A Winner is Jew posted:28% of her own party is significant? For reference: Only 33% of Republicans view Trump unfavorably.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 22:58
|
|
|
straight up brolic posted:Yes. And Obama was at 19% unfavorable in the primaries among that same subset. Clinton being only 9 points off isn't that troubling given the amount of poo poo thrown at her for the past 25+ years.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 23:03
|
|
|
The reason nobody ever includes "independents" in these things is because nobody cares about them, nobody will ever care about them, and they're idiots who just show up every 4 years to be unsure out loud and wait for people to fall over them for their cautious thoughtfulness That and they have no actual ideology and shift it constantly to make whoever they're talking to happy. Trump is an independent who just so happens to believe in 99% of what a party is all about, just like most independents
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 23:05
|
|
|
straight up brolic posted:I literally just posted that. That's +39 in her own party (which is not good). Obama was +45 with the entire electorate
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 23:05
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:reminder Well sure if you only consider the 2^8th most likely outcomes from before politics went off the rails. If you consider all states a toss-up, he has 2^50 paths!
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 23:06
|
|
|
Munkeymon posted:Well sure if you only consider the 2^8th most likely outcomes from before politics went off the rails. If you consider all states a toss-up, he has 2^50 paths! Want to see the path to victory where Trump loses every state but still wins the election.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 23:11
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:Want to see the path to victory where Trump loses every state but still wins the election. In a 4-4 decision sent to the house...
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 23:12
|
|
|
BetterToRuleInHell posted:Hey goons, with respect to the news posted recently about the native american protesters and the pipelines being built on what they claim are ritual lands: It's across the Missouri (which is a lake there). I think they're complaining about burial grounds that are outside the reservation (but they may still retain the rights to re-inter remains if the site is disturbed). And they're worried that digging the pipeline under the Missouri might gently caress up the river.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 23:14
|
|
|
straight up brolic posted:Yes.  28 PERCENT!!!!!!!vs only 33%
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 23:14
|
|
|
A Winner is Jew posted:And Obama was at 19% unfavorable in the primaries among that same subset.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 23:14
|
|
|
Duke Igthorn posted:
The idea is supposedly that Republicans hate Trump overall, rather than it being a segment of the party and the party's political elite that mainly have negative feelings about him.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 23:15
|
|
|
straight up brolic posted:That's amongst all candidates, not just Dems and leaners Scroll to about 2/3 down. quote:Barack Obama Favorable Ratings by Subgroup, Based on All Americans It provides crosstabs for all subgroups.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 23:16
|
|
|
There's also a pretty big difference between "viewed unfavorably" and "despised". Love this pattern of hyperbolic statement -> more reasonable goalpost shift. "Henry Kissinger endorsed Clinton!" -> "He didn't officially endorse her but he considered it" -> "He never considered it but he seems to like her 'informally'" "Clinton is despised by most of the nation!" -> "Her net unfavorability among democratic voters is marginally higher than Obama's for the same period in his election"
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 23:16
|
|
|
straight up brolic posted:Obama's nationwide favorability was +55, Hillary's is -15 lmao You're using the favorable-only number for Obama and the difference between favorable and unfavorable for Clinton. That's apples to oranges. I mean, you're right--Hillary Clinton has far worse favorables than Barack Obama. But at least compare the same numbers.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 23:18
|
|
|
Two weeks into office Hillary's favorables will jump.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 23:19
|
|
|
A Winner is Jew posted:Scroll to about 2/3 down.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 23:19
|
|
|
FairGame posted:You're using the favorable-only number for Obama and the difference between favorable and unfavorable for Clinton. 40-55 ? (was on my phone and slipped up on the difference for the Obama number)
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 23:22
|
|
|
DemeaninDemon posted:Two weeks into office Hillary's favorables will jump. Two weeks into office, Trump is still pretending he won it and he starts Presidenting out of Trump Tower. The media cover his daily press briefings in the Trump Tower Bar and Grill in full. President Hillary gets 10 seconds from the White House press room. happyhippy fucked around with this message at 23:25 on Sep 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 23:23
|
|
|
Nessus posted:and yet she is +1 in Texas According to a worthless online opt-in poll.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 23:24
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:Again, explain what the difference is between the Clinton's relationship to their charity and their relationship to the Democratic Party. Nobody would blink at Hillary doing fundraising for the Democrats, and every potential conflict of interest applies there just as much. What's the difference? You're asking this like fundraising isn't actually a well-recognized problem, which Hillary Clinton has an issues section about on her website. More importantly, the laws restricting what you can donate and how transparent it is are far more strict than the laws on campaign donations. Foreign nationals cannot donate to candidates. Also, as I pointed out earlier, even for a private charity the Clinton Foundation is not particularly transparent - here's a Current Affairs article about the subject: https://www.currentaffairs.org/2016/08/the-clinton-foundations-problems-are-deeper-than BI NOW GAY LATER posted:It generally does because there isn't personal gain being obtained. Like thats, again, where a lot of these claims fall short. What personal gain would Clinton get from someone donating to the Foundation? I don't agree that having someone donate to your family's powerful personal charity isn't a form of personal gain. I feel like if they weren't the Clintons, and they weren't already elite-squared, the level of access, power and influence represented by the Clinton Foundation would be unquestionable. I'm somewhat devil's advocating here, I don't feel that outraged, but I do think it's a perfectly reasonable argument. It feels like there's a strange standard here, where 10K in a duffle bag is clearly personal gain, but millions from awful human-rights violators, clearly intended as a way of gaining influence, to a charitable foundation that has you rubbing shoulders with the world's elites is worth barely a shrug. Did Clinton conduct herself ethically within the context of the situation? Maybe, probably I hope. What makes me angry is much less the CF, but Clinton's pattern of doing a lovely job of transparency and avoiding these ethical problems in the first place. This is part and parcel with the e-mail server, and then her lovely handling of the e-mail server story, and now her lovely handling of her relationship with the Clinton Foundation, along with her bad relationship with the press and the public. By her actions she makes it seem like just doesn't give a poo poo about this stuff, and that disturbs me, especially with how Obama ran his white house. Periodiko fucked around with this message at 23:29 on Sep 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 23:25
|
|
|
happyhippy posted:Two weeks into office, Trump is still pretending he won it and he starts Presidenting out of Trump Tower. Good no one to watch when she stabs McConnel with a rusty rail road spike.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 23:27
|
|
|
Clinton is the most thoroughly investigated and vetted nominee for President in the history of this country. Literally every facet of everything she has done for decades is public record at this point. If anything is 'shady' because it's unclear it's because you aren't looking hard enough or are dismissing reports/facts to support a narrative
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 23:27
|
|
|
DemeaninDemon posted:Two weeks into office Hillary's favorables will jump. I mean with the Taco Truck Initiative becoming a permanent policy why wouldn't they?
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 23:27
|
|
|
Guy A. Person posted:
You know while we're correcting the record and knocking down strawmen and poo poo
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 23:27
|
|
|
happyhippy posted:Two weeks into office, Trump is still pretending he won it and he starts Presidenting out of Trump Tower.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 23:27
|
|
|
rscott posted:It's more like she considers him a friend and repeatedly asked him for advice and counsel while she was secretary of state
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 23:28
|
|
|
Bad Moon posted:I mean with the Taco Truck Initiative becoming a permanent policy why wouldn't they? I hope her inauguration dispenses with a brass band, in favour of a fleet of Taco Trucks blaring "La Cucaracha" .
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 23:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 17:49 |
|
|
At the rate things are happening with FOX Shep is gonna be the last man standing, and will thus earn the right to remake the station in his image, as he has planned all along.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 23:31
|
|
