|
Young Freud posted:Hank Hill would vote Clinton just because of Trump's love of eating shoe leather. That would be worse than a weak handshake. Hank would ticket split and vote for hillary reluctantly. Peggy would vote for Hillary because it's time a woman was president. Dale wouldn't vote because crooked hillary is rigging the election anyway. Also that's how the government can track you, look it up on infowars dot com. Bill would fall in with the alt-right and go full #MAGA and just embarrass himself. He'd snap out of it and be real embarrassed and end up writing in Ann Richards. Boomhauer would vote, but never tell anybody who he voted for because that dang ol ballot supposed to be secret man. Luanne would vote for Gloria La Riva. Lucky would vote for trump because he's gonna make america great again. Kahn would vote for whoever Ted Wassanasong is voting for.
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 06:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 15:40 |
|
|
How does wikileaks have any sort of warchest to bankroll the sort of legal muscle you'd need to enforce their ridiculous NDA anyway? There must be a ton of clauses in it that a US attorney could get stricken.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 06:18
|
|
|
Phone posted:Wow, that was uh... A Thing. He kept up his sign the NDA schtick for two hours at 4am? Ughhhhhh And then poked the guy in the face with a stuffed giraffe. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 06:19
|
|
|
Phone posted:Wow, that was uh... A Thing. He kept up his sign the NDA schtick for two hours at 4am? Ughhhhhh He is a narcissistic sociopath.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 06:19
|
|
|
has anyone posted this high-energy bio of mike cernovich yet http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/10/31/trolls-for-trump this quote in particular seems like it explains pretty much everything about him except for why his eyes are so close together quote:After law school, his wife became a successful attorney in Silicon Valley. But Cernovich was not admitted to the California bar until nine years after getting his law degree. In the meantime, he says, he got by with “freelance legal research” and “appellate stuff.” Cernovich’s wife earned millions of dollars in stock from an I.P.O.; he told me that he received “seven figures” in the divorce settlement. This seems to have been, and might still be, his primary source of funds. (He insists that book sales provide his main income.)
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 06:19
|
|
|
Dr.Zeppelin posted:has anyone posted this high-energy bio of mike cernovich yet  this owns
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 06:22
|
|
|
I've been waiting for, essentially, this Trump video to drop since he accepted the nomination. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tz6e0c3ZOlw Unfortunately even that Snidely Whiplash level of elitism probably wouldn't lose his base, but it'd be fun.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 06:21
|
|
|
Well, that's distrubing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 06:27
|
|
|
You don't. But Wikileaks doesn't print everything that they receive, either, so it's not like that's a solved problem.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 06:29
|
|
|
porfiria posted:I feel like the whole field kicker/whatever other example you want to present is in some ways misleading, and maybe points to the limitations of assigning probabilities to stuff like this. Barring either massive systematic polling error or some kind of truly apocalyptic scandal, it seems like Trump's chances of winning are basically 0. Like if you run an Earth simulation 100 times from today Trump wins in 8 of them? That's not really what the probability is saying right? It's more like a confidence thing and the outcome is pretty much unchangeable now, it's just (slightly?) unknowable--are those two different things? They seem like they are. Really, instead of trying to find analogies like field goal misses and the like, we should be focusing on what the chance of Trump winning really is. It's the statistical chance that everything we know is wrong. It's not an event that rests on some place kicker holding the ball wrong, or the field being wet. It's more like being struck by lightning or being hit by a meteorite. Of course, given the way it works, there's an equal chance that the polls are just as wrong in the other direction. Hillary is about as likely to get 538 electoral college votes as Trump is to win.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 06:31
|
|
|
Rated PG-34 posted:Welp, that's lame that wikileaks has gone downhill. I've always thought that Assange was probably a bit of a shady guy, but I didn't think that precluded wikileaks from doing their job. Given that they were once labeled "enemy of the state", maybe it's due to some active undermining by establishment forces. Nah, everyone else that made up the original wikileaks left because he was an rear end in a top hat, and everyone he got to pick up the slack is more interested in him than any particular ideological mission of truth. Nothing particularly complicated about it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 06:38
|
|
|
Sorry guys. It was a joke based on the lovely football game that I wasn't really forced to watch, but like it was on TV and I didn't feel like trying to find anything else on.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 06:39
|
|
|
Dexo posted:Sorry guys. It was a joke based on the lovely football game that I wasn't really forced to watch, but like it was on TV and I didn't feel like trying to find anything else on. Nah, it's good. It gets the people going. Besides, most people will only remember every 29 yard miss they see because they're so significant. Like this election.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 06:45
|
|
|
Okay if you don't think that Cardinals-Hawks games was loving great then you don't understand football, or sports.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 06:47
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Okay if you don't think that Cardinals-Hawks games was loving great then you don't understand football, or sports. Or we just don't give a poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 06:48
|
|
|
Dexo posted:Sorry guys. It was a joke based on the lovely football game that I wasn't really forced to watch, but like it was on TV and I didn't feel like trying to find anything else on. I was forced to watch since my husband grabbed the remote after my show finished. I couldn't believe that ending and I felt so bad for those kickers. So I was excited I understood your joke. 🤓
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 06:49
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Okay if you don't think that Cardinals-Hawks games was loving great then you don't understand football, or sports. First: gently caress the NFC West. Second: The first half of the Vikings-Eagles was the best 30 minutes of football today. That is all.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 06:49
|
|
|
Rated PG-34 posted:Why all the hate for wikileaks? Assuming their leaks are credible, aren't they just doing their jobs? Sure, the alternative of voting for Hillary is more or less voting for an orange clown, but that's not the fault of wikileaks. Roland Jones posted:Assange is a rapist and an rear end in a top hat, they're being highly selective with what they leak and refuse to leak stuff that makes Trump, Republicans, or Russia look bad, they're apparently actively working with Russia now, and some of their things may outright be doctored. Basically, they suck as much as you'd expect an organization that claims to be pro-transparency but makes its members sign NDAs forbidding them from saying certain things about it to suck, i.e. A lot. http://reason.com/archives/2010/12/14/the-assange-employees/print http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2010/12/wikileaks_may_employ_an_antise.html http://gawker.com/5773533/julian-assange-my-enemies-are-all-jews-and-sissies https://www.theguardian.com/media/2011/mar/01/julian-assange-jewish-conspiracy-comments http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2011/03/is_julian_assange_an_anti-semi.html https://www.greenleft.org.au/content/principles-should-determine-preferences
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 06:49
|
|
|
Phone posted:Wow, that was uh... A Thing. He kept up his sign the NDA schtick for two hours at 4am? Ughhhhhh In an ironic twist of fate, WikiLeaks turns out to employ Enhanced Interrogation Techniques
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 06:51
|
|
|
Instant Sunrise posted:Hank would ticket split and vote for hillary reluctantly. Is King of the Hill a conservative show? If it is it might be the only good conservative show that's ever existed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 06:56
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:Is King of the Hill a conservative show? If it is it might be the only good conservative show that's ever existed. its a show that sympathetically portrays conservative, suburban america without glorifying it or refusing to poke fun at it
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 07:02
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:Is King of the Hill a conservative show? If it is it might be the only good conservative show that's ever existed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 07:03
|
|
|
Instant Sunrise posted:Hank would ticket split and vote for hillary reluctantly. https://www.reddit.com/r/KingOfTheHill/comments/4v5n2u/a_response_to_would_hank_vote_for_trump/ quote:Hank: "Yep."
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 07:16
|
|
|
A lot of the reason that wikileaks gets so much attention from the Maga-ites is Hillary's failure to come off as an honest candidate. If the leaks were happening in isolation they wouldn't be resonating with people. Not that they are resonating with the average person. But politically minded internet users see them as futher proof that "Shill" has skeletons in her closet. The fbi reports, plus the Debbie Washerman Schultz stuff alone are enough to fuel conspiracies. It'd be an interesting test to see how many people, in this thread in particular, supported the anti bush chelsea manning leaks.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 07:18
|
|
|
hexenmexen posted:A lot of the reason that wikileaks gets so much attention from the Maga-ites is Hillary's failure to come off as an honest candidate. I think there's also a very heavy sexist element to these attacks on Hillary's trustworthiness. It just seems too coincidental that the first major party female presidential candidate is also widely seen as duplicitous despite little evidence showing her actually being more duplicitous than other politicians that have better trustworthiness/favorability ratings. Romney flip-flopped on all sorts of issues and would have his statements frequently walked back by campaign staff. He was provably lying to the American electorate over and over again, but for some reason he wasn't considered duplicitous. All of this stuff feels like it goes back to standard early 90's sexism. Hillary was involved in politics at a high level, and so everybody piled on with their hot takes about how she's totally Lady Macbeth or whatever. Then the GOP goes digging around the Rose Law Firm like it should have any bearing on Bill Clinton and basically it just felt like the entire right wing was punishing for bothering to have a professional life of her own despite being a wife/mother. With how many investigations into her poo poo there have been, how little has actually been found, and how little the electorate seems to care that there's no evidence for their concerns about her trustworthiness.. it just feels like in 50 years we'll be looking back at Hillary's career and saying, "Wow, man, things really were crazy sexist back then..." hexenmexen posted:It'd be an interesting test to see how many people, in this thread in particular, supported the anti bush chelsea manning leaks. It's not about supporting or not supporting the broad concept of leaks and their target. Chelsea Manning was a whistleblower. Manning felt strongly enough about wrongdoing being committed by the US government that she broke the law to bring information to the American people. This information was then scrutinized and it turned out to be substantial. This isn't that situation. This is Russian hackers gill-netting political officials, releasing everything, and then nudging "journalists," to write up slanted coverage based on willful misunderstandings of the contents of the e-mails. You can tell this is their M.O. when RT is tweeting their poo poo out 20 minutes before it's even posted to Wikileaks and they try to use the NYT First Draft Newsletter as evidence the NYT is sending stories to be edited by their subjects. Their methods, lack of any substantial findings, and their rank incompetence have given up the game. ErIog fucked around with this message at 07:36 on Oct 24, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 07:29
|
|
|
hexenmexen posted:A lot of the reason that wikileaks gets so much attention from the Maga-ites is Hillary's failure to come off as an honest candidate. Hillary's "failure" to come off as an honest candidate is mostly just people are desperately looking for a scandal to tie her to and will take any scraps they can get to prove how "corrupt" she is. The truth is that society is conditioned to inherently distrust ambitious women and that Hillary gets much higher scrutiny than any of her male counterparts because of it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 07:28
|
|
|
hexenmexen posted:A lot of the reason that wikileaks gets so much attention from the Maga-ites is Hillary's failure to come off as an honest candidate. People here probably don't care so much about these leaks in a vaccumn. The Chelsea Manning leaks were actually a something. Like there was actual information and wrong doing. Nothing in these Clinton leaks have been of any worth. But Wikileaks/Assange is acting like they are unveiling massive corruption in the american political system. And even then if it wasn't so blatantly obvious that Assange is directly attempting to influence an election. Most people here wouldn't actually do anything other than laugh, but since this has been such a blatant one sided political attack people probably are a bit more touchy about it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 07:29
|
|
|
Loel posted:https://www.reddit.com/r/KingOfTheHill/comments/4v5n2u/a_response_to_would_hank_vote_for_trump/ I don't really want to give Reddit anything but Dale going on about cucks saved this fan-script.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 07:29
|
|
|
Gyges posted:Isn't Orange County beginning to succumb to the evils of demographic change and moving towards Democratic majority overall? Yes. I'll repost what I said in the cali thread It's getting there.  North And south Orange county and pretty different demographics wise. Probably 5-10 more years of the Latino and Asian population expanding and OC goes blue. Inland Empire Republican numbers have continued to trend down the past 3 years as well (they went Obama in 08 and 12).
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 07:36
|
|
|
hexenmexen posted:It'd be an interesting test to see how many people, in this thread in particular, supported the anti bush chelsea manning leaks. The difference for me is less in the content itself - I have no doubt that Clinton may be guilty of war crimes or something, a possibility I leave open for any other US President or Sec State as well - and more to do with the source. Julian Assange is a bigot, a propagandist pretending to be objective, probably a sexual predator, and almost definitely in bed with Russia, none of which is true of Manning (AFAIK). That all makes it difficult for me to find him sympathetic or credible.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 07:37
|
|
|
Dr.Zeppelin posted:has anyone posted this high-energy bio of mike cernovich yet I have not heard of this person, but now I wish he was covered in bees.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 07:42
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:Is King of the Hill a conservative show? If it is it might be the only good conservative show that's ever existed. There was an episode where Hank went to a GW Bush rally. When Hank shook his hand he had a weak handshake. Hank was then conflicted for the entire episode whether he could, in good conscience, vote for a man with a weak handshake. That's as political as they get.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 07:46
|
|
|
FCKGW posted:There was an episode where Hank went to a GW Bush rally. When Hank shook his hand he had a weak handshake. Hank was then conflicted for the entire episode whether he could, in good conscience, vote for a man with a weak handshake. Meh. The whole show has a strong message of "rural-suburban conservative life is complex and nuanced and in general they are good people with a closed background whose ideas about the world are well-meaning but not always right." It's not apolitical so much as it's trying to paint it's subjects as dynamic people and not political cartoons. I never really enjoyed the show but I think it's a pretty good show. I don't think you have to agree with the show, but I think the show does fairly well at portraying what it sets out to do.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 07:48
|
|
|
Most people tend to dislike Peggy than any political aspect of the show anyway.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 07:56
|
|
|
Jygallax posted:We need to think of a snappy name for the V-Shaped region of extreme trump support from Idaho to Louisiana and up again to West Virginia. It's a pussy and Trump grabbed it
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 08:03
|
|
|
Gyges posted:Really, instead of trying to find analogies like field goal misses and the like, we should be focusing on what the chance of Trump winning really is. It's the statistical chance that everything we know is wrong. It's not an event that rests on some place kicker holding the ball wrong, or the field being wet. It's more like being struck by lightning or being hit by a meteorite. I've had plenty of 1% probability things occur to me playing poker, much less 15%. This election going to Trump would not be like getting hit by lightning--I get what you're saying, but the chance is the chance.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 08:10
|
|
|
I kinda like King of the Hill because it mostly strikes the right balance between mocking or condemning and acquitting its characters. Media about rural or small-town American life rarely gets this right, and usually ends up either glorifying rural whites or depicting them as broken and monstrous, both of which are dehumanizing and unrealistic.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 08:11
|
|
|
Uhm, the USC poll must be broken. Clinton 45.1 Trump 43.8
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 08:12
|
|
|
If it weren't wikileaks it'd be something else the right would latch onto to justify their hatred of Hillary. Ben Ghazi still creeps up as another mole hill turned bullshit mountain.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 08:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 15:40 |
|
|
I think most of the "Trump could win" at this point would require Republicans to be so thoroughly successful at voter suppression that it looks like midterm turnout, which is unrealistic, or blatantly illegal poo poo that's getting in the realm of Tom Clancy garbage. There's no scenario where Trump wins this election on the basis of everyone voting in a fair election and Trump gets more votes. He just doesn't have that kind of support.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2016 08:16
|
|