|
mcmagic posted:Don't forget all the people who didn't run because the entire party endorsed her in 2014. They deserve to lose the election just for that and would be if anyone not named Trump was the GOP nominee. Hi, infrequent poster here, can't help but notice you've never posted a god damned thing to back up a single assertion you've ever made to this effect. Just wanted to point that out on the off chance you ever wanted anyone to take your bullshit seriously.
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 20:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 13:58 |
|
|
ImpAtom posted:Nah, he'll google "woman democrat" and say they would be the best choice before he actually reads anything about them. You have no argument other than to beat the sexism drum. It's frankly embarrassing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 20:18
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:Crying sexism or racism is the last vestige of people who have no argument. My issues with Hillary Clinton are about her personally, not her sex or her race. The issues being "Is Hillary" and "Is not burnie"
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 20:18
|
|
|
WeAreTheRomans posted:Isn't that basically just Poison Ivy? Wasn't that pre Alan Moore swamp thing?
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 20:17
|
|
|
Antti posted:The tied CO poll has the race at 39-39 with Clinton having a six point edge among those who already voted, flipped for Trump. So it's really Clinton +6? I'm loving awful at statistics given that I'm a filthy non-technical worker.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 20:18
|
|
|
So I almost forgot about this. I have a friend/former coworker who has recently become politically "woke". Not in the annoying sense, but in the sense of actually looking up stories, going through multiple sources, and really following the trail instead of just catching whatever the headline is as she walks around. I did suggest this thread as a "source" to follow. Not sure if she actually reads it tho. If she does though: Sup. Anyway, she's gotten really into just jumping right into people and talking about their political stances. Most notably with our Conservative, Moonie, White kid with German parents and a Korean name coworker, who wanted to vote for Ted Cruz. Those were fun. Now she's invited a bunch of our friends/coworkers/Former coworkers to a "Politics Dinner" to discuss politics with those she's found out either haven't decided on a candidate yet, or are not voting for Clinton. I think I've created a monster, but this is going to be fun.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 20:18
|
|
|
Libertine posted:What basis would you assume Sanders has any of the same flaws in terms of party corruption that Hillary does? He's an outsider, he's totally unlike most Democrats. It's like the same set of people who are banging the table going "WHERE ARE THE TRUMP EMAILS WIKILEAKS?!?" there aren't any because neither Trump nor Sanders are deeply involved in a widespread political apparatus manipulating poo poo everywhere. Trump has a network of shady business deals everywhere, but Sanders doesn't have that either. Go make a different thread about it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 20:18
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:it's cool how it's metaphysically impossible to do better than the Democratic Party's actual performance ever, under any hypothetical circumstance, and that therefore the Democrats can't ever be blamed for their failures Awfully defensive about the sexism there guy especially considering I said nothing about it. Why so quick to react? My critique of the "if only Sanders" crowd is the continuing to live in a fantasy dreamworld, not that Dems are infallible. Just because HRC has vulnerabilities as a candidate doesn't mean she wasn't an infinitely better choice than Sanders to be president, if not a candidate.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 20:18
|
|
|
poo poo updated my map it's gonna be a landslide. Who knew all you had to do was piss off everyone and not actually do any work campaigning other than randomly showing up at places.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 20:18
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:Crying sexism or racism is the last vestige of people who have no argument. My issues with Hillary Clinton are about her personally, not her sex or her race. That patently isn't true and many intelligent people have been telling you that for a long time. Are you under the impression everyone sexist knows they're being sexist and just decides to do it anyway?
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 20:18
|
|
|
Too Shy Guy posted:Hi, infrequent poster here, can't help but notice you've never posted a god damned thing to back up a single assertion you've ever made to this effect. Just wanted to point that out on the off chance you ever wanted anyone to take your bullshit seriously. Is it not true that she locked up the primary in 2014 and that no other viable candidates ran against her? That isn't a fact?
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 20:18
|
|
|
My concern about whether or not we're actually going to win is increasing. But frankly gently caress this country if enough of us are too dumb to realize that Trump is objectively worse.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 20:18
|
|
|
emdash posted:The previous (C+2) Suffolk NH poll was conducted 10/2-10/5. Completely irrelevant in terms of trend to a poll of 10/31-11/2. Could have been T+5 last week and cratering for him since then Well, the trend doesn't really matter unless you have reason to believe that tomorrow will be different than today. Polls are where they are.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 20:19
|
|
|
RCP just updated again with a Texas Poll from Emerson. +14 Trump. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 20:19
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:You have no argument other than to beat the sexism drum. It's frankly embarrassing. People have argued this topic with you like a thousand times with literally nothing new from you. Why would you expect them to meaningfully engage with you at this point?
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 20:19
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:That patently isn't true and many intelligent people have been telling you that for a long time. Are you under the impression everyone sexist knows they're being sexist and just decides to do it anyway? Of course it's true. You don't like what I'm saying so your refuge is to call me a sexist.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 20:20
|
|
|
Libertine posted:What basis would you assume Sanders has any of the same flaws in terms of party corruption that Hillary does? I don't think Sanders would have had the same flaws. I do however think he would have had health rumors (because, again, he is older than Clinton and Trump and as unfair as it is he looks it), he would have been slammed for his socialism at the same time as they would have dug up any argument or any idea they could have to made him look like a hypocrite, ect, ect. We can't say what they would have done because he didn't win but saying there would have been nothing is untrue. They would have made something. if that something is successful (ala Swiftboat) is an unanswerable question. Libertine posted:Sanders in his last head-to-head polls with 1000+ samples (before he conceded) beats Trump by 10.4 points on average. He would have slaughtered this election wholesale. "A poll about an idealized pre-attack Bernie Sanders vs Trump shows Bernie winning when literally everyone knows he was going to lose and thus doesn't have to back up the vote" is completely and utterly meaningless. Also, you know, there are plenty of polls that had Clinton absurdly far ahead during her best moments. Why are you assuming that Sanders would have had *zero shift* after becoming the actual candidate when the attack machine turns on him? ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 20:22 on Nov 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 20:20
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:Is it not true that she locked up the primary in 2014 and that no other viable candidates ran against her? That isn't a fact? So what you're saying is that there were no viable candidates
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 20:20
|
|
|
Libertine posted:Sanders in his last head-to-head polls with 1000+ samples (before he conceded) beats Trump by 10.4 points on average. He would have slaughtered this election wholesale.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 20:20
|
|
|
Crain posted:So I almost forgot about this. Oh why on this green earth would you ever point someone to this thread? You are the monster
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 20:21
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:You have no argument other than to beat the sexism drum. It's frankly embarrassing. Adding this to my file of evidence I keep to support my theory that the only people who use "frankly" are humongous pricks. Same for "facetious," weirdly. I haven't figured that one out yet.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 20:20
|
|
|
Crain posted:. Sounds like something Kimmy Schmidt would too, but neat
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 20:20
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:Of course it's true. You don't like what I'm saying so your refuge is to call me a sexist. I'm calling you a Trump plant
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 20:21
|
|
|
Final Fantasy talk was much more fun than yet another "[generic candidate] would be doing better than Hillary" argument spurred by some stupid poll causing people to grab their suicide pills.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 20:21
|
|
|
Cthulhumatic posted:So it's really Clinton +6? I'm loving awful at statistics given that I'm a filthy non-technical worker. No, it means that it is tied. BUT Clinton has a +6 lead in early voting. So, if Trump underperforms on voter turnout in Colorado on election day, then he performs worse than the poll indicates. Early votes have a 100% chance of counting.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 20:21
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:Crying sexism or racism is the last vestige of people who have no argument. My issues with Hillary Clinton are about her personally, not her sex or her race. But but if I can't shout down people by calling them racists and sexists, then how will I shout them down? 
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 20:21
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:Adding this to my file of evidence I keep to support my theory that the only people who use "frankly" are humongous pricks. Nooo.  Why do they gotta ruin words I like? 
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 20:21
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:Of course it's true. You don't like what I'm saying so your refuge is to call me a sexist. The Enemies of Rutgers Athletics are Legion.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 20:21
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:We can't say what they would have done because he didn't win but saying there would have been nothing is untrue. They would have made something. if that something is successful (ala Swiftboat) is an unanswerable question. Fair point I can't disagree with.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 20:22
|
|
|
Submarine Sandpaper posted:I'm calling you a Trump plant This is actually funny and more creative than this sexist bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 20:21
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Nooo. Stop liking words for lovely people. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 20:22
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:The Enemies of Rutgers Athletics are Legion. Step your game up.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 20:22
|
|
|
Celery Jello posted:Stop liking words for lovely people. But... but I may be a lovely person. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 20:22
|
|
|
Libertine posted:What basis would you assume Sanders has any of the same flaws in terms of party corruption that Hillary does? He's an outsider, he's totally unlike most Democrats. It's like the same set of people who are banging the table going "WHERE ARE THE TRUMP EMAILS WIKILEAKS?!?" there aren't any because neither Trump nor Sanders are deeply involved in a widespread political apparatus manipulating poo poo everywhere. Trump has a network of shady business deals everywhere, but Sanders doesn't have that either. Why didn't the coach put me in? I woulda made that touchdown. We would won the State Championchips. I could have gone pro. Why didn't he put me in? Man, i woulda been great. Jenny and I would have gotten married. We'd live in a big house and take vacations in the Mediterranean. If only coach had put me in on that last play...
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 20:23
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:Well, the trend doesn't really matter unless you have reason to believe that tomorrow will be different than today. Polls are where they are. Yeah but people are arzying about it on the basis of the previous Suffolk poll having been C+2, ignoring that it was a month ago. Last week she had +7 and +3 polls in NH from other pollsters. All that stuff is baked into PEC/upshot/538 and it's still blue. Not amazingly so but the point is trends and momentum are never what they seem to be.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 20:23
|
|
|
Celery Jello posted:Stop liking words for lovely people. I feel like you might be being.... facetious 
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 20:23
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:Of course it's true. You don't like what I'm saying so your refuge is to call me a sexist. I'm calling you a sexist because you constantly, like literally every single day, every time you can wedge it into conversation, do the classically sexist thing of demeaning a woman's accomplishments and comparing her unfavorably to a less-qualified man. That is textbook sexism and it's revolting.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 20:23
|
|
|
SavageBastard posted:Awfully defensive about the sexism there guy especially considering I said nothing about it. Why so quick to react? re:other people itt, not you icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 20:27 on Nov 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 20:23
|
|
|
WeAreTheRomans posted:I feel like you might be being.... facetious Frankly, idgaf what you think 
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 20:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 13:58 |
|
|
My Linux Rig posted:But but if I can't shout down people by calling them racists and sexists, then how will I shout them down? Oh boy we got a live one. What did you think of the new Ghostbusters movie?
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 20:24
|
|