|
Meanwhile the religious right has endorsed a whore-mongering casino huckster over the devout Methodist who held bible study in the White House, because of course they did. E: drat I posted that way too slowly.
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2016 12:31
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 13:13 |
|
|
AriadneThread posted:yeah, that's my concern. any earmarks not for your specific state are way to easy to just paint as corruption!!!! i mean, i totally bought into that as a teenager. it's only know after seeing, you know, the alternative, that i get their purpose. The way you bring them back is you give them an incredibly boring and technical-sounding name with "NATIONAL SECURITY" in the middle, and cap them at a minuscule fraction of the budget (which is all they ever were anyway).    THE INTERSTATE SECURITY INFRASTRUCTURE OFFSET AND RECONCILIATION ACT OF 2017
|
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2016 21:07
|
|
|
Call him Nate Colloidal Silver the way he's turning that map blue
|
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2016 22:45
|
|
|
Amergin posted:Most Americans are mentally children, hence why they all report that "[Trump] speaks to me, he says what I'm thinking." Fixed. Everybody else is in the bag for Clinton.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2016 16:35
|
|
|
Mecca-Benghazi posted:Well, if Donald wins we would have a Republican congress and the supreme court swings right for a generation, regardless of checks on the executive branch. Yeah, it would warp the entire legal system towards fascism for the long haul, which if we avoid nuclear apocalypse or wars on multiple fronts would be the worst thing about a Trump presidency. Luckily the demographics alone make it virtually impossible for him to win. Unlike the UK we aren't 87% non-Hispanic whites, so shitbag white old men aren't enough to vote for the apocalypse by themselves.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2016 16:43
|
|
|
^^ Fucker  waitwhatno posted:But judges have to be confirmed by the Senate, right? So it can't get TOO bad, like him appointing his daughter or something. For Trump to win a huge number of ordinarily Democratic voters would have to switch sides, which would naturally tend to skew all the down-ticket races towards the Republicans. Also the GOP already has the House by a large margin and is unlikely to lose it no matter what.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2016 16:47
|
|
|
Amergin posted:It's too early to tell in the general, and this also smacks of the same "common sense election logic" that failed miserably in the primary. The present isn't the future, sure. However, the state polling was right about Trump all through the Republican primary. Trump winning wasn't a wacky unforeseen outcome if you looked at the data - people just chose to ignore the data way past the point where it made any sense to do so (including Nate Silver.) LOL NOTHING MATTERS catchphrase poo poo notwithstanding, Trump showed no magical ability to do much beyond what the polls said he would do. Occasionally he even under-performed. Now the same type of data that accurately predicted Trump winning says Trump is hosed in the general election, and fundamentally has been hosed basically all along.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2016 22:29
|
|
|
An absolutely insane number of nukes have been set off since they were invented, most of them above ground. quote:In total nuclear test megatonnage, from 1945–92, 520 atmospheric nuclear explosions (including 8 underwater) have been conducted with a total yield of 545 megatons,[16] with a peak occurring in 1961-62, when 340 megatons were detonated in the atmosphere by the United States and Soviet Union.[17] while the estimated number of underground nuclear tests conducted in the period from 1957 to 1992 is 1,352 explosions with a total yield of 90 Mt.[18] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_testing
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2016 14:39
|
|
|
Arrgytehpirate posted:Who can run next time that would be even crazier? Duck Dynasty guy? There is really nothing to prevent another Trump from doing the exact same thing in the next Republican primary. As long as there is a) a solid 1/3 of the GOP primary electorate that will vote for pure evil, and b) the primary field takes a long time to narrow down from 6-12 shcmucks who are all convinced they're the savior of True Conservatism, a racist-populist candidate can easily hijack the whole thing again.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2016 14:48
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Arrgytehpirate's opinion on the use of the atom bomb in WW2 is probably not all that well thought out by him personally, but it's not exactly an unusual opinion to have. Even a lot of Japanese are sympathetic to it, but honestly the way the Japanese relate to the atomic bombings is sort of weird anyway. At the very least it was a war crime in a war filled with war crimes. Where it lands on the scale of how bad a war crime is, I'm not going to bother posting here since who loving cares anyway - nowadays once nukes are in the air all belligerents have effectively lost. (And yes, that includes first-striking a nation without nuclear weapons since weakening the nuclear taboo is not worth any gain the attacking nation could hope to achieve, even from the standpoint of naked self-interest.) To put the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima in perspective, it had about 3% of the yield of a single W88 warhead (15kT vs. 475kT.) Each Trident D-5 missile has 8 of those W88 warheads. Each Ohio-class ballistic missile submarine has 24 of those missiles. At this point we're already up 6,080 Hiroshimas on one boat. We have 14 of those submarines. This constitutes about HALF our active arsenal of nuclear warheads. 
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2016 16:33
|
|
|
USPOL August: The Vindication of Prester Jane by the Narcissist Donald Trump
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2016 21:22
|
|
|
Yinlock posted:A 35% tariff on businesses leaving Indiana Tariff seems too low considering that Indiana is the answer to the question, "What if the Deep South was more white, got cold as balls in the winter and had worse food?"
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2016 22:01
|
|
|
Crows Turn Off posted:Ok, is this person qualified to draw these conclusions? Depends on what you mean by "qualified." IIRC PJ has a lot of first-hand personal experience with personality cult psychos but isn't a psychologist or anything like that. It's a fun read and not much more, though to be fair to PJ there have been people who DO have real qualifications who have come out and said he is in fact a straight-up clinical narcissist as well.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2016 22:37
|
|
|
Here's what people who are qualified say about Trump: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/06/the-mind-of-donald-trump/480771/ quote:For psychologists, it is almost impossible to talk about Donald Trump without using the word narcissism. Asked to sum up Trump’s personality for an article in Vanity Fair, Howard Gardner, a psychologist at Harvard, responded, “Remarkably narcissistic.” George Simon, a clinical psychologist who conducts seminars on manipulative behavior, says Trump is “so classic that I’m archiving video clips of him to use in workshops because there’s no better example” of narcissism. “Otherwise I would have had to hire actors and write vignettes. He’s like a dream come true.” Emphasis mine because LOL.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2016 22:42
|
|
|
Regular Nintendo posted:Late but this is brutal An unequivocal  right there.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2016 14:10
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:As a rule of thumb, George W Bush's approval rating when he left office was 34%. That is probably Trump's floor. In 1964 LBJ got the largest share of the popular vote since 1820 (61.1%) and Goldwater got 38.5%. That was an election where the Democrats unironically won on the platform of "That guy will start loving World War 3, just because!" and people bought it. Trump probably can't lose as badly in the electoral college as Goldwater or Mondale, but he's within striking distance of the worst popular vote margin in 196 years. A guy can dream, anyway. 
sean10mm fucked around with this message at 16:44 on Aug 4, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2016 16:42
|
|
|
Noam Chomsky posted:I already posted a few sources that call out the 700,000 jobs lost from just the trade deficit with Mexico. Nice meltdown.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2016 19:06
|
|
|
I'm still mad that my USPOL August: The Vindication of Prester Jane by the Narcissist Donald Trump title hasn't been used yet.  Chokes McGee posted:Nice mel--- 
|
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2016 19:11
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:That's why it's expressed as a percentage. Yeah, 538 is just a really volatile model with some weird poo poo going on. PEC has been really stable for instance, but even it has drifted up to 70% and 85% for their two models after being 65 & 80% forever. http://election.princeton.edu/
|
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2016 22:01
|
|
|
zoux posted:The biggest electoral landslide in history is like 58.  61.1% for LBJ vs. Goldwater's 38.4%. Unless you go back to 1820.e: Nixon-McGovern was 60.7% vs. 37.5%.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2016 22:06
|
|
|
Trump probably can't lose in one of those 49-1 state Electoral College sweeps because there are too many states with lower populations that are really loving red, but a historic popular vote blowout is definitely within reach if he keeps up this death spiral.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2016 22:10
|
|
|
Lemming posted:Note that this is similar to 538's nowcast and almost always shows an overwhelming win at any given time. The main difference is that it doesn't flop around nearly as much as 538's Now-Cast. It's been at 80% forever and just went up to 85%. Their "random drift" is analogous to 538's Polls Only number, but it's also less flip-floppy over time and just went from 60% to 65% to 70% now.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2016 22:15
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:My guess is Hillary's numbers will retreat abit. I think 8-9 seems possible, and that would be a massive defeat that would almost certainly imperil Republican control of congress. It's hard to compare to past awful campaigns because mindless party line voting is much stronger now than it was in 1984, 1972 or 1964... but Trump is also vastly more incompetent on all fronts than anybody we've seen by a huge margin. Clinton "only" winning on the scale of Obama 2008 wouldn't stun me, but a this point neither would a 60-35 shithousing. 
|
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2016 22:18
|
|
|
illcendiary posted:Trump's campaign being a WCW storyline makes way too much sense. Like I'm having nWo red/white doublecross clusterfuck flashbacks when I look at the current state of the GOP. Wasn't there a WCW angle from that era that involved literal sewage?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2016 22:22
|
|
|
JohnCompany posted:Added some stuff. Though tribalist idiocy is still idiocy. A lot of Trump's support isn't just checking the R box out of habit though, it's strong enthusiasm for Trump himself. A lot of (mostly old, white and male) Americans just like open race hate and fascism.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2016 12:47
|
|
|
Geostomp posted:Don't forget he young white male rear end in a top hat alt-right demographic. They love Trump because he seems like he hates all the things they do: women, minorities, and people who question their natural right to rule everything. Like the older demographic, but without the need for a coherent ideology behind the hatred. Even among white people Trump support is heavily biased towards the older people, fortunately. I think the only white demographic he consistently wins outright in polling is men 49+.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2016 13:18
|
|
|
Violator posted:With the election heating up, anyone have any good movie suggestions? The Ides of March (2011) with George Clooney has a lot of steamy election intrigue and backstabbing. Any other good political thrillers in that ilk? I think I'm going to queue up All the President's Men next. Mad Max: Fury Road
|
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2016 16:43
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:You're setting yourself up for disappointment here. He's not going to get less than 40%. He's going to lose in a landslide, but that landslide is almost certainly going to still mean somewhere (slightly) north of 40% of the popular vote. The only way that doesn't happen is if the GOPe starts actively sabotaging him. I arbitrarily put his popular vote floor at what I'm calling The Goldwater Line of 38.5%. Basically he was the last guy most of the general public was legitimately afraid of giving the nuclear weapons to, and he still was barely under 40%. What we're not going to get is one of those almost solid red/blue maps like 1964, 1972 or 1984 because too many states are pure red no matter what happens. Hillary can run up the score in the most populous states, but she can't flip places like West Virginia or Tennessee even if Trump starts melting down the white male babies of married evangelical Christian parents to make Trump brand baby oil. sean10mm fucked around with this message at 17:00 on Aug 8, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2016 16:58
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:Honestly curious, has this happened before or is this kind of unprecedented? I can't tell if it's usual political theater or not. It's extremely abnormal. You never see people from the party establishment openly take a poo poo on their presidential candidate after the primaries are over like has happened to Trump already.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2016 22:08
|
|
|
"How strange that we've been pandering to the human garbage of America for decades, only for someone like Trump to appear that would take this strategy to its logical conclusion!" 
|
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2016 14:36
|
|
|
zoux posted:This is trivially easy to deflect and spin. So that's going to make the seven day controversy over it even more baffling. Trump can't deflect or spin anything effectively. His capabilities are limited to doubling down or pouting like a baby back bitch. He could have easily made the Khan family thing disappear in one news cyclce with some generic press release, but he's constitutionally incapable of doing anything like that, so all his mistakes snowball on him every time now that his audience isn't just creepy right wing primary voters.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2016 20:39
|
|
|
"When I said blood coming out of her whatever, I meant a gunshot wound." - Trump, apparently.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2016 20:40
|
|
|
Have Some Flowers! posted:Looking at Five Thirty Eight this morning, seems like the latest round of polls came in hard against Clinton. Polls-only is "only" 84.7% Clinton!  
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2016 15:23
|
|
|
Luigi Thirty posted:But if Hillary goes after all these conservative votes instead of pivoting further to the left I'll be forced to vote for *rolls dice* Peeta Lindsey. Seriously, what's beautiful about what Clinton is doing is that she has conceded ABSOLUTELY NOTING to the right to peel their votes away from Trump. She got Blomberg to poo poo on Trump while conceding exactly ZERO planks of the party platform. Her entire pitch to them is, "We agree on nothing, but I'm not the pumpkin pissbaby of chaos, so vote for more or you're an idiot."
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2016 16:45
|
|
|
zoux posted:I think she's actually having fun out there. I imagine Clinton keeps trying to schedule these hardcore strategy meetings, and then this happens:  So what's our plan of attack today? Well, ma'am, we have this... *zzt*  Sorry, we just got a notification... Trump just insulted Mom, Apple Pie, and... Jackson, Mississippi? Well, that's a wrap for today everyone. See you here tomorrow! Hay guys, lunch is on me at the BBQ Exchange! You're such a card, Tim!
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2016 16:54
|
|
|
Antti posted:I'm not American but in 2008 out of sheer curiosity I signed up for some Obama for America newsletter thing. Holy mother of gently caress, I got mail until 2012 when I unsubscribed and redirected it all to spam. I'm pretty sure the 2008 Obama campaign created the precursor to Skynet with that thing. Still worth it.  
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2016 16:57
|
|
|
WoodrowSkillson posted:Also, no matter how much we panic here, Trump will not start WW3. He would be incredibly damaging, but there are enough checks and balances that he would not actually guide us into oblivion. You say that, but to authorize a nuclear attack you need a) the President and b) the Secretary of Defense to authenticate the order to c) the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. a) nominates b) who nominates c) so I'm not seeing the strong "checks and balances" should a) in fact be a narcissistic nutbar. e: Also you have to consider the possibility of President Trump creating the crisis that leads to war rather than just the chance of him just going LOL NUKES out of nowhere. Does anybody trust him to handle a hypothetical Cuban Missile Crisis scenario without getting everyone killed? sean10mm fucked around with this message at 19:03 on Aug 10, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2016 19:01
|
|
|
Trump is really bad at politics y'all. He only won the GOP nomination because 45% of the 15% of eligible voters who participated in the GOP primary process were looking for maximum race hate, and Trump was using a bullhorn when everyone else was using dog whistles.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2016 15:18
|
|
|
Trump won the GOP primary because 45% of the 15% of eligible voters who participated in the GOP primary were primed to vote for whoever the most openly hateful loving bastard available happened to be. Beyond being a 6' high bleached anus, Trump has no political talent whatsoever. Every time the news cycle looked to be turning against Clinton, he found a way to beat himself even more. Emanuel Collective posted:Trump's convention speech more or less called for a thousand years of blood, but because he didn't go off on an insane tangent, the media treated it seriously. I just heard NPR talk about his economic speech seriously this morning.  Luckily Trump has shown no sign of being able to sustain even that level of "sanity" for any amount of time.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2016 16:47
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 13:13 |
|
|
Harrow posted:Was it Cokie Roberts? She's all about taking Trump seriously because journalists shouldn't have public political opinions or something. No, it was some guy whose name escapes me. One of the Morning Edition regulars IIRC. Not describing actual reality in the name of "neutrality" is the dumbest loving thing the "respectable" news media does.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2016 16:57
|
|