USPOL Sep: Hillary has tuberculosis

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > USPOL Sep: Hillary has tuberculosis

«‹›18 »

lozzle: Oct 22, 2012; by zen death robot

I see Fox has fully embraced the "Hillary is literally dying!!1!1" conspiracy theories...

# ¿ Sep 11, 2016 15:36

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 22, 2024 13:55

lozzle: Oct 22, 2012; by zen death robot

Not gonna lie I was a little concerned when the second video of her being shuffled to the car was posted, but the video of her emerging from the apartment should overshadow it and quell these stupid health rumors so I feel better now.

# ¿ Sep 11, 2016 17:07

lozzle: Oct 22, 2012; by zen death robot

Jesus Christ WaPo...

The debates cannot come soon enough.

# ¿ Sep 11, 2016 17:42

lozzle: Oct 22, 2012; by zen death robot

The prospect of Hillary being attacked on her health due to heat exhaustion while Donald Trump skates away with his quack doctor's "he has tested positive for all the diseases! he is healthier than Teddy Roosevelt ever was!" "medical letter" is kind of depressing.

...gulag the media?

# ¿ Sep 11, 2016 17:52

lozzle: Oct 22, 2012; by zen death robot

Pretty good ad. I probably would have included Trump calling Iowans "stupid" though.

# ¿ Sep 13, 2016 12:21

lozzle: Oct 22, 2012; by zen death robot

The NC bathroom bill has faced a tremendous amount of backlash. If anything its existence should depress Republican turnout.

edit: also gently caress Donald Trump for ruining the word "tremendous" forever

lozzle fucked around with this message at 13:32 on Sep 13, 2016

# ¿ Sep 13, 2016 13:29

lozzle: Oct 22, 2012; by zen death robot

Kennedy signed an executive order barring discrimination by government contractors on the basis of race, creed, color or religion which was a Pretty Alright Thing. In general though I would agree he didn't really get that much done, and probably would not have got as much done as LBJ did (though LBJ benefited immensely from the ability to bludgeon the opposition with the tragedy of Kennedy's death). And the whole "getting us into Vietnam" thing was obviously a colossal gently caress-up.

# ¿ Sep 13, 2016 19:43

lozzle: Oct 22, 2012; by zen death robot

Dreadwind posted:

Hey thread, are there any decent write ups for each of Clinton's "scandals"? As in I'm trying to find actual impartial fact checking breakdowns for Benghazi, emails, and the Clinton Foundation instead of the usual he said, she said, we'll never know for sure so you decide bullshit.

Literally every article I've found so far is either:

A) She's the Anti-Christ and these scandals are irrefutable proof of her dark deeds
B) She might have done something wrong but we can't say what those wrong things are
C) These things really don't matter, vote Hillary

There has to be at least one investigative journalist left in America, right? Right?!?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...2125_story.html
http://www.newyorker.com/news/benjamin-wallace-wells/the-facts-and-falsehoods-of-the-clinton-foundation
https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...19b1_story.html

tl;dr: Benghazi is bullshit, Clinton Foundation is bullshit, emails are a legit fuckup but overblown

Sources of course lean liberal but good-loving-luck finding something better.

# ¿ Sep 13, 2016 20:13

lozzle: Oct 22, 2012; by zen death robot

The right's attempt to "reclaim" "deplorable" (or whatever the gently caress they're doing) is adorable, and kind of hilarious since as far as I know it started with David Duke posting memes.

# ¿ Sep 13, 2016 20:22

lozzle: Oct 22, 2012; by zen death robot

Saeka posted:

So, #dncleaks is trending on Twitter. Anything substantive?

If there was anything substantive--anything at all--it would have been in the first batch.

But no the best they have is "some staffers contemplated ill-advised lines of attacks against Sanders which were then rejected. Clearly the primaries were rigged!"

edit: though the folks over at Reddit (with the chumps at The Dolan leading the charge) seem to have a serious problem with Democrats fundraising for Democrats.

lozzle fucked around with this message at 09:11 on Sep 14, 2016

# ¿ Sep 14, 2016 08:50

lozzle: Oct 22, 2012; by zen death robot

canepazzo posted:

Today's gonna be an Arzy day - the USC/LA Times poll has Trump up by 5% (46.7 to 42).

Are you seriously gonna Arzy about a tracking poll?

# ¿ Sep 14, 2016 09:37

lozzle: Oct 22, 2012; by zen death robot

Oh I see you meant "[other people] are going to Arzy."

Arzys gonna Arzy.

# ¿ Sep 14, 2016 09:40

lozzle: Oct 22, 2012; by zen death robot

CelestialScribe posted:

If you can seriously look at that tracking poll and that Ohio poll and still think a Clinton win is inevitable and that Trump has no path to victory, you're loving deluding yourself.

She is losing what should be a slam dunk election.

Yes you're right, we are totally doomed.

http://www.270towin.com/maps/WL4oW

Is it too late to rename Arzying to CelestialScribing?

# ¿ Sep 14, 2016 11:21

lozzle: Oct 22, 2012; by zen death robot

CelestialScribe posted:

Maine is in competition isn't it? Or is that just the CDs?

EDIT: Clinton still has a safe lead in Colorado but it's not impenetrable.

538 gives Clinton a 79% chance to win Maine and RCP has her up +7. It is not "in play."

# ¿ Sep 14, 2016 11:29

lozzle: Oct 22, 2012; by zen death robot

I am concerned that the NewsWeek article is both too complicated and too superficially similar to the Clinton Foundation "scandal" for people to really understand or care.

# ¿ Sep 14, 2016 12:39

lozzle: Oct 22, 2012; by zen death robot

GalacticAcid posted:

Monsanto has accepted a $66B buyout from Bayer.

So now dumb hippie libs have a new GMO boogeyman.

B-but muh Frankenfood! :catstare:

# ¿ Sep 14, 2016 13:44

lozzle: Oct 22, 2012; by zen death robot

NYT is dead set on pissing everybody off it seems. Conservatives will disregard it as a liberal rag no matter what they do, while liberals will continue to be shocked at the mental gymnastics they do to appear "balanced."

# ¿ Sep 14, 2016 14:58

lozzle: Oct 22, 2012; by zen death robot

I still don't believe pointing to a couple of polls and saying "this is because of the pneumonia!" is appropriate. If the polls in the aggregate shift then it makes sense but a single poll can change based on literally nothing more than random chance.

# ¿ Sep 14, 2016 15:03

lozzle: Oct 22, 2012; by zen death robot

Kilroy posted:

Every poll moves the aggregate. You're ignoring polls because you don't like the results or don't think they're representative. How about you start aggregating polls yourself, then? Be sure to only include the polls you think are Good.

After the election we can compare notes.

I didn't say to ignore it. But drawing too strong of a conclusion from a single poll is not wise, and arzying over a single poll is irrational. It was merely a word of caution.

# ¿ Sep 14, 2016 15:11

lozzle: Oct 22, 2012; by zen death robot

FairGame posted:

That's fair. Though in the case of the LAT poll it's useful just because of how little it tends to fluctuate. A shift from the +/- 2 points between the candidates which is mostly what it's done forever to a Trump +5 is notable.

The Reuters/IPSOS one is also down relative to itself only a few days prior. Nothing of note really happened during the polling windows outside of HRC's weekend, so while it could be chance, the more polls we see shift relative to their previous iterations right before this stuff, the less likely I am to believe "random chance" as an explanation.

I agree completely. The more polls that come out that show Clinton losing ground, the more I will buy the pneumonia narrative

# ¿ Sep 14, 2016 15:16

lozzle: Oct 22, 2012; by zen death robot

computer parts posted:

You're really going to have to explain what you mean because there's mathematically not a way that someone who's salaried and will now see overtime will make less money. At worst, they will make exactly the same amount but with fewer hours.

"Mathematical impossibility" and "facts" have never gotten in the way of ignorant people hating common-sense policies.

See: income tax brackets

# ¿ Sep 14, 2016 15:28

lozzle: Oct 22, 2012; by zen death robot

BI NOW GAY LATER posted:

I don't think she's a "fairly weak" candidate by any good objective measure.

Record unfavorables (if we ignore that her opponent is somehow even worse) is kind of an objective measure.

She certainly ain't no Obama.

# ¿ Sep 14, 2016 15:33

lozzle: Oct 22, 2012; by zen death robot

Night10194 posted:

I think what gets me about this is that picking the Breitbart people actually helped Trump enormously. I remember when we celebrated him doing that as a sign the race was over and he'd given up.

It turns out they know more about how to bully the media around than Manafort did.

Meh, I still think it was a mistake. They clearly have no idea what they are doing. Their GOTV operation is a total joke.

I won't be surprised if Trump continues to poll decently up to election day but ends up getting crushed because nobody actually bothered to vote for him.

# ¿ Sep 14, 2016 15:37

lozzle: Oct 22, 2012; by zen death robot

BI NOW GAY LATER posted:

I don't think Favorables are an "objective" or "good" measure of anything and judging people by Obama is pretty much folly.

How is it not objective? "Do you or do you not like this candidate?" isn't exactly a loaded question, and can be answered scientifically through statistics.

I will agree that its status as a "good" measure is definitely an open question.

# ¿ Sep 14, 2016 15:39

lozzle: Oct 22, 2012; by zen death robot

BI NOW GAY LATER posted:

Because it's couched in all kinds of dumb statistical noise. It's also rarely as explicit as you're making it. It's usually along the lines of "What is your view of [x] candidate: somewhat favorable, strongly favorable, undecided, strongly unfavorable, somewhat unfavorable."

It' also breaks down this dumb idea we have in American civic society thanks to dumb poo poo polling that you need to like the person doing the job and it's just really silly.

But sure, her favorables suck. Is that the only measure of a candidate that matters? Is one check box enough to get you labeled "really weak?"

No, I don't think that it's the only checkbox that matters, and I don't actually agree that she is a "weak" candidate. But I think it is a potentially useful measure that does, by itself, point to her being weak.

I also think "experience" and "fundraising-ability" are (somewhat) objective measures of the strength of a candidate, and she is much stronger by these metrics.

# ¿ Sep 14, 2016 15:57

lozzle: Oct 22, 2012; by zen death robot

Jill Stein is insane and fundamentally unqualified to be President...but she wouldn't impose a ban on Muslims traveling to the United States or attempt to deport 11+ million people so I'd say she's infinitely more qualified than Trump.

# ¿ Sep 14, 2016 16:06

lozzle: Oct 22, 2012; by zen death robot

Fart Amplifier posted:

So can anyone please explain to me what the significance (or the significance as perceived by those going crazy over it) of the new Guccifer Web 2.0/Wikileaks leak? AFAIK people are saying it's proof that the Democrats/Hillary/Obama reward donations with Ambassadorships but I'm wondering if it's more like the previous leaks where some people who donated also received positions but there was no quid pro quo demonstrated

My understanding so far (and I will admit I haven't delved too far into it because Wikileaks is trash) is that Democratic Ambassadors fundraised for Democratic politicians which is...not exactly shocking .No quid pro quo demonstrated.

# ¿ Sep 14, 2016 16:11

lozzle: Oct 22, 2012; by zen death robot

HannibalBarca posted:

I don't think Jill Stein is insane, [...] That doesn't mean Jill Stein should be taken seriously as a candidate for president however. Anyone see the Vox interview today, where she talks about QE?

Jill Stein's views on Quantitative Easing qualify as "insanity" to me.

# ¿ Sep 14, 2016 16:15

lozzle: Oct 22, 2012; by zen death robot

fits my needs posted:

What's the deal with Edward Snowden asking for a pardon? Are things in Russia not rosy or is this just another Putin stooge trying to cause more drama for the elections?

My bet would be drama. Snowden, for whatever reason, is somewhat of a cause c�l�bre for the less pragmatic elements of the left. Denying him a pardon will very marginally hurt Obama (and by extension Hillary) with some leftists.

# ¿ Sep 14, 2016 16:27

lozzle: Oct 22, 2012; by zen death robot

BI NOW GAY LATER posted:

I dont think deplorables is a mistep.

I agree. Not only is it accurate, it fires up the base (I know I'm fired up) and even has the potential to peel away some Trump-leaning voters who have a genuine problem with said deplorables.

Whether it is a net benefit or loss is yet to be seen.

# ¿ Sep 14, 2016 16:32

lozzle: Oct 22, 2012; by zen death robot

FairGame posted:

One last thing and then I'm done on this, I promise.

Per the 538 model, which you cite most? About 30%.

Don't consider each swing state independently. They're not. If HRC loses OH, she's going to lose FL and so on.

You can't say "oh he only has a 30% chance of winning each of these swing states, so .3^6 is his chances."

States move with the national average.

That's...not how it works.

# ¿ Sep 14, 2016 16:34

lozzle: Oct 22, 2012; by zen death robot

corn in the bible posted:

I'm going to myself that someone will be elected president

If the election ends in a 269-269 tie and the House ends up picking the President, does that count as them being "elected?"

You are playing a dangerous game friend. :colbert:

# ¿ Sep 14, 2016 16:38

lozzle: Oct 22, 2012; by zen death robot

AMorePerfctGoonion posted:

I'm with Fairgame here. These probabilities are not independent.

Not independent per se, but it is certainly possible to gain in one swing state at the expense of another. If you come out in strong support of coal, for instance, it might help you in the rust belt, but it's going to do gently caress all for your chances in Florida.

# ¿ Sep 14, 2016 16:39

lozzle: Oct 22, 2012; by zen death robot

To be honest I don't expect or even want Snowden to get a pardon. Yeah he revealed some nefarious poo poo or whatever but I'm generally with Obama on the "too much transparency is actually not a Good Thing" thing. I guess that's my realpolitik tendencies showing...

# ¿ Sep 14, 2016 16:46

lozzle: Oct 22, 2012; by zen death robot

AMorePerfctGoonion posted:

Absolutely, appealing to one demographic that is more common in one state may hurt your chances with other demographics that are more common in other states. But at this point I doubt there are going to be any major changes in the policies of either candidate or the demographics of their supporters. It's just going to be a matter of national issues affecting swing voters, such as the debate performance of the candidates and major scandals that come out. I mean, coal country can be sure to vote Republican because Clinton is not going to suddenly abandon her commitment to combating climate change. I'm unaware of any other major local issues that could affect individual states now, unless something is said at the debate perhaps.

Major scandals and debate performance can be state-dependent too. If Hillary comes out with answers that are especially favorable with blacks and energize them to GOTV, it will help her in NC but do comparably less in OH. Similarly a "gaffe" that offends rural white men is going to be a lot worse in IA than say FL. Trying to tie all the swing states up with a pretty bow and say "THEY RISE AND FALL TOGETHER" is just...kind of disingenuous.

lozzle fucked around with this message at 16:57 on Sep 14, 2016

# ¿ Sep 14, 2016 16:53

lozzle: Oct 22, 2012; by zen death robot

ImpAtom posted:

That isn't even realpolitik. That's straight-up "I'm okay with horrible poo poo as long as it doesn't impact me."

Not really. Snowden revealed other classified poo poo besides "oh yeah the government is spying on everyone." Rewarding that isn't exactly a great precedent to set.

# ¿ Sep 14, 2016 16:55

lozzle: Oct 22, 2012; by zen death robot

MattD1zzl3 posted:

Toxxing is just baffling to me. What do you gain from it exactly? Showing off that you can afford to lose 10 bucks on a guess?

I didnt really know how it worked in 2012 and posted in the Romney toxx thread to mock them for voting the wrong way, and wound up big a big fat ban on election day. I thought you had to make some public "I hearby for candidate X" declaration, not just posting in the thread. I dont mind the , but now my glorious rap sheet is forever stained with..... an ayn rand quote

It's literally in the first post of any candidate toxx thread that "POSTING IN THIS THREAD QUALIFIES AS A TOXX."

As for why we do it, the :smuggo:

factor is huge.

# ¿ Sep 14, 2016 17:01

lozzle: Oct 22, 2012; by zen death robot

greatn posted:

Assange can't be pardoned because he literally hasn't been charged with anything.

Fairly unimportant nitpick, but you can totally be pardoned for crimes you haven't actually been charged with. Ford did it for Nixon.

# ¿ Sep 14, 2016 17:03

lozzle: Oct 22, 2012; by zen death robot

Dexo posted:

Can a presidential pardon be done on a conditional basis? Or is it Pardon or no Pardon?

As far as I know it's "pardon or no pardon," but Ford officially maintained that accepting a pardon was an admission of guilt, while Nixon disagreed (but accepted anyways).

# ¿ Sep 14, 2016 17:07

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 22, 2024 13:55

lozzle: Oct 22, 2012; by zen death robot

eviltastic posted:

That presented a few less jurisdictional issues.

I mean the President can clearly pardon for any federal crime. What jurisdictional issues are you referring to?

# ¿ Sep 14, 2016 17:09

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > USPOL Sep: Hillary has tuberculosis

«‹›18 »