|
I just got called on my cell phone for a poll about regulating short-term housing rental in LA. They asked a few different wordings of a question about whether I supported making short-term rentals pay hotel tax and limiting the number of days a place can be rented out, then they read me quotes from pairs of totally-real people with opposing opinions on regulation and asked me who I agreed with more. Hamilton, Garcia, and Smith were libertarian shitlords, while Anderson, Sanchez, and Chen agreed with me that Airbnb can suck it. The only demographic question they asked me was my race. I don't know if that's interesting to anybody, but we talk about polls a lot and since I've never resided in a swing state this was my first time getting a call like this, so I thought others might be curious. I hope my adamant yet concisely-worded responses will help unfuck the rental market here in LA.
|
#
¿
Sep 2, 2016 01:21
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 20:37 |
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:Last month I had some pollster call me three times about different local ballot initiatives (city [should we be required to have a public vote any time the city literally does anything with selling/leasing public lands] and regional [should we add a half cent sales tax for public transit improvements]) in Northern California. Yeah mine didn't feel very push-poll-y but it was also an expensive live caller. I'll be interested to see what shows up on the ballot at election time.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 2, 2016 02:15
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:*HRC Campaign Opens Oppo Research File, fingers through giant tome... hands one to Reporter* Everybody read this, it's short and it's so much worse than you think. I thought it would be like "those whiny queers will sue you for saying 'fag' but no, gays are "not able-bodied" and riddled with disease.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 2, 2016 16:46
|
|
|
Ice Phisherman posted:More than that. Underemployment. Wage theft. Long term unemployment in certain sectors. There's also a matter of where those jobs are located. They're not exactly evenly distributed. Probably a lot more but I'm tired and missing stuff. The thing where chronically unemployed people stop identifying as "job seekers" and are excluded from unemployment numbers.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 3, 2016 23:50
|
|
|
KiteAuraan posted:The US really needs to shorten election cycles like a lot of the other Big Democratic Nations do. I love following this poo poo and even I am starting to get burnt out by this cycle. Mostly due to the realization that I've been following it since late 2014. I'd love that, but could it be done? Election season begins whenever somebody hints they're going to run.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2016 07:12
|
|
|
Christ, were you people birthers too? Stop falling for this poo poo. Let's talk about Fox again! I only worked at the creative side of Fox, not the news side, but it has one of the most abusive corporate cultures I've ever seen. Like, I was physically assaulted by someone there (not sexual - the person got angry and tried to break my wrist by slamming it in a door) and quickly learned that person has a history of doing that but won't be fired because of some kind of litigatory mexican standoff they had with the company because someone else did something undisclosed to them. Edit to add the kicker: When I described this situation to a colleague with a few more details added, my colleague still needed clarification on which violently abusive Fox employee retaining their position only by the threat of a countersuit I was talking about. When the Murdoch sons took power they offered a severance package to all longtime employees, and so many people took it the last time I was on the lot the corporate offices were ghost towns. There don't seem to be any plans to replace the employees who left. They'll just run on a skeleton crew until the whole thing crashes and burns I guess. Tiny Brontosaurus fucked around with this message at 17:13 on Sep 6, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2016 17:10
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:The fact that she's a public official at the same time, and thus in a position to potentially give preferential treatment to people who give her money. Do you understand what corruption is and how it works? You are painfully stupid, please go away. Public officials can and do work with charities - it's frequently considered one of their qualifications for the public job they hold. And you must not know who Elie Wiesel was if you think he'd have to bribe his way into a meeting with anyone.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2016 17:15
|
|
|
seiferguy posted:The media can sell "It's a dead heat!" a lot better than saying "Trump lacks any legitimate pathway to the white house" where they'd basically shudder up until November. Do you think that will keep working? In four years or eight years if the RNC still can't field a viable candidate, which seems possible, is there any point where the mainstream media's "omg horserace!" thing breaks down? It seems like it's already working less than it did in 2012 simply because more people are talking about it. The latest Keeping it 1600 talked about this - people don't say "Trump looked presidential in Mexico," they say "the media's going to say he looked presidential." I mean there have always been spittle-flecked Trump voter types screeching about the "liberal media," and dorks like us never shut up about "optics," but anecdotally I'm seeing a lot more normal people talking about the truth vs. what CNN et al are spinning.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2016 21:21
|
|
|
How did Hillary's debate style compare to Obama's back in the day?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2016 21:29
|
|
|
happyhippy posted:She won the swimsuit part, but lost on points in the dance off section. If she managed to beat this I'm sure she can do anything: 
|
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2016 21:34
|
|
|
Eugene V. Dabs posted:You misunderstand. Being a poor candidate does not mean you're a poor human being or would make a poor president. It means that, as a candidate, you have glaring weaknesses. This is dumb. She's consistently polling ahead at a wide margin, and she's almost certainly going to win. Those are the marks of a good candidate. The votes she's losing are the votes of people choosing to support a bigot instead. What is it you'd have her change about herself to win those people over? Should she be more hateful herself? Less progressive? More male? American races are close. They literally always are. That's just how our system is structured. This race is notably less close than usual, and that's a good thing. Name one "glaring weakness" Hillary has that isn't "optics" or "I haven't taken stock of all the Republican propaganda I've absorbed over the past twenty years."
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2016 00:45
|
|
|
Dead Cosmonaut posted:Her foreign policy Does that make her "not a good candidate given the country we live in"? Because I have bad news for you about the foreign policy of the country we live in.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2016 00:51
|
|
|
Eugene V. Dabs posted:"I haven't taken stock of all the Republican propaganda I've absorbed over the past twenty years."
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2016 01:01
|
|
|
Eugene V. Dabs posted:I posted things which would be common knowledge if you looked at the crosstabs of any poll or paid attention to how she is covered at all in the mainstream, you glorious idiot. If I yell that you're dishonest for twenty years you'll start to seem untrustworthy too. If you can't muster up the critical thought required to notice when you're being propagandized to you don't get to playact at being a Serious Man About Politics. Go away.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2016 01:05
|
|
|
Eugene V. Dabs posted:What, do you want me to write it out? Here, I'll help you: Oh we're all pretty clear you're not arguing fact, don't worry. InnercityGriot posted:Jesus, I'm voting for Hillary this election, but why is it so hard for people to acknowledge she might not be a great candidate? She voted to give a chimpish moron the tools to start the loving Iraq war, which rightfully should be a pretty big shitstain on her career. That is an incredibly misinformed and childish idea of what happened, so maybe you and Debs can go start your own he-man woman-haters party and we could have a few brief moments' respite from the OPTICS  argument.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2016 01:11
|
|
|
Eugene V. Dabs posted:Next time learn how to comprehend what you're reading before you make posts like this. Aw babby wants an argue. What happened to that world-weary rationality, Mr. Optics?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2016 01:14
|
|
|
Eugene V. Dabs posted:In America? I'd say that your ability to project an image of yourself is more important that anything substantive, yes. Or are we arguing that Americans actually make decisions based on cold hard fact, now? I would think the Democratic primary and the visceral hatred for Clinton from the Bernie quarter (despite her policy prescriptions) would make this somewhat obvious to you of all people. Don't move the goalposts now, Serious Guy. The question is liked by everyone. You're slinging republican conspiracy theories against her, so obviously your ideal candidate would be equally loved by both sides of the aisle and never have a bad word said about him. Let's not pretend there's any "her" that would meet your very serious and rational objective likability criteria.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2016 01:17
|
|
|
Hillary Clinton is, for good or for ill, immensely pragmatic. She doesn't re-fight battles once she's won them, and once she's past a stepping-stone she doesn't go back and polish it. Right now she's trying to be president. The only thing she needs from any of us right now to pursue that goal is our vote, and she either has yours or she doesn't. If she has your vote, apologizing isn't going to let you vote twice. If she doesn't, odds are there's something bigger than The Emails holding you back. You don't like that she didn't utter the exact incantation you had in mind on this issue or that, you don't like that she was around to be tainted by the bad political trends in the 90s and the 00s, you don't like that republicans spent twenty-five years making sure you don't like her, well, is it costing her your vote? If no then shut up, if yes then there's a very good chance you'd never vote for her no matter what. You guys are cranky she's not laser-focused on winning you over right now? That's demographics. The farty white IT guy vote is locked down pretty early in this country and there are bigger fish to fry right now. There are votes to be gained with Latinos, with Independents, with Never-Trumpers. Just sit this out for a while. You're middle-class white guys. You'll be the center of attention again on November 9th, I promise.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2016 22:38
|
|
|
You guys are really going to hate when she wins and it turns out she intends to be the president of the whole country and not just the cool kids club. She's going to take meetings with Republicans and work together with them on things.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2016 23:01
|
|
|
straight up brolic posted:There are plenty of people in the electorate who are not stupid that the emails, Benghazi, and the Clinton Foundation represent real concerns for. If you say so, but again, if it's not swaying their votes it literally doesn't matter.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2016 23:21
|
|
|
straight up brolic posted:*looks at polls where Clinton's lead has evaporated after a month of intense scrutiny into these very issues because her voters are dropping out* Hahaha yeah that's what's happening. But let's play. In the universe where that's true, what's goatee-Hillary supposed to do about it?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2016 23:25
|
|
|
straight up brolic posted:okay tell me what's happening then? Lol No no, you're the author of this sci-fi masterwork, write the next scene.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2016 23:28
|
|
|
straight up brolic posted:I'm on mobile so this isnt going to be rigorous but just look at the polling average over time, Google trends for Benghazi, Clinton emails & foundation, and favorability levels...all correspond pretty strongly to eachother You don't need to convince me, we're already in your world. So what is it you want nega-Hillary to do?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2016 00:35
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Yeah, but still, her husband's record in the 90's doesn't instill confidence. Obviously I understand she's not her husband, but still. I'll be reassured when I see it happen. Literally stop this. No more "but still" weaselly sexist-but-don't-call-me-that bullshit. Mrs. William Jefferson Clinton isn't running for president, Hillary Rodham is. She is her own person and always has been, because women are people.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2016 04:49
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:I think it's fair to criticize Hillary for her political work during Bill's administration and her involvement in some of his worse policies, but it behooves the person doing to criticism to remember that she was on record as being more left-wing than him even at the time, as a US Senator in the 2000s, and in the present day. It's always framed as "women only think what their husbands think." I'm done with it. Majorian posted:Ah yes, because she never weighed in on policy issues while she was First Lady, or said inflammatory things then. Yes, women are people. Yes, Clinton is her own person and always has been. And that's why I criticize her for bad positions she's adopted in the past. If you can't figure out a non-sexist way to criticize a woman well, then you'd be you, wouldn't you.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2016 05:29
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I've been doing that this whole thread actually... People who aren't sexist don't act like this when sexism's being criticized. You're being smug and condescending because you don't have any other tools to use here.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2016 05:33
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Oh bullshit. You called "sexism" without understanding what was being argued in the first place. You assumed I was casting Hillary Clinton as an extension of her husband's political agenda, when I was criticizing her on her own stated positions as First Lady. I was criticizing a sexist thing you've done repeatedly, as have others in this thread, and you're having a temper tantrum about it. If you do it again I'll criticize it again. You always have the option of learning and changing, which would free up all that tanty time for something more fun. Lightning Knight posted:Somebody being smug and condescending doesn't by default make them wrong in a discussion. They could also just be an rear end in a top hat! I actually think the way you responded was great and indicative of a levelheaded approach to criticism, but I worried mentioning you would just get the kicking and flailing pointed your direction.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2016 05:43
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Also, that's not me having a tantrum. That's me getting defensive because I felt like I was being attacked. Haha I was going to thank you for apologizing but I see this edit showed up while I quoted, so disregard! Maybe clear the room of sharp-cornered furniture before your next bout of "defensiveness."
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2016 05:47
|
|
|
SpaceDrake posted:My one takeaway is that I still can't believe just how openly a Russian Fifth Columnist Trump is. I've been thinking about that a lot too. Trump's breaking all the spoken and unspoken rules, and over and over again we're finding out they weren't really rules at all, if breaking them comes with no consequences. I don't think we're structurally set up to handle someone who acts like him, which makes me think he could have come along at any time. Yeah we weren't too hot on Russia in the 90s but we're not too hot on calling for the assassination of our political opponents now. He's breaking every campaign finance law I've ever heard of, flagrantly courting foreign money and influence, groping his daughter on stage... if it were only one thing it might have sunk him, but the sheer number of gaffes makes them self-supporting, Mr. Burns style.  He could have done it any time, as long as he did all of it.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2016 05:59
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Yes, I am a dude, and I try very hard to not be racist or sexist. I'm usually pretty good about it, but I slipped up this time, and got super-defensive when called on it, because I'm operating on way too little sleep and tried to multitask. It was dumb of me. I'm a little raw to the charge of sexism right now, too - I learned today that one of my team members at work got sexually harassed by one of the old founders of the organization, so...it's been a lovely day. Again, that's not an excuse for what I said, just hopefully a partial explanation for my outsized reaction. Understandable, and I appreciate you coming around. I hope your coworker's ok.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2016 06:02
|
|
|
Nessus posted:Sounds like you're liberally biased to me. I had sudden flashbacks to a cooking class where some lady got mad at the instructions to "apply liberally" the marinade. She was like a human email forward. And now I'm again grateful that my elderly relatives' Re: Re: FWD: FWD: FWD: work is mostly in the "A conservative did a thing" field and I rarely have to hear about Hillary's coughing being because her human mask was chafing against her scaly lizard people skin.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2016 06:05
|
|
|
Nessus posted:I remember when I was in grade school and we had stacks of old Readers' Digests around for some reason, and I read one and it had a quote from George HW Bush saying 'I think liberals are more like wishful thinkers' and I thought, 'hee hee, does that mean I should apply sunscreen wishful-thinkerily?'  Oh hey if tonight's entertainment made anybody crave some reading on what a useless bag of hair Matt Lauer is, check out Top of the Morning. Sulky baby Matt nearly sank an entire network because he didn't like his costars getting attention.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2016 06:15
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:As usual this is a matter of messaging - this need to be presented in a manner that people in the media and other idiots are likely to understand and believe. Powell has always seemed to me to have a core of decency and intelligence, which makes me sad he didn't make different choices in his life. I think with a flip of a coin he could have been a great progressive.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2016 06:30
|
|
|
Epic High Five posted:He certainly has the air of somebody that would apply to Yeah but I like the way he writes 
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2016 06:33
|
|
|
Phone posted:What do you think of Gawker getting demolished? Please no, not this again
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2016 21:34
|
|
|
FairGame posted:Here's the disconnect, though. So when people copy articles in here, do you just close your eyes and scroll down while humming the national anthem or what FairGame posted:Why? There are plenty of perfectly good sites out there that do good work whose ads aren't lovely and intrusive and filled with malware. I hate myself for engaging this even further but... do you have any awareness that this "all news sites are basically the same, just choose another one!" argument directly undermines the "journalism is precious and it's immoral not to value it" argument you're trying to make? Tiny Brontosaurus fucked around with this message at 22:05 on Sep 8, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2016 22:03
|
|
|
FairGame posted:Nah, the commercial still airs and whatever television station airs it still gets to count an impression against the advertiser. That is not how television advertising works.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2016 22:11
|
|
|
Boxcar posted:I said multiple times that people attacked her with sexist attacks. The fact that you think this is a thing unmasks you as the worst kind of rear end in a top hat
|
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2016 08:49
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:alright. You're a good dude and gettin' mad about racism is never dumb. theflyingorc posted:also did you know that literal, not metaphorical slavery continued in pockets of the south up through the 30s/40s, and some people think it might have been happening as late as the 50s? I know for a fact this is true. A good friend of mine's grandfather was a slave in the twentieth century. Her mother has a photograph of him in chains with an automobile in the background.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2016 19:21
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 20:37 |
|
|
Every time the thread descends into this poo poo it's important to remember your fantasy genocide would nuke the majority of black people living in the US too.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2016 19:23
|
|
