|
boner confessor posted:trump is not close to an electoral victory. the popular vote doesn't really matter if you look at it nationwide, you have to look at it state by state in the context of the electoral college and trump's chances are practically nonexistent by now. you have a better chance of being hit by lightning than trump does of winning the presidency Well, Hillary could be hit by lightning Even then a Trump win would be unlikely.
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 17:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 10:22 |
|
|
What up, fellow Vermonters  I pretty much agree with everything you say Potato Salad. If I lived in a solidly blue or red state at the moment I would vote third party, no questions asked, simply because Hillary is a poo poo candidate and embodies the worst traits of the current Democratic establushment. However, I currently live in Pennsylvania, so it kind of is important to fight for this, and I will probably, begrudgingly vote for her, even though my single vote doesn't matter; if enough people think like me and vote that way, it can have a significant impact on the polls, for sure. Chilichimp posted:At the same time, online news can be so very easily racked with misinformation, propaganda, and outright lies repeated enough to gain the effect of truth, that people using the internet as a driving source of news is somewhat terrifying. This is true. New Media is a huge ocean, so not only do you have more progressive voices, but also more radical voices. But I feel like the bigger voices at the moment tend to be more progressive, and there should be a focus on reaching out to others through new media.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 17:57
|
|
|
Telsa Cola posted:A friend put out the idea that the mics should just be on two minute timers tied to the clock behind then. After 2 minutes they automatically shut off with no involvement from the moderators. Because in 2020, you don't cut the President of the United States off during a debate.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 17:57
|
|
|
disjoe posted:Well, Hillary could be hit by lightning I keep on seeing thus rhetoric, but it's still a lot closer than you might think, especially because a significant portion of Trump supporters probably won't openly admit their support for him, out of embarassment or shame, and come election day, there will definitely be more enthusiasm from his base to go out and vote than from the Democratic/Independent base.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 18:00
|
|
|
Julias posted:I keep on seeing thus rhetoric, but it's still a lot closer than you might think, especially because a significant portion of Trump supporters probably won't openly admit their support for him, out of embarassment or shame, and come election day, there will definitely be more enthusiasm from his base to go out and vote than from the Democratic/Independent base. Gonna call the bullest of poo poo on this one, yo. Trump supporters are the most outspoken demographic in this election, closely followed by people who are ironcally "down with Johnson"
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 18:02
|
|
|
Chilichimp posted:Gonna call the bullest of poo poo on this one, yo. Trump supporters are the most outspoken demographic in this election, closely followed by people who are ironcally "down with Johnson" I think his point is that 40% of the population aren't open Trump supporters and yet 40% of the population is still willing to say they are going to vote for him. He's still polling above 50% with white men. I'll be the first to tell you white men are poo poo but that statistic should be telling you that he has a lot more supporters than are willing to come out and support him, much less vote for him. I thought we had settled this in 2012 but the Democrats put the weakest candidate up in years, so here we go.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 18:04
|
|
|
Star Man posted:Because in 2020, you don't cut the President of the United States off during a debate. If its automated they can suck it up learn to finish on time. I was watching the debate and they could have always finished strongly within the limited time but they just had to get 5 more words in. Besides who are they going to blame if the format gets agreed to and implemented. The clock?
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 18:05
|
|
|
Chilichimp posted:Gonna call the bullest of poo poo on this one, yo. Trump supporters are the most outspoken demographic in this election, closely followed by people who are ironcally "down with Johnson" I'm not saying that, as a whole, they aren't the most outspoken. I'm saying that, like Owlofcreamcheese points out, a lot of Americans will support him come election day, ones that flew under the radar. There's also plenty if voters who will vote for him, even if they don't agree with him, to spite the current government, for the unrealistic outside chance that it might change it, especially if they buy into his bullshit populist banter. One of the best metaphors I've heard is that each vote for Trump is a molotov cocktail being tossed at the establishment, and I sort of agree with that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 18:11
|
|
|
Telsa Cola posted:If its automated they can suck it up learn to finish on time. I was watching the debate and they could have always finished strongly within the limited time but they just had to get 5 more words in. Besides who are they going to blame if the format gets agreed to and implemented. The clock? Can we add like... a timer running out heartbeat sound to up the loving stress for the speaker? That would own.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 18:12
|
|
|
Julias posted:I'm not saying that, as a whole, they aren't the most outspoken. I'm saying that, like Owlofcreamcheese points out, a lot of Americans will support him come election day, ones that flew under the radar. There's also plenty if voters who will vote for him, even if they don't agree with him, to spite the current government, for the unrealistic outside chance that it might change it, especially if they buy into his bullshit populist banter. Yes, but is there something specific in Trump supporters that would make huge swathes of them prone to support him, but not openly? Why wouldn't there be just as large a number of obfuscated Clinton supporters?
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 18:14
|
|
|
Chilichimp posted:Yes, but is there something specific in Trump supporters that would make huge swathes of them prone to support him, but not openly? Why wouldn't there be just as large a number of obfuscated Clinton supporters? Because the views he espouses are heavily stigmatized by a vast majority of the population. Hillary's policies are about as non-offensive as you can get.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 18:16
|
|
|
Chilichimp posted:Can we add like... a timer running out heartbeat sound to up the loving stress for the speaker? That would own. I would be down for some sort of "you have 30 seconds remaining" type noise so they have fair warning. One less thing to complain about.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 18:18
|
|
|
Chilichimp posted:Yes, but is there something specific in Trump supporters that would make huge swathes of them prone to support him, but not openly? Why wouldn't there be just as large a number of obfuscated Clinton supporters? It doesn't take much to say: "I'm voting for the sane one."
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 18:19
|
|
|
Chilichimp posted:Yes, but is there something specific in Trump supporters that would make huge swathes of them prone to support him, but not openly? Why wouldn't there be just as large a number of obfuscated Clinton supporters? clinton isn't embarrassing to align with. If your minister tells you abortion is murder and we need a justice to overturn roe v wade trump is your only choice even if the whole thing of aligning with him is awkward and you hate him.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 18:20
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:Because the views he espouses are heavily stigmatized by a vast majority of the population. Hillary's policies are about as non-offensive as you can get. Actually, moderate women married to diehard Trumpers may well be hiding their intentions to vote for Hillary in November. It's a theory that's been floated around for a while now, and I can see it, personally.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 18:20
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:Because the views he espouses are heavily stigmatized by a vast majority of the population. Hillary's policies are about as non-offensive as you can get. There's been a huge push to normalize those very things that were stigmatized in the past, though. If anything, this election will have less of what you're talking about because they've all come out of the woodwork
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 18:21
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:Because the views he espouses are heavily stigmatized by a vast majority of the population. Hillary's policies are about as non-offensive as you can get. Julias posted:It doesn't take much to say: "I'm voting for the sane one." Owlofcreamcheese posted:clinton isn't embarrassing to align with. If your minister tells you abortion is murder and we need a justice to overturn roe v wade trump is your only choice even if the whole thing of aligning with him is awkward and you hate him. Clearly none of you are white and live in the south.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 18:22
|
|
|
Telsa Cola posted:If its automated they can suck it up learn to finish on time. I was watching the debate and they could have always finished strongly within the limited time but they just had to get 5 more words in. Besides who are they going to blame if the format gets agreed to and implemented. The clock? Again, you just don't interrupt the loving President of the United States, even if they've gone over their time by five minutes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 18:23
|
|
|
Julias posted:What up, fellow Vermonters The third party candidates (that are likely on your ballot) aren't any better though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 18:24
|
|
|
Star Man posted:Again, you just don't interrupt the loving President of the United States, even if they've gone over their time by five minutes. LOL loving hell. yeah you do. they're not a king, or an emperor, they're a public servant
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 18:41
|
|
|
Also if it's Donald Trump, you absolutely do. Not sure why you wouldn't want to interrupt a king in this day and age either for that matter.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 18:44
|
|
|
Star Man posted:Again, you just don't interrupt the loving President of the United States, even if they've gone over their time by five minutes. Try telling that to Trump when he runs again in 2020 
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 18:44
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:trump is not close to an electoral victory. the popular vote doesn't really matter if you look at it nationwide, you have to look at it state by state in the context of the electoral college and trump's chances are practically nonexistent by now. you have a better chance of being hit by lightning than trump does of winning the presidency What I meant is that he still has a massive amount of voters behind him. It's not like 15% of people think he's a good candidate, from what I understand you have at least 40% of the voting people that will check the box next to his name. that may be "far from electoral victory" but that still means that a huge %age of your population, not just a fringe, is actually endorsing him and what he says. The fact that he hasn't lost at least 50% of the people who would generally vote for the GOP is absolutely insane. Also, the fact that voter turnout with people who don't like him not being thrilled with Hillary could potentially cause quite a surprise
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 18:44
|
|
|
computer parts posted:The third party candidates (that are likely on your ballot) aren't any better though. Yeah, I was going to ask, which third party candidate are you going to vote for, Mrs "I do this for attention and am willing to accept the views of every anti-science nutso in this country" Stein, or Gary "I will usher in Mad Max as a future" Johnson?
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 18:45
|
|
|
Khisanth Magus posted:Yeah, I was going to ask, which third party candidate are you going to vote for, Mrs "I do this for attention and am willing to accept the views of every anti-science nutso in this country" Stein, or Gary "I will usher in Mad Max as a future" Johnson? That's DOCTOR Nutso to you, Sir! 
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 18:51
|
|
|
KingColliwog posted:As a non-american I just read a few "who won the debate" news publications and I was amazed to see that fox news and other right wing news outlets are actually still claiming that he won by a lot. I thought they'd at least be slightly cautious and go for a "slim victory" or whatever since to me his run was abyssimal. You guys are so hosed up and it really is baffling that Trump is still relatively close to a potential victory. Sorry man, I can't account for the actions of my fellow countrymen.  I wasn't expecting that either. That's, like... Pravda-level bad.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 18:53
|
|
|
Steve2911 posted:This whole 'who won' thing is just tiring. No one won. There are no winners in these debates, just as there are no winners when children have temper tantrums. Yeah, this is like if Rob Ford was, instead of being Toronto's mayor, running as the forerunner of one of two major parties for President of the strongest country in the world by GDP and military might. Embarrassing and hilarious, yet also terrifying! (insert that Futurama .gif here of the three chained on the wall alternating between terror and delight) Sad!
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 18:58
|
|
|
Chilichimp posted:Clearly none of you are white and live in the south. I'm white, and had lived down in Florida for 7 years. I know the groups of people you you are talking about, and yeah it can still be embarrassing for people to admit their personal feelings, even if your friends and colleagues around you are openly bigoted, especially in more liberal settings like college campuses. computer parts posted:The third party candidates (that are likely on your ballot) aren't any better though. Sadly true.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 18:58
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:his endorsement of HRC on the heels of the clearly rigged primaries Hi, it's not that I disagree with the overall thrust of your point, but this is loving stupid and so are you if you believe it. The primaries were not rigged, results came out roughly in line with polling, not as many people voted for Bernie, end of story.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 19:12
|
|
|
Quorum posted:Hi, it's not that I disagree with the overall thrust of your point, but this is loving stupid and so are you if you believe it. The primaries were not rigged, results came out roughly in line with polling, not as many people voted for Bernie, end of story. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz resigned out of the shame of running an untarnished party primary.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 19:16
|
|
|
Chilichimp posted:Debbie Wasserman-Schultz resigned out of the shame of running an untarnished party primary. Party establishment showing support for the person who has been a member of their party over the guy who had run independent for his entire career = rigged primary.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 19:18
|
|
|
Chilichimp posted:Debbie Wasserman-Schultz resigned out of the shame of running an untarnished party primary. Party chairs traditionally always resign after the convention when you're moving to a new president.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 19:18
|
|
|
Chilichimp posted:Debbie Wasserman-Schultz resigned out of the shame of running an untarnished party primary. Person who was leaving in a week falls on sword to shut up idiots.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 19:19
|
|
|
Star Man posted:Again, you just don't interrupt the loving President of the United States, even if they've gone over their time by five minutes. You can't be serious. Are you serious?
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 19:23
|
|
|
Star Man posted:Again, you just don't interrupt the loving President of the United States, even if they've gone over their time by five minutes. Cool, I disagree with that and neither of the people taking part in the debate are the president. And any fighting with moderators over it is going to come off as petty to both sides.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 19:27
|
|
|
Quorum posted:Hi, it's not that I disagree with the overall thrust of your point, but this is loving stupid and so are you if you believe it. The primaries were not rigged, results came out roughly in line with polling, not as many people voted for Bernie, end of story. Even though I doubt that Bernie would have won, you're lying to yourself if you don't believe it wasn't rigged. New York was the prime example, where it was biased in Hillary's favor from the get go (You had to he a registered Democrat back in October to vote in that Primary, when most people still didn't know who Bernie was, so the majority of those who could vote were traditional democratic party loyalists), and even then, less than two weeks before the election, the cut back voting hours in districts that were further Bernie leaning, which meant a lot of daily workers who couldn't afford to take the time off for work (the type of people more likely to vote for him) couldn't vote. Lower turnouts favored Hillary Clinton, and we saw similar tactics elsewhere. I believe it was in Arizona where the polling was cut in over half, leading to waits of over two hours to vote, which definitely hurt Bernie. In Massachusetts Bill Clinton violated voting laws and went into one of the voting places during their primary, and held up voters for over two hours, helping her with her slim margin victory in that state. Not to mention the way news media reported delegates and created a bandwagon effect that made people say they would vote for her. And thus is without talking about exit polling irregularities., which I admitting don't know enough about to speak on.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 19:29
|
|
|
People actually think the DNC is rigged? lol if you thought Bernie 'fuckin' Sanders was gonna go anywhere. His fans continue to be as intolerable as Ron Paul's were
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 19:29
|
|
|
trash person posted:People actually think the DNC is rigged? lol if you thought Bernie 'fuckin' Sanders was gonna go anywhere. excellent name/post combo.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 19:33
|
|
|
Julias posted:I believe it was in Arizona where the polling was cut in over half, leading to waits of over two hours to vote, which definitely hurt Bernie. Who do you think controls poll hours and locations in Arizona? Also, less people at polls in Arizona hurt Clinton not Sanders. As for exit polling: viewing the exit polling in the Democratic Primary as proof of an unfair election is no better and honestly worse than poll unskewing in general. It has no basis in fact and depends on hazy reasoning and cherry-picked data. Look, Bernie's more than alright. He did better than most thought he would against Clinton. But he was never going to win because of his limited coalition of support. Sorry.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 19:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 10:22 |
|
|
Julias posted:Even though I doubt that Bernie would have won, you're lying to yourself if you don't believe it wasn't rigged. New York was the prime example, where it was biased in Hillary's favor from the get go (You had to he a registered Democrat back in October to vote in that Primary, when most people still didn't know who Bernie was, so the majority of those who could vote were traditional democratic party loyalists), and even then, less than two weeks before the election, the cut back voting hours in districts that were further Bernie leaning, which meant a lot of daily workers who couldn't afford to take the time off for work (the type of people more likely to vote for him) couldn't vote. The date often cited as the registration deadline in New York isn't entirely accurate; there was an early date for switching registrations (intended to prevent sabotage) and a later one for new registrations. Either way, this doesn't constitute rigging; party nominations are voted upon by party membership. A candidate gaining most of his support from non-party-members is not a rigged primary. quote:Lower turnouts favored Hillary Clinton, and we saw similar tactics elsewhere. I believe it was in Arizona where the polling was cut in over half, leading to waits of over two hours to vote, which definitely hurt Bernie.  quote:In Massachusetts Bill Clinton violated voting laws and went into one of the voting places during their primary, and held up voters for over two hours, helping her with her slim margin victory in that state. The voting margins were not so slim that some gladhanding swung the balance of loving Massachusetts, give me a break. If this is what you're reduced to, from claiming some grand conspiracy to rig an entire party primary, that's pretty pathetic. quote:Not to mention the way news media reported delegates and created a bandwagon effect that made people say they would vote for her. Friend, if you lose because of a bandwagon effects, you already lost. quote:And thus is without talking about exit polling irregularities., which I admitting don't know enough about to speak on. Not posting when you don't know what you're talking about is a good idea. Try researching all of this nonsense in actual detail before taking a position you've already admitted is mostly based on gut feelings.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 19:36
|
|