|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On March 05 2016 05:48 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2016 05:26 Simberto wrote:On March 05 2016 04:09 oBlade wrote:On March 05 2016 03:47 strongwind wrote:On March 05 2016 02:23 kwizach wrote:On March 05 2016 02:10 strongwind wrote:No one said anything about Democrats disliking Obama. If you hadn't noticed, this election cycle is different than Obama's. Democrats have been presented a real choice with Sanders and Clinton, one that shows a more polarizing picture of where this party should go. There is a growing amount of discontent with the status quo even among Democrats. I've said it before and I'll say it again, if you think Clinton and Obama are the same person, you are sorely mistaken. Your original claim was that the Democrats were "just as fractured" as the Republicans. That is factually false. If you take a look at any poll of Democrats about the current candidates, they aren't even close to the polarization and dissatisfaction regarding other candidates than their preferred choice that characterize Republican voters. This article analyzes the numbers, and the latest polls show 79 percent of Democrats this year have said they’d be satisfied with Hillary as nominee - a higher number than for both Obama and Clinton at this point in 2008. That is much higher than the numbers for Trump, Rubio and Cruz among Republican voters. The Democrats are simply not as fractured as the Republicans currently are. Maybe "just as fractured" is the wrong way to state it, because the race on both sides is so different. The problem with analyzing favorability numbers is that the Dems have different problems when it comes to the general. Check out the top 4 winners on that list; none of them ended up winning the election. Sure, Dems can find one candidate favorable, but if they don't turn out to vote, it really doesn't matter. This article points to the underlying issue with the Dems. Obviously if Trump is the nominee, all bets are off as to what will happen come Nov. 8th. I'm just saying Hillary's crowning is not so sure a thing as some might believe. That's an interesting article. It contains an analytical mistake: “It is pretty much universally the case that the party out of power sees higher turnout during its nominating contests, but that is not determinative of general election success,” said Brian Fallon, a spokesman for Mrs. Clinton. “In the last three election cycles in which Democrats controlled the White House, Republicans had higher turnout during the primaries, but Democrats went on to win the popular vote.” What this guy is saying that in 2012, 2000, and 1996, Republican primary turnout was higher than Democratic primary turnout, but the Democrats won the popular vote in the general election. Unfortunately, if we remember, the Democrats didn't actually win the 2000 election, as the popular vote isn't how the election is decided. So it's not a meaningful point. The more appropriate way to look at this is that the USA is building a streak of not electing the same party after a 2-term president. Yes, but i simply can not fathom why anyone would vote for any of the republican clowns, especially for Trump. I am not the biggest fan of Hillary, i am utterly confused why the americans apparently prefer her over the single person with a more european approach to a lot of things, but she is still miles ahead of any of the republicans, who just appear to a group of complete lunatics advocating utterly crazy policies based on either religious zealotry or neoliberal economics clearly favoring only the super rich. And thus, i simply can not believe that any of those people would become the next US president. The last republican presidency was a complete disaster on all fronts (and still got reelected for some reason), and he was only stupid and did not appear as crazy as these maniacs. If any of them get elected, the US completely deserves what they get. I just hope they don't break too much of the rest of the world in the process of their self destruction. I can't imagine voting for any politician running for president in the primaries tbh. I guess a lot mroe young people have that though and that's why millenials don't really vote a lot. The way politics works at the moment (both in Europe and the US) is that it works for the elderly not for the young.
Circular causation - young people don't vote because politicians don't care about young people because young people don't vote...
|
On March 05 2016 05:55 jcarlsoniv wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2016 05:48 RvB wrote:On March 05 2016 05:26 Simberto wrote:On March 05 2016 04:09 oBlade wrote:On March 05 2016 03:47 strongwind wrote:On March 05 2016 02:23 kwizach wrote:On March 05 2016 02:10 strongwind wrote:No one said anything about Democrats disliking Obama. If you hadn't noticed, this election cycle is different than Obama's. Democrats have been presented a real choice with Sanders and Clinton, one that shows a more polarizing picture of where this party should go. There is a growing amount of discontent with the status quo even among Democrats. I've said it before and I'll say it again, if you think Clinton and Obama are the same person, you are sorely mistaken. Your original claim was that the Democrats were "just as fractured" as the Republicans. That is factually false. If you take a look at any poll of Democrats about the current candidates, they aren't even close to the polarization and dissatisfaction regarding other candidates than their preferred choice that characterize Republican voters. This article analyzes the numbers, and the latest polls show 79 percent of Democrats this year have said they’d be satisfied with Hillary as nominee - a higher number than for both Obama and Clinton at this point in 2008. That is much higher than the numbers for Trump, Rubio and Cruz among Republican voters. The Democrats are simply not as fractured as the Republicans currently are. Maybe "just as fractured" is the wrong way to state it, because the race on both sides is so different. The problem with analyzing favorability numbers is that the Dems have different problems when it comes to the general. Check out the top 4 winners on that list; none of them ended up winning the election. Sure, Dems can find one candidate favorable, but if they don't turn out to vote, it really doesn't matter. This article points to the underlying issue with the Dems. Obviously if Trump is the nominee, all bets are off as to what will happen come Nov. 8th. I'm just saying Hillary's crowning is not so sure a thing as some might believe. That's an interesting article. It contains an analytical mistake: “It is pretty much universally the case that the party out of power sees higher turnout during its nominating contests, but that is not determinative of general election success,” said Brian Fallon, a spokesman for Mrs. Clinton. “In the last three election cycles in which Democrats controlled the White House, Republicans had higher turnout during the primaries, but Democrats went on to win the popular vote.” What this guy is saying that in 2012, 2000, and 1996, Republican primary turnout was higher than Democratic primary turnout, but the Democrats won the popular vote in the general election. Unfortunately, if we remember, the Democrats didn't actually win the 2000 election, as the popular vote isn't how the election is decided. So it's not a meaningful point. The more appropriate way to look at this is that the USA is building a streak of not electing the same party after a 2-term president. Yes, but i simply can not fathom why anyone would vote for any of the republican clowns, especially for Trump. I am not the biggest fan of Hillary, i am utterly confused why the americans apparently prefer her over the single person with a more european approach to a lot of things, but she is still miles ahead of any of the republicans, who just appear to a group of complete lunatics advocating utterly crazy policies based on either religious zealotry or neoliberal economics clearly favoring only the super rich. And thus, i simply can not believe that any of those people would become the next US president. The last republican presidency was a complete disaster on all fronts (and still got reelected for some reason), and he was only stupid and did not appear as crazy as these maniacs. If any of them get elected, the US completely deserves what they get. I just hope they don't break too much of the rest of the world in the process of their self destruction. I can't imagine voting for any politician running for president in the primaries tbh. I guess a lot mroe young people have that though and that's why millenials don't really vote a lot. The way politics works at the moment (both in Europe and the US) is that it works for the elderly not for the young. Circular causation - young people don't vote because politicians don't care about young people because young people don't vote...
I mean, Sanders pandering to young voters. Turnout is still LMAO worthy.
|
On March 05 2016 05:56 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2016 05:55 jcarlsoniv wrote:On March 05 2016 05:48 RvB wrote:On March 05 2016 05:26 Simberto wrote:On March 05 2016 04:09 oBlade wrote:On March 05 2016 03:47 strongwind wrote:On March 05 2016 02:23 kwizach wrote:On March 05 2016 02:10 strongwind wrote:No one said anything about Democrats disliking Obama. If you hadn't noticed, this election cycle is different than Obama's. Democrats have been presented a real choice with Sanders and Clinton, one that shows a more polarizing picture of where this party should go. There is a growing amount of discontent with the status quo even among Democrats. I've said it before and I'll say it again, if you think Clinton and Obama are the same person, you are sorely mistaken. Your original claim was that the Democrats were "just as fractured" as the Republicans. That is factually false. If you take a look at any poll of Democrats about the current candidates, they aren't even close to the polarization and dissatisfaction regarding other candidates than their preferred choice that characterize Republican voters. This article analyzes the numbers, and the latest polls show 79 percent of Democrats this year have said they’d be satisfied with Hillary as nominee - a higher number than for both Obama and Clinton at this point in 2008. That is much higher than the numbers for Trump, Rubio and Cruz among Republican voters. The Democrats are simply not as fractured as the Republicans currently are. Maybe "just as fractured" is the wrong way to state it, because the race on both sides is so different. The problem with analyzing favorability numbers is that the Dems have different problems when it comes to the general. Check out the top 4 winners on that list; none of them ended up winning the election. Sure, Dems can find one candidate favorable, but if they don't turn out to vote, it really doesn't matter. This article points to the underlying issue with the Dems. Obviously if Trump is the nominee, all bets are off as to what will happen come Nov. 8th. I'm just saying Hillary's crowning is not so sure a thing as some might believe. That's an interesting article. It contains an analytical mistake: “It is pretty much universally the case that the party out of power sees higher turnout during its nominating contests, but that is not determinative of general election success,” said Brian Fallon, a spokesman for Mrs. Clinton. “In the last three election cycles in which Democrats controlled the White House, Republicans had higher turnout during the primaries, but Democrats went on to win the popular vote.” What this guy is saying that in 2012, 2000, and 1996, Republican primary turnout was higher than Democratic primary turnout, but the Democrats won the popular vote in the general election. Unfortunately, if we remember, the Democrats didn't actually win the 2000 election, as the popular vote isn't how the election is decided. So it's not a meaningful point. The more appropriate way to look at this is that the USA is building a streak of not electing the same party after a 2-term president. Yes, but i simply can not fathom why anyone would vote for any of the republican clowns, especially for Trump. I am not the biggest fan of Hillary, i am utterly confused why the americans apparently prefer her over the single person with a more european approach to a lot of things, but she is still miles ahead of any of the republicans, who just appear to a group of complete lunatics advocating utterly crazy policies based on either religious zealotry or neoliberal economics clearly favoring only the super rich. And thus, i simply can not believe that any of those people would become the next US president. The last republican presidency was a complete disaster on all fronts (and still got reelected for some reason), and he was only stupid and did not appear as crazy as these maniacs. If any of them get elected, the US completely deserves what they get. I just hope they don't break too much of the rest of the world in the process of their self destruction. I can't imagine voting for any politician running for president in the primaries tbh. I guess a lot mroe young people have that though and that's why millenials don't really vote a lot. The way politics works at the moment (both in Europe and the US) is that it works for the elderly not for the young. Circular causation - young people don't vote because politicians don't care about young people because young people don't vote... I mean, Sanders pandering to young voters. Turnout is still LMAO worthy.
College students are shitty. Just kinda how it goes.
|
It's not productive. Young people become old people quickly. Old people don't return to being young people.
|
I do kinda find it amazing how Bernie wasn't able to get anywhere near the Obama turnout among young voters, even with the packed rallies. Not sure where the disconnect is.
|
On March 05 2016 06:05 strongwind wrote:
I do kinda find it amazing how Bernie wasn't able to get anywhere near the Obama turnout among young voters, even with the packed rallies. Not sure where the disconnect is.
Obama was allowed on TV.
|
Obama did not have the ongoing tire fire that is the Republican race to compete for screen time.
|
On March 05 2016 06:05 strongwind wrote:
I do kinda find it amazing how Bernie wasn't able to get anywhere near the Obama turnout among young voters, even with the packed rallies. Not sure where the disconnect is.
I was zero percent convinced by Bernie, I was 100% convinced by Obama. I was younger, but Bernie just kinda sucked tbh. Not a great speaker, not even slightly realistic, not very articulate. Great memes, terrible messenger.
Closing guantanamo, out of Iraq, healthcare were all doable things. Taking the house and senate at the same time as winning an election under a socialist flag is just the most absurd god damn thing ever. I am so amazed that people buy into it.
|
On March 05 2016 06:11 Plansix wrote:
Obama did not have the ongoing tire fire that is the Republican race to compete for screen time.
Actually yeah, that makes a lot of sense. I wonder how Obama would fair against the Orange One.
|
On March 05 2016 06:01 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2016 05:56 wei2coolman wrote:On March 05 2016 05:55 jcarlsoniv wrote:On March 05 2016 05:48 RvB wrote:On March 05 2016 05:26 Simberto wrote:On March 05 2016 04:09 oBlade wrote:On March 05 2016 03:47 strongwind wrote:On March 05 2016 02:23 kwizach wrote:On March 05 2016 02:10 strongwind wrote:No one said anything about Democrats disliking Obama. If you hadn't noticed, this election cycle is different than Obama's. Democrats have been presented a real choice with Sanders and Clinton, one that shows a more polarizing picture of where this party should go. There is a growing amount of discontent with the status quo even among Democrats. I've said it before and I'll say it again, if you think Clinton and Obama are the same person, you are sorely mistaken. Your original claim was that the Democrats were "just as fractured" as the Republicans. That is factually false. If you take a look at any poll of Democrats about the current candidates, they aren't even close to the polarization and dissatisfaction regarding other candidates than their preferred choice that characterize Republican voters. This article analyzes the numbers, and the latest polls show 79 percent of Democrats this year have said they’d be satisfied with Hillary as nominee - a higher number than for both Obama and Clinton at this point in 2008. That is much higher than the numbers for Trump, Rubio and Cruz among Republican voters. The Democrats are simply not as fractured as the Republicans currently are. Maybe "just as fractured" is the wrong way to state it, because the race on both sides is so different. The problem with analyzing favorability numbers is that the Dems have different problems when it comes to the general. Check out the top 4 winners on that list; none of them ended up winning the election. Sure, Dems can find one candidate favorable, but if they don't turn out to vote, it really doesn't matter. This article points to the underlying issue with the Dems. Obviously if Trump is the nominee, all bets are off as to what will happen come Nov. 8th. I'm just saying Hillary's crowning is not so sure a thing as some might believe. That's an interesting article. It contains an analytical mistake: “It is pretty much universally the case that the party out of power sees higher turnout during its nominating contests, but that is not determinative of general election success,” said Brian Fallon, a spokesman for Mrs. Clinton. “In the last three election cycles in which Democrats controlled the White House, Republicans had higher turnout during the primaries, but Democrats went on to win the popular vote.” What this guy is saying that in 2012, 2000, and 1996, Republican primary turnout was higher than Democratic primary turnout, but the Democrats won the popular vote in the general election. Unfortunately, if we remember, the Democrats didn't actually win the 2000 election, as the popular vote isn't how the election is decided. So it's not a meaningful point. The more appropriate way to look at this is that the USA is building a streak of not electing the same party after a 2-term president. Yes, but i simply can not fathom why anyone would vote for any of the republican clowns, especially for Trump. I am not the biggest fan of Hillary, i am utterly confused why the americans apparently prefer her over the single person with a more european approach to a lot of things, but she is still miles ahead of any of the republicans, who just appear to a group of complete lunatics advocating utterly crazy policies based on either religious zealotry or neoliberal economics clearly favoring only the super rich. And thus, i simply can not believe that any of those people would become the next US president. The last republican presidency was a complete disaster on all fronts (and still got reelected for some reason), and he was only stupid and did not appear as crazy as these maniacs. If any of them get elected, the US completely deserves what they get. I just hope they don't break too much of the rest of the world in the process of their self destruction. I can't imagine voting for any politician running for president in the primaries tbh. I guess a lot mroe young people have that though and that's why millenials don't really vote a lot. The way politics works at the moment (both in Europe and the US) is that it works for the elderly not for the young. Circular causation - young people don't vote because politicians don't care about young people because young people don't vote... I mean, Sanders pandering to young voters. Turnout is still LMAO worthy. College students are shitty. Just kinda how it goes.
Clearly he is the messenger to influence those young minds so when they grow up and actually vote they vote in the true harbinger of the ultra left: Elizabeth Warren 
|
On March 05 2016 06:05 strongwind wrote:
I do kinda find it amazing how Bernie wasn't able to get anywhere near the Obama turnout among young voters, even with the packed rallies. Not sure where the disconnect is.
You mean old white guy doesn't appeal to crazy SJW college types, compared to a younger black candidate?
Hmm... I wonder why...
|
On March 05 2016 06:11 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2016 06:05 strongwind wrote:
I do kinda find it amazing how Bernie wasn't able to get anywhere near the Obama turnout among young voters, even with the packed rallies. Not sure where the disconnect is. I was zero percent convinced by Bernie, I was 100% convinced by Obama. I was younger, but Bernie just kinda sucked tbh. Not a great speaker, not even slightly realistic, not very articulate. Great memes, terrible messenger. Closing guantanamo, out of Iraq, healthcare were all doable things. Taking the house and senate at the same time as winning an election under a socialist flag is just the most absurd god damn thing ever. I am so amazed that people buy into it.
One could argue after seeing Obama fail on one of these doable things (Gitmo) and having ridiculously fierce opposition on another (healthcare) that it would be time for a political revolution. Because a Republican president would all but wipe out a lot of his work (they've all said as much). And we all know how hard it is after 8 years of a Dem presidency to elect another Dem president to office.
|
Guantanamo was one of those things that everyone thought would be easy but then they suddenly realized it would be impossible. I remember him trying to close it and every state in the US saying “do not bring those prisoners to us.”
|
On March 04 2016 14:57 IgnE wrote:
As a Princeton graduate and Harvard-trained lawyer can we dispense with the fiction that Ted Cruz doesn't know how the rules work?
Of course. But we can't dispense with discussing the he perpetuates that fiction knowingly to appeal to the LCD.
[QUOTE]On March 04 2016 23:47 Plansix wrote:
It’s the narrative of American exceptionalism. We were the greatest before(even though we were not) and we could be great again if we just tried harder./QUOTE]
We were the greatest for a few decades after our founding when we were the only democracy of scale on the planet. We were the greatest for a few years after the Civil War when we let black people have rights before taking them away again.
Militarily, we've been the greatest for a damn long time. Unfortunately, greatest only takes you so far.
|
Links to that scene from the News Room where we lead in very little except percentage of the population current in prison and that believe angels are real.
I think we might be the best at every little currently. I haven’t checked.
|
On March 05 2016 06:14 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2016 06:05 strongwind wrote:
I do kinda find it amazing how Bernie wasn't able to get anywhere near the Obama turnout among young voters, even with the packed rallies. Not sure where the disconnect is. You mean old white guy doesn't appeal to crazy SJW college types, compared to a younger black candidate? Hmm... I wonder why...
Wait, why wouldn't SJW college types support a SJW candidate? Or do you really think it's because he's old and white? I would think young voters would be the one demographic that wouldn't care much about those designations. Even the socialist label doesn't turn many of them off. Also the fact that he's got this far has largely been due to young voter participation (check Reddit for example). It just hasn't translated to the polls for some reason.
|
On March 05 2016 06:27 strongwind wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2016 06:14 wei2coolman wrote:On March 05 2016 06:05 strongwind wrote:
I do kinda find it amazing how Bernie wasn't able to get anywhere near the Obama turnout among young voters, even with the packed rallies. Not sure where the disconnect is. You mean old white guy doesn't appeal to crazy SJW college types, compared to a younger black candidate? Hmm... I wonder why... Wait, why wouldn't SJW college types support a SJW candidate? Or do you really think it's because he's old and white? I would think young voters would be the one demographic that wouldn't care much about those designations. Even the socialist label doesn't turn many of them off. Also the fact that he's got this far has largely been due to young voter participation (check Reddit for example). It just hasn't translated to the polls for some reason.
Clearly you don't understand identity politics. Identity > policies.
|
On March 05 2016 06:27 strongwind wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2016 06:14 wei2coolman wrote:On March 05 2016 06:05 strongwind wrote:
I do kinda find it amazing how Bernie wasn't able to get anywhere near the Obama turnout among young voters, even with the packed rallies. Not sure where the disconnect is. You mean old white guy doesn't appeal to crazy SJW college types, compared to a younger black candidate? Hmm... I wonder why... Wait, why wouldn't SJW college types support a SJW candidate? Or do you really think it's because he's old and white? I would think young voters would be the one demographic that wouldn't care much about those designations. Even the socialist label doesn't turn many of them off. Also the fact that he's got this far has largely been due to young voter participation (check Reddit for example). It just hasn't translated to the polls for some reason.
Yes SJWs are racist.
|
|
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On March 05 2016 06:28 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2016 06:27 strongwind wrote:On March 05 2016 06:14 wei2coolman wrote:On March 05 2016 06:05 strongwind wrote:
I do kinda find it amazing how Bernie wasn't able to get anywhere near the Obama turnout among young voters, even with the packed rallies. Not sure where the disconnect is. You mean old white guy doesn't appeal to crazy SJW college types, compared to a younger black candidate? Hmm... I wonder why... Wait, why wouldn't SJW college types support a SJW candidate? Or do you really think it's because he's old and white? I would think young voters would be the one demographic that wouldn't care much about those designations. Even the socialist label doesn't turn many of them off. Also the fact that he's got this far has largely been due to young voter participation (check Reddit for example). It just hasn't translated to the polls for some reason. Clearly you don't understand identity politics. Identity > policies.
Sadly I do have SJW/uber-PC friends who don't want to vote in Bernie because he's an old white male.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
