EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 3452
| Forum Index > Closed |
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. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
By a margin of 2-to-1, American voters say the Senate should consider the nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court, according to the results of a national Quinnipiac University survey released Thursday. More than six in 10 of the registered voters surveyed nationwide — 62 percent — said the Senate should consider the nomination of Garland, the current chief judge of the D.C. Circuit court. On the other hand, just one in three, or 33 percent, responded that the Senate should not consider any nominee until a new president is in the White House. President Barack Obama tapped Garland on March 16 to fill the vacancy created by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia — leaving ample time, the president’s allies argue, for senators to fully consider his record. Among Republicans, the results are reversed — 62 percent said the Senate should not consider any presidential nominees until 2017, and 33 percent said senators should consider Garland. Among all other demographic and ideological lines, however, there are varying levels of majority support for Garland’s consideration. Public sentiment in polls has generally favored the Senate considering a nominee. A CBS News/New York Times poll released Tuesday, for example, suggested that 53 percent of Americans surveyed would like the Senate to vote on Garland’s nomination, a step further than the mere consideration posed in the latest survey. Slightly less than half of all respondents — 48 percent — said they approved of Garland's nomination, with 27 percent disapproving and 25 percent who were not sure. Senate Republican leaders vow they will not move forward with Garland’s nomination or that of any court nominee — regardless of ideology or record on the bench — as a matter of principle. Democrats accuse their GOP colleagues of playing politics with the process. Source | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
Tay, Microsoft's AI chatbot, gets a crash course in racism from Twitter Microsoft’s attempt at engaging millennials with artificial intelligence has backfired hours into its launch, with waggish Twitter users teaching its chatbot how to be racist. The company launched a verified Twitter account for “Tay” – billed as its “AI fam from the internet that’s got zero chill” – early on Wednesday. The chatbot, targeted at 18- to 24-year-olds in the US, was developed by Microsoft’s technology and research and Bing teams to “experiment with and conduct research on conversational understanding”. “Tay is designed to engage and entertain people where they connect with each other online through casual and playful conversation,” Microsoft said. “The more you chat with Tay the smarter she gets.” But it appeared on Thursday that Tay’s conversation extended to racist, inflammatory and political statements. Her Twitter conversations have so far reinforced the so-called Godwin’s law – that as an online discussion goes on, the probability of a comparison involving the Nazis or Hitler approaches – with Tay having been encouraged to repeat variations on “Hitler was right” as well as “9/11 was an inside job”. One Twitter user has also spent time teaching Tay about Donald Trump’s immigration plans. Source | ||
|
nojok
France15845 Posts
On March 25 2016 05:37 Mohdoo wrote: http://www.anonews.co/hillary-clintons-election-fraud-exposed/ Completely insane. GOP governor cut funding for polling sites? FUCKING SHILLARY!! The shit I have to look at being liked on Facebook. holy cow. For those of you annoyed by Bernie stuff on FB, be glad you're not from the pacific northwest. It's complete chaos over here. Is this site reliable? That is terrible if the voting happened like this. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15728 Posts
On March 25 2016 05:49 nojok wrote: Is this site reliable? That is terrible if the voting happened like this. 0.000% reliable. It is "anonymous" news. Check how many times that article was shared :'( | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
On March 25 2016 04:00 BallinWitStalin wrote: Man, Republicans just don't get this whole Trump thing. How could they think it's a good idea to run an add featuring his naked (super-hot) wife, and expect it to hurt him? Anyone who already supports Trump would absolutely not give a flying fuck that his wife posed nude. I would assume they basically would expect it.... Notice Trump's childlike revenge attempt on Twitter. So in fact the ad did demonstrate that part of trump once again, and he was just lashing out not even at the right people lol. Doesn't seem too hard to trigger trump's toddler side. Trump also showed his views of women once again. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12379 Posts
| ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
On March 25 2016 05:57 Nebuchad wrote: I mean it's certainly not Hillary's doing but I'm sure you can see the argument that there is something wrong there and that whether something can be done about it should be considered. I don't know that there is a rule for when people attempt to vote and can't because the system is fucked up, because usually people are smart enough not to have a fucked up system, but if it concerns so many people I'm not sure why you're fine with leaving it at that and mocking Bernie supporters. Nobody is mocking Bernie supporters for rightfully criticizing the terrible organization and the lack of polling places. Hillary supporters are voicing the same criticism. Instead, people are mocking those Bernie supporters who are claiming it is a conspiracy by Hillary in order to prevent people from voting for Sanders, because that it is an utterly idiotic and demonstrably false accusation (especially since minority voters, who go for Hillary much more so than for Sanders, were probably hurt the most). | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12379 Posts
On March 25 2016 06:00 kwizach wrote: Hillary supporters are voicing the same criticism. That has not been my experience. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
So you were not hear this morning when we were taking the piss out of the GOP for their shit decisions? | ||
|
jcarlsoniv
United States27922 Posts
That's fine, but denying it's the case is as false as Clinton supporters generalizing all Bernie supporters as conspiritards. Some Hillary supporters are not voicing the same criticism, but many are. Some Bernie supporters think the Clinton campaign orchestrated the AZ shindig, but many don't. | ||
The_Templar
your Country52797 Posts
On March 25 2016 06:04 Plansix wrote: So you were not hear this morning when we were taking the piss out of the GOP for their shit decisions? Which major news sources have been talking about it? I haven't seen anything huge about it yet, I think it's a big deal. :\ | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12379 Posts
On March 25 2016 06:04 Plansix wrote: So you were not hear this morning when we were taking the piss out of the GOP for their shit decisions? No, I wasn't. On March 25 2016 06:07 oneofthem wrote: i called it obvious gop voter suppression of new or less involved voters who are likely to be hispanic given demographic trends. it is a serious scandal but it doesnt benefit hillary. Lol? | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
What am I supposed to reply to that? Your experience doesn't change what the facts are. The Democratic party, and plenty of the people supporting Hillary, have been fighting against Republican efforts to make it harder to vote in several states for years, and denounced the lines in AZ as yet another evidence of the kind of voter suppression that the GOP has been engaged in. The issue is even part of Hillary's platform, and one member of her campaign team was arguing for protecting minority voting rights in front of the Supreme Court the day before the AZ vote. What is supposed to be funny about what he said? | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
how does this help hillary? the gop is planning for the general election | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12379 Posts
| ||
|
The_Templar
your Country52797 Posts
edit: clarified | ||
|
Naracs_Duc
746 Posts
On March 25 2016 05:22 cLutZ wrote: They could, you know, stop treating AC as a piggybank for the local governments and Trenton. That would be a good start. I always assumed you cut spending when in debt, and increase spending when in surplus. But I'm not an economist so take that with a grain of salt. | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
On March 25 2016 06:14 Nebuchad wrote: Well no of course if you don't believe it affects Bernie more than Hillary you wouldn't have much to answer there. Your position is coherent if you make that ridiculous assumption. Your post was "That has not been my experience". There's nothing to reply to that. It's not an argument, and it contains no factual information whatsoever except a statement as to what your experience has not been, without even specifying what "your experience" refers to. So I replied to you by pointing out that the Democratic party, Hillary Clinton and progressives have for years fought back against voter suppression by the GOP, and shared the criticism about the long lines voiced by supporters of Sanders. As to whom it affected more, I've read that many poor and predominantly Latino areas didn’t get a polling place, and Latinos have been voting for Hillary more than Sanders. I can't know for sure which candidate lost the most votes because of it, but that's why all I said was that "minority voters [...] were probably hurt the most". Feel free to explain to me why that is a "ridiculous assumption". | ||
| ||
