| 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. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15736 Posts
On April 27 2016 11:09 kwizach wrote: Hillary pulls ahead in Connecticut! The NY Times' live model currently has her winning by three points. Wait, what? That would be enormous. 2/5 was expected, so going 1/4 would be brutal. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On April 27 2016 11:04 Introvert wrote: I just don't know what that means. Getting the party to rally around him is one thing, but getting people's votes is another. I wonder if Trump is really scary enough that Dems will show up just to vote against. Edit: I think you are right about the party, maybe. Trump can't self fund the general and so far donors are reluctant. I don't think that voting against someone is enough of a motivation to drive turnout. People need something to vote for. | ||
|
ragz_gt
9172 Posts
| ||
|
Introvert
United States4896 Posts
On April 27 2016 11:11 xDaunt wrote: I don't think that voting against someone is enough of a motivation to drive turnout. People need something to vote for. That's true most of the time. And by that token Trump doesn't do anything for a lot of GOP voters. I am very curious to see how this turns out. There is research for years that's going to come out of this election. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On April 27 2016 11:14 ragz_gt wrote: Trump really isn't that scary. He might be in fact more scary to Reps than Dems. Cruz OTOH scares the bejeesus out of me. Frankly, if Dems really want to troll the fuck out of the Republican Party, they should vote for Trump this fall and see that he wins the presidency. A Trump victory will destroy conservatism as we know it. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15736 Posts
| ||
|
Introvert
United States4896 Posts
| ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
On April 27 2016 11:10 GreenHorizons wrote: Thought so. You can't name a single politician using Citizens United, superPAC's and undisclosed donations and not being influenced by it's ______ influence other than Hillary. Nebuchad was right. Your semantic games were just that, games. Please, you can't answer your own question with regards to whose views actually been influenced.  Sorry for exposing your loaded question for the phony line of attack that it is (you don't even seem to understand the difference between what SuperPACs and 501(c)(4)s can do, given your framing of the question about politicians using undisclosed donations, making it impossible to answer by anyone familiar with the issue). Like I've said, I am disgusted by the effects of Citizens United on campaign finance. I agree that corruption can and does happen, and I agree that donations can have an impact on how some officials vote. I think "innocent until proven guilty" is an important principle, however, and the most important issue for me with Citizens United is the rise of SuperPACs and the ability of 501(c)(4)s to play a role in elections thanks to undisclosed donations. The problem is therefore far from limited to individual cases of corruption. If it's names you want, look at the entire current roster of Senate Democrats, for example. I have yet to see evidence that they have changed their views due to campaign contributions or the actions of SuperPACs or 501(c)(4)s. I haven't looked into it much, though, so if you have evidence of the contrary, do bring it up.Clinton widening the gap in CT! On April 27 2016 11:11 Mohdoo wrote: Wait, what? That would be enormous. 2/5 was expected, so going 1/4 would be brutal. I mean, it doesn't even make a difference given the fact that Sanders wouldn't have been able to close the gap in pledged delegates with Clinton even if she had been unviable in CT. But to see Sanders not even able to win it should send a clear signal to the people who thought he still had a shot. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15736 Posts
| ||
|
BallinWitStalin
1177 Posts
On April 27 2016 11:11 xDaunt wrote: I don't think that voting against someone is enough of a motivation to drive turnout. People need something to vote for. While I am inclined to agree with you in general on this principle, I don't think America has ever seen anyone like Trump run before. I genuinely think that's it's difficult to make predictions about voter turnout, based on that. It's too much of an unknown, and there's no previous experiences to really base expectations on that are (roughly) analogous. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On April 27 2016 11:33 BallinWitStalin wrote: While I am inclined to agree with you in general on this principle, I don't think America has ever seen anyone like Trump run before. I genuinely think that's it's difficult to make predictions about voter turnout, based on that. It's too much of an unknown, and there's no previous experiences to really base expectations on that are (roughly) analogous. People said a lot of the same shit about Reagan. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23639 Posts
On April 27 2016 11:27 kwizach wrote: Please, you can't answer your own question with regards to whose views actually been influenced. Sorry for exposing your loaded question for the phony line of attack that it is (you don't even seem to understand the difference between what SuperPACs and 501(c)(4)s can do, given your framing of the question about politicians using undisclosed donations, making it impossible to answer by anyone familiar with the issue). Like I've said, I am disgusted by the effects of Citizens United on campaign finance. I agree that corruption can and does happen, and I agree that donations can have an impact on how some officials vote. I think "innocent until proven guilty" is an important principle, however, and the most important issue for me with Citizens United is the rise of SuperPACs and the ability of 501(c)(4)s to play a role in elections thanks to undisclosed donations. The problem is therefore far from limited to individual cases of corruption. If it's names you want, look at the entire current roster of Senate Democrats, for example. I have yet to see evidence that they have changed their views due to campaign contributions or the actions of SuperPACs or 501(c)(4)s. If you have evidence of the contrary, do bring it up.Clinton widening the gap in CT! Play on playa, play on. I'll be plugging along, holding out for California, or the FBI, or Trump, to derail Hillary but if not, best of luck with that. Trump v Clinton may be one of the worst matchups for the country imo but I'll be damned if it's not going to sell tickets. Trump comes out hard at the end. "All Hillary's got is the woman card. If she was a man I don't think she would get 5% of the vote. The beautiful thing is women don't like her". | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
On April 27 2016 11:29 Mohdoo wrote: I can't believe Hilldawg might win CT. I'm not gonna hope, because Bernie the Disney Princess dream needs to be kept alive, just kinda because. But holy crap. The AP, ABC and NBC News have called CT for Hillary! Great night overall for her. It's more than time to rally around her against Trump, who's pivoting towards general election mode.edit: and now CNN called it for Hillary as well! | ||
|
radscorpion9
Canada2252 Posts
HILLDAWG FOR PRESIDENT | ||
Kipsate
Netherlands45349 Posts
Cruz says scary shit and I'm pretty sure he believes in that shit as well. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15736 Posts
On April 27 2016 11:46 radscorpion9 wrote: Is hilldawg really her nickname? I've never heard that before that's hilarious ! HILLDAWG FOR PRESIDENT No, it's mainly me being a fucking idiot. I love referring to Clinton in the most almost-hip ways possible. GH, what do you think Bernie's road to the nomination looks like now? | ||
|
ZeaL.
United States5955 Posts
On April 27 2016 12:06 Mohdoo wrote: No, it's mainly me being a fucking idiot. I love referring to Clinton in the most almost-hip ways possible. GH, what do you think Bernie's road to the nomination looks like now? Road to victory is to keep on in case of emails just like how Hillary kept going in '08 in case of assassination attempt. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23639 Posts
On April 27 2016 12:06 Mohdoo wrote: No, it's mainly me being a fucking idiot. I love referring to Clinton in the most almost-hip ways possible. GH, what do you think Bernie's road to the nomination looks like now? Well he's going to win more contests and delegates, those delegates are going to the convention, and they are going to help shape the platform regardless of how the race ends up. As for a path forward: I'll/he'll be plugging along, holding out for California, or the FBI, or Trump, to derail Hillary. Maybe his supporters try to talk him into an independent run, but as the deadlines go, he may have to make moves before the convention (not sure which states deadlines come before the convention that he would need in a general) so that may not be entirely viable. I'd support forcing the electoral college to decide/punt on it to expose why this game was rigged from the beginning, long before this election started. But I'm a "radical" not really a Democrat if this is what the party wants representing them. Bernie, contrary to common wisdom, is not that "radical". | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
On April 27 2016 12:06 Mohdoo wrote: No, it's mainly me being a fucking idiot. I love referring to Clinton in the most almost-hip ways possible. GH, what do you think Bernie's road to the nomination looks like now? The Sanders campaign has essentially just conceded the race to the nomination. See here. They're basically saying they will focus solely on the issues, and on getting delegates to influence the Democratic platform at the convention -- no mention of trying to actually get the nomination itself. I wish they had come to that conclusion sooner, because it has been a foregone conclusion for quite some time now and I'm sure his unjustified personal attacks of the last few weeks against Hillary will be (and they already are) used by Republicans in the general election. Still, it's a more than welcome development, and I look forward to seeing unity on the Democratic side. We'll have to wait until tomorrow to see how/whether he mentions Hillary in his next speeches, but I'm optimistic. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
Anyways looks like I won a bet? Busy for work but I'll come up with some questions in the nest couple days I look forward to a more constructive Bernie spreading the message and pushing downballot rather than throwing whatever might stick to try and win the nomination. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Heroes of the Storm Other Games |
|
Escore
LiuLi Cup
Serral vs Zoun
Cure vs Classic
Big Brain Bouts
ByuN vs GgMaChine
Serral vs Jumy
RSL Revival
RSL Revival
LiuLi Cup
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
RSL Revival
Replay Cast
Sparkling Tuna Cup
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
