| 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. | ||
|
killa_robot
Canada1884 Posts
On May 12 2016 23:24 Mohdoo wrote: Everyone who supported Zimmerman sinking in their chairs right now lol Can't really blame him for acting like this. I'm sure he's received countless death threats, and if he was at all innocent then that would piss most people off enough to act as obnoxious as he is now. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On May 13 2016 00:28 killa_robot wrote: Can't really blame him for acting like this. I'm sure he's received countless death threats, and if he was at all innocent then that would piss most people off enough to act as obnoxious as he is now. Yes. Even if he was not convicted of a crime, his actions and reckless behavior played a part in someone’s death. The exactly amount of responsibly is open for debate, but the entire conflict could have been avoided. His attempt to profit from selling the gun is repulsive and no amount of death threats changes that. There are plenty of people who receive death threats in this county who are to avoid being a repulsive human. Finally, I respect that the man has legal fees, but there is a legal process to discharge unsecured debt if he is unable to pay it. Plenty of people go through the process all the time. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
| ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
trump trying to outdo bernie | ||
|
Jaaaaasper
United States10225 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
| ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
| ||
|
Jaaaaasper
United States10225 Posts
On May 13 2016 01:32 ticklishmusic wrote: I'm more impressed that Trump dispatched the entire draft class of supposed Republican dream candidates without a coherent economic plan Ehhh he ran against a heavily flawed field. Cruz was almost as anti distasteful for the establishment gop as Trump (if he was the one with a massive lead I bet the gop would have backed Trump), Rubio and Kasich were far too milquetoast, Jeb has the wrong last name and seemed to be going through the motions instead of actually wanting to win, Carson was too crazy, Fiorina was actually a pretty terrible ceo and not a very good candidate, Christie went a bridge too far in his handling of dissent in New Jersey. This year was a best case scenario for Trump. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23293 Posts
On May 13 2016 02:11 Jaaaaasper wrote: Ehhh he ran against a heavily flawed field. Cruz was almost as anti distasteful for the establishment gop as Trump (if he was the one with a massive lead I bet the gop would have backed Trump), Rubio and Kasich were far too milquetoast, Jeb has the wrong last name and seemed to be going through the motions instead of actually wanting to win, Carson was too crazy, Fiorina was actually a pretty terrible ceo and not a very good candidate, Christie went a bridge too far in his handling of dissent in New Jersey. This year was a best case scenario for Trump. Funny, before Trump jumped in pretty sure most of the conservatives here were arguing it was the strongest field of candidates in a long time. | ||
|
Jaaaaasper
United States10225 Posts
| ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
On May 13 2016 02:33 GreenHorizons wrote: Funny, before Trump jumped in pretty sure most of the conservatives here were arguing it was the strongest field of candidates in a long time. Off the top of my head the only person I heard people in this thread speak well about before this cycle was Walker, and he bowed out real quick (probably too quick, he would have done better than Kasich probably). | ||
|
Naracs_Duc
746 Posts
On May 12 2016 18:07 Keniji wrote: Hasn't Sanders won almost all states that had a higher turn-out than 2008? To suggest that a low turnout is good for Sanders is an odd statement. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/apr/19/bernie-s/sanders-largely-base-saying-we-win-when-voter-turn/ | ||
|
Jaaaaasper
United States10225 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23293 Posts
On May 13 2016 02:41 Naracs_Duc wrote: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/apr/19/bernie-s/sanders-largely-base-saying-we-win-when-voter-turn/ Lol I love that they show that Hillary hasn't won ANY contests with increases in turnout over 08. What they are saying is "mostly false" is the "lose when turnout is low" part, not the "win when turnout is high" part. Not your fault though, they wrote it to give off the impression you got, even if it's the wrong one. On May 13 2016 02:53 Jaaaaasper wrote: Not sure how he can claim that when hes still down several million in the popular vote Because he's won every state that had more voters vote than in 08 | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On May 13 2016 02:36 Jaaaaasper wrote: The GOP has said that all 3 post bush primaries. You have to say that you have great candidates, even if you don't believe it, to get yourself and your base fired up, and the base buys it at least at first. And I hope you weren't calling me one of those conservatives. Assuming that Hillary wins and has 8 years as president with out at least one very strong candidate, the democrats will say the same thing. Beyond the usual puffery of saying that they had a good slate of candidates, I don't recall the GOP really going out on a limb and trumpeting the strength of fields in 2008 and 2012. I felt that 2008 was a very bad year, and I specifically recall referring to the 2012 field as John McCain's sloppy seconds. This particular year was very strong. The reason why it appears weak is because Trump is a generational political talent. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
Naracs_Duc
746 Posts
On May 13 2016 03:00 GreenHorizons wrote: Lol I love that they show that Hillary hasn't won ANY contests with increases in turnout over 08. What they are saying is "mostly false" is the "lose when turnout is low" part, not the "win when turnout is high" part. Not your fault though, they wrote it to give off the impression you got, even if it's the wrong one. Because he's won every state that had more voters vote than in 08 Bernie won only 5 states with a voter turn out higher than 34%, Hilary won 16. But if you want to be more selective, Hilary won 6 states that had turnout higher than 50%, while Bernie only won 4. Hilary wins more when the turn out is high, Bernie wins more when the turnout is low. Bernie won elevent states with less than 34% voter attendance, Hilary won only two. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23293 Posts
On May 13 2016 03:07 Naracs_Duc wrote: Bernie won only 5 states with a voter turn out higher than 34%, Hilary won 16. But if you want to be more selective, Hilary won 6 states that had turnout higher than 50%, while Bernie only won 4. Hilary wins more when the turn out is high, Bernie wins more when the turnout is low. Bernie won elevent states with less than 34% voter attendance, Hilary won only two. Except she lost every race where turnout was up. It's clearly an oversimplification, but it's indisputable that where turnout increased, Bernie won. The data your using is silly because it's comparing caucus turnout to GE turnout, so it's not reflective of whether that's a high turnout or low turnout for it's particular process. Hillary won 13 out of 15 of the states with the biggest drop in participation over 08. Bernie won every state with an increase in turnout over 08. Taking that information and saying "we win when turnout is high, we lose when it is low" is a fair statement (albeit an oversimplification). | ||
|
Naracs_Duc
746 Posts
On May 13 2016 03:22 GreenHorizons wrote: Except she lost every race where turnout was up. It's clearly an oversimplification, but it's indisputable that where turnout increased, Bernie won. The data your using is silly because it's comparing caucus turnout to GE turnout, so it's not reflective of whether that's a high turnout or low turnout for it's particular process. Hillary won 13 out of 15 of the states with the biggest drop in participation over 08. Bernie won every state with an increase in turnout over 08. Taking that information and saying "we win when turnout is high, we lose when it is low" is a fair statement (albeit an oversimplification). In the states with slightly better low-voter turn out than 08, Bernie did well In the states with slightly worse high-voter turn out than 08, Hilary won What's there to be confused about? | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Other Games |
|
Afreeca Starleague
Snow vs Sharp
Jaedong vs Mini
Wardi Open
OSC
Sparkling Tuna Cup
Afreeca Starleague
Light vs Speed
Larva vs Soma
PiGosaur Monday
LiuLi Cup
RSL Revival
Maru vs Reynor
Cure vs TriGGeR
The PondCast
RSL Revival
Zoun vs Classic
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
