|
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 May 13 2016 03:00 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2016 02:41 Naracs_Duc wrote:On May 12 2016 18:07 Keniji wrote:On May 12 2016 15:06 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 12 2016 15:04 xDaunt wrote:On May 12 2016 14:52 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 12 2016 14:08 LegalLord wrote:
It is sort of laughable that someone here thinks that if there weren't an alternative to Hillary, that everyone would just vote for Hillary.
If Hillary were a highly favorable choice for millennials, then they wouldn't even look for an alternative to her. Without her rather numerous shortcomings, Sanders would be a non-issue. Shortcomings? At the start of the primaries they tried talking about issues, that lead to 3million more votes and an overwhelming delegate lead. If it wasn't for low voter turn out states and vitriolic attacks Sanders would have no chance at all. The Democrat voter turnout has not been good at all during this primary. It's down like 20% from 2008. And do you expect the new voters in the primary process to be more likely to be Sanders voters or Hillary voters? With the big states going to Hilary and the small states going to Bernie it tells me that they are going to Hilary. 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/ 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. Show nested quote +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
Yeah just ignore the link prooving that claim right above your post that claim is bull
|
On May 13 2016 03:27 Naracs_Duc wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2016 03:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 13 2016 03:07 Naracs_Duc wrote:On May 13 2016 03:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 13 2016 02:41 Naracs_Duc wrote:On May 12 2016 18:07 Keniji wrote:On May 12 2016 15:06 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 12 2016 15:04 xDaunt wrote:On May 12 2016 14:52 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 12 2016 14:08 LegalLord wrote:
It is sort of laughable that someone here thinks that if there weren't an alternative to Hillary, that everyone would just vote for Hillary.
If Hillary were a highly favorable choice for millennials, then they wouldn't even look for an alternative to her. Without her rather numerous shortcomings, Sanders would be a non-issue. Shortcomings? At the start of the primaries they tried talking about issues, that lead to 3million more votes and an overwhelming delegate lead. If it wasn't for low voter turn out states and vitriolic attacks Sanders would have no chance at all. The Democrat voter turnout has not been good at all during this primary. It's down like 20% from 2008. And do you expect the new voters in the primary process to be more likely to be Sanders voters or Hillary voters? With the big states going to Hilary and the small states going to Bernie it tells me that they are going to Hilary. 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/ 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 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). 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?
Not confused, just saying it's not as misleading as Politifact wants you to believe.
On May 13 2016 03:35 Jaaaaasper wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2016 03:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 13 2016 02:41 Naracs_Duc wrote:On May 12 2016 18:07 Keniji wrote:On May 12 2016 15:06 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 12 2016 15:04 xDaunt wrote:On May 12 2016 14:52 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 12 2016 14:08 LegalLord wrote:
It is sort of laughable that someone here thinks that if there weren't an alternative to Hillary, that everyone would just vote for Hillary.
If Hillary were a highly favorable choice for millennials, then they wouldn't even look for an alternative to her. Without her rather numerous shortcomings, Sanders would be a non-issue. Shortcomings? At the start of the primaries they tried talking about issues, that lead to 3million more votes and an overwhelming delegate lead. If it wasn't for low voter turn out states and vitriolic attacks Sanders would have no chance at all. The Democrat voter turnout has not been good at all during this primary. It's down like 20% from 2008. And do you expect the new voters in the primary process to be more likely to be Sanders voters or Hillary voters? With the big states going to Hilary and the small states going to Bernie it tells me that they are going to Hilary. 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/ 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 Yeah just ignore the link prooving that claim right above your post that claim is bull
That's actually where I got the information. What did I say that wasn't true?
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
I'm about 90% sure the two top candidates for Trump's VP slot are Gingrich and Ryan. Conservatives have a preference?
|
Yeah, so the second table shows that for each state that experienced high turnout relative to that state's history, Sanders won. (BTW, it's not most of them, it's each and every one of them.)
It makes me see PolitiFact differently when, armed with that knowledge, they rate the claim "mostly false".
|
Ryan won't take it. My money is on Gingrich, or a senator. But most likely Gingrich. He's been a loyal shill for some time now, and they are a perfect match.
And a conservative that accepts the offer doesn't elevate Trump in my eyes, it just brings their own reputation down. So I have no preference.
|
On May 13 2016 03:50 Djabanete wrote:
Yeah, so the second table shows that for each state that experienced high turnout relative to that state's history, Sanders won. (BTW, it's not most of them, it's each and every one of them.)
It makes me see PolitiFact differently when, armed with that knowledge, they rate the claim "mostly false".
Do you have anything to actually refute their explanation for that table or are you just going to make a frivolous claim about their credibility when they already gave an explanation for the reasoning? I'm not saying you have to agree with it, but you should at least provide a reason why you don't.
|
On May 13 2016 03:57 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2016 03:50 Djabanete wrote:
Yeah, so the second table shows that for each state that experienced high turnout relative to that state's history, Sanders won. (BTW, it's not most of them, it's each and every one of them.)
It makes me see PolitiFact differently when, armed with that knowledge, they rate the claim "mostly false". Do you have anything to actually refute their explanation for that table or are you just going to make a frivolous claim about their credibility when they already gave an explanation for the reasoning? I'm not saying you have to agree with it, but you should at least provide a reason why you don't.
Well if they wanted to paint an accurate picture they would have shown 2004 primaries, as that's what would be typical before a record shattering turnout in 08 anyway, to start.
It's quite obvious it should have gotten "half true" at worst, I mean that's what they gave for Hillary saying:
"I waited until (the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement) had actually been negotiated" before deciding whether to endorse it. When she called it the "gold standard" (sounds like an endorsement to me).
If Bernie can say he wins when turnout is high then wins every state with a increase in turnout over 08 and that gets a "mostly false" and Hillary gets "half true" for a complete lie, it's pretty clear what their deal is.
|
Newt Gingrich is wonderful but sadly agèd. I would rather see Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, or Dick Cheney VP than Paul Ryan. But with Gingrich, it'd be weird to have two guys in their 70s on the ticket, which is similar to why Chris Christie wouldn't be great for VP. What I've said all along is Rand Paul would be one of the best picks imaginable.
One thing I was possibly wrong about is I believed Kasich when he said he would never be VP. He might not be totally out. I think Trump tweeted that it was unlikely, rather than impossible, whereas Rubio seems really out.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
lol just lol at these vp choices^
|
On May 13 2016 04:04 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2016 03:57 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On May 13 2016 03:50 Djabanete wrote:
Yeah, so the second table shows that for each state that experienced high turnout relative to that state's history, Sanders won. (BTW, it's not most of them, it's each and every one of them.)
It makes me see PolitiFact differently when, armed with that knowledge, they rate the claim "mostly false". Do you have anything to actually refute their explanation for that table or are you just going to make a frivolous claim about their credibility when they already gave an explanation for the reasoning? I'm not saying you have to agree with it, but you should at least provide a reason why you don't. Well if they wanted to paint an accurate picture they would have shown 2004 primaries, as that's what would be typical before a record shattering turnout in 08 anyway, to start. It's quite obvious it should have gotten "half true" at worst, I mean that's what they gave for Hillary saying: "I waited until (the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement) had actually been negotiated" before deciding whether to endorse it. When she called it the "gold standard" (sounds like an endorsement to me). If Bernie can say he wins when turnout is high then wins every state with a increase in turnout over 08 and that gets a "mostly false" and Hillary gets "half true" for a complete lie, it's pretty clear what their deal is.
He did not win when turnout was high. He's mostly won when turnout is 34% or lower. He only won 5 states with higher than 34% and only 4 with higher than 50% voter turn out.
Hilary won 16 states with above 34% voter turn out.
Hilary wins more when there's more raw voters showing up. Bernie wins more when less voters show up--as can be seen when 11 of his wins are for below 34% voter attendance.
|
Claiming that Bernie Sanders wins when turnout is high because of slightly higher turnout compared to 2008 in caucus competitions is disingenuous. Those competitions still have much lower voter participation than normal primaries. It is more accurate to say that Bernie Sanders wins caucuses or that he has more intense core support that drives more people to caucus events.
|
On May 13 2016 04:05 oBlade wrote:
Newt Gingrich is wonderful but sadly agèd. I would rather see Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, or Dick Cheney VP than Paul Ryan. But with Gingrich, it'd be weird to have two guys in their 70s on the ticket, which is similar to why Chris Christie wouldn't be great for VP. What I've said all along is Rand Paul would be one of the best picks imaginable.
One thing I was possibly wrong about is I believed Kasich when he said he would never be VP. He might not be totally out. I think Trump tweeted that it was unlikely, rather than impossible, whereas Rubio seems really out.
gingrich is lying, hypocritical sack of shit. hes also a fellow alumni, and he is literally so shitty that my alma mater has no mention of him except wikipedia
|
Newt Gingrich is also the master mind behind the current dominance of the house voting alone party lines all the fucking time. He master minded raising the speaker of the house to the level it is at today. Before that, the house and the senate used to fight more than the parties.
And he is also a lying, hypocritical sack of shit.
|
well cant give him all the credit, it was his successor and fellow philanderer dennis hastert who came up with the hastert rule
|
Yes, the GOP, ruining a function government by fucking with the House of Representatives, one broken rule at a time. Serious, the DNC should run on the platform that they would remove the Hastert Rule once they got control of the house. Just cite how functional government was without it.
And require representatives to live in Washington. But one bridge at a time.
|
All the same people liking Bernie memes on FB starting to ride the Jill Stein train. I wonder how many are familiar with her stance on homeopathy and vaccines. Sometimes the green party looks mildly reasonable. Then you give them a few minutes to keep talking and it all comes back to you.
|
On May 13 2016 05:08 Plansix wrote:
Yes, the GOP, ruining a function government by fucking with the House of Representatives, one broken rule at a time. Serious, the DNC should run on the platform that they would remove the Hastert Rule once they got control of the house. Just cite how functional government was without it.
And require representatives to live in Washington. But one bridge at a time.
If you add a requirement for them to live in Washington pay for them to live there as well. Not actually living there can be cheaper, expensive city. You might also prefer to live some place else because of family etc. Simplest would be to offer to pay for standard living and if you want better you pay for the difference. Then freeze salary until that is included in it at a reasonable level.
|
On May 13 2016 05:15 Yurie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2016 05:08 Plansix wrote:
Yes, the GOP, ruining a function government by fucking with the House of Representatives, one broken rule at a time. Serious, the DNC should run on the platform that they would remove the Hastert Rule once they got control of the house. Just cite how functional government was without it.
And require representatives to live in Washington. But one bridge at a time.
If you add a requirement for them to live in Washington pay for them to live there as well. Not actually living there can be cheaper, expensive city. You might also prefer to live some place else because of family etc. Simplest would be to offer to pay for standard living and if you want better you pay for the difference. Then freeze salary until that is included in it at a reasonable level.
What a weird thing to say. I live just outside of DC and I am a poor student. I am pretty sure they can afford to live around DC... Who gives a shit why they want to live somewhere else... they took the job, lol
|
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.
It wasn't saying that in the middle obama primary. They were mostly talking about how Christie could have gotten the nomination easy that year.
|
On May 13 2016 05:19 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2016 05:15 Yurie wrote:On May 13 2016 05:08 Plansix wrote:
Yes, the GOP, ruining a function government by fucking with the House of Representatives, one broken rule at a time. Serious, the DNC should run on the platform that they would remove the Hastert Rule once they got control of the house. Just cite how functional government was without it.
And require representatives to live in Washington. But one bridge at a time.
If you add a requirement for them to live in Washington pay for them to live there as well. Not actually living there can be cheaper, expensive city. You might also prefer to live some place else because of family etc. Simplest would be to offer to pay for standard living and if you want better you pay for the difference. Then freeze salary until that is included in it at a reasonable level. What a weird thing to say. I live just outside of DC and I am a poor student. I am pretty sure they can afford to live around DC... Who gives a shit why they want to live somewhere else... they took the job, lol
I would not assume that and by adding those costs to being a civil servant, it only attracts people that can afford it. AKA, the very wealthy. Or you get politicians who are working on a thin budget, which is generally not a good thing. You don’t want people with that much power worrying about how to pay their mortgage.
|
On May 13 2016 05:26 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2016 05:19 travis wrote:On May 13 2016 05:15 Yurie wrote:On May 13 2016 05:08 Plansix wrote:
Yes, the GOP, ruining a function government by fucking with the House of Representatives, one broken rule at a time. Serious, the DNC should run on the platform that they would remove the Hastert Rule once they got control of the house. Just cite how functional government was without it.
And require representatives to live in Washington. But one bridge at a time.
If you add a requirement for them to live in Washington pay for them to live there as well. Not actually living there can be cheaper, expensive city. You might also prefer to live some place else because of family etc. Simplest would be to offer to pay for standard living and if you want better you pay for the difference. Then freeze salary until that is included in it at a reasonable level. What a weird thing to say. I live just outside of DC and I am a poor student. I am pretty sure they can afford to live around DC... Who gives a shit why they want to live somewhere else... they took the job, lol I would not assume that and by adding those costs to being a civil servant, it only attracts people that can afford it. AKA, the very wealthy. Or you get politicians who are working on a thin budget, which is generally not a good thing. You don’t want people with that much power worrying about how to pay their mortgage.
what would you not assume? you guys are confusing me
dont congressmen make like 175k a year or something? in what way is that not enough money to live in DC?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
