EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 5030
| 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. | ||
|
Slaughter
United States20254 Posts
| ||
|
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
On September 19 2016 06:10 ticklishmusic wrote: On the national stage, but Cruz could be a senator forever if he wants. He can be a senator forever, but he's so wildly hated by colleagues on both sides of the aisle that he'll never get anything done. Which seems to be what his ideology calls for, anyways. On September 19 2016 07:16 FiWiFaKi wrote: I thought it wouldn't have as well, but he did get a (imo) ridiculous large percentage of the Republican vote. Not sure how much of that was anti-Trump and how much was them liking him though. If it were just anti-Trump kasich was still in the race and the better candidate to actually win of the three | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
Which is hard to do because he has like no presence whatsoever. | ||
|
FiWiFaKi
Canada9859 Posts
On September 19 2016 07:32 LegalLord wrote: Kasich is only ok until you actually listen to what he has to say. Which is hard to do because he has like no presence whatsoever. Yeah, for the first couple weeks I was a guy rooting for Kasich even though I expected Trump to take the primary... And then the more I listened, bleh. He was the only one of the four than accepted global warming due to human causes though, that was the gg no re play. | ||
|
Dan HH
Romania9137 Posts
On September 19 2016 06:43 FiWiFaKi wrote: Yeah, a lot of polls don't do a good job splitting it by demographics as well as I'd like, I suppose that's natural, your margin of error will be huge when you only sample 1000 people, and you take a subgroup of 20-50 people from that. Also I dislike how the polls say our margin of error is x, and we're completely not basing that off of our methodology, but only number of people we sampled, makes it feel like these people took first year stats and that's it. That's another conversation though. Second thing I wanted to point out is that looking at the raw number is a bit misleading right now in most polls, as until recently (http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/national-polls/#plus), most polls have had only 80% of people give an answer between Trump and Hillary, and I have no doubt that come election day that'll be 95%, so multiply any of those gaps almost 20%~ assuming that their demographics and national differential remain the same. Feel free to link me a couple recent polls, that said, it's very unlikely you'll convince me otherwise with some indisputable evidence, as I've been looking at most polls methodologies as they've been coming out (I've been slacking a bit recently). Mitt Romney won the white vote 59-39, and I fully expect Trump to be in the same ballpark, realistically even better relative to Clinton, like he will get 59, but the 3rd party candidates will take a few percent off of Hillary. And then he will do marginally better with Latinos and Asians, about the same with Blacks (or a couple percent lower)... And we will see if those differences are enough to make up those 4 points with Hillary's unpopularity. I agree that it's likely Johnson will get less than the 8% he's polling at, but if there's any election where the two main US candidates don't get 95% of the vote, it's this one. I don't recall the last time people were this unhappy with the nominees. As for Romney-Obama, there's two main differences here. First, Obama won 80% of the non-white vote, where Clinton is polling at 66%. Fox, QU. By comparison, look at the Fox poll from this timeframe last election (12 sept 2012) where Obama was polling at 77% with the non-white voters. The second big difference is that in 2008 and 2012 the black turnout was unusually high for the obvious reason which is not repeating this year. Given that not only will Hillary undoubtedly get a lower percentage of the non-white vote (especially latino & asian) and that a lower percentage of blacks will vote, I just don't see how Trump could lose if he were to win the white vote by +20. | ||
|
biology]major
United States2253 Posts
| ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On September 19 2016 06:56 FiWiFaKi wrote: Good guy Pence, what a VP pick lol. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-donald-trump-hillary-clinton-guns-20160918-story.html "Well I think, you know, Donald Trump believes in the safety and security of every American, and any suggestion otherwise regarding Secretary Clinton is just nonsense," Pence said. "I mean, the point that he was making is that Hillary Clinton has had private security now in her life for the last 30 years, but she would deny the right of law-abiding citizens to have a firearm in their home to protect their own families. I think what Donald Trump was saying is that if Hillary Clinton didn't have all that security, she'd probably be a whole lot more supportive of the Second Amendment." Glorious. | ||
|
oBlade
United States5768 Posts
On September 19 2016 07:38 biology]major wrote: Pence is not only a vice presidential candidate but one of the best translators known to mankind. Truly a great pick, and I'm sorry to have ever doubted him. He seems to have a bottomless reservoir of patience not to be baited from the CNN clips I've seen. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
| ||
|
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
Luckily for Trump, people actually believe in Astrology. | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
| ||
|
biology]major
United States2253 Posts
On September 19 2016 07:44 oBlade wrote: He seems to have a bottomless reservoir of patience not to be baited from the CNN clips I've seen. Patient Pence can handle trump, can handle anything. Was Ben Carson ever in the vp running? He would have been solid too. | ||
|
Godwrath
Spain10132 Posts
On September 19 2016 07:34 FiWiFaKi wrote: Yeah, for the first couple weeks I was a guy rooting for Kasich even though I expected Trump to take the primary... And then the more I listened, bleh. He was the only one of the four than accepted global warming due to human causes though, that was the gg no re play. Yeah well, he said we shouldn't do anything about it anyways, because it's the creator's wish or something like that. So i don't know what's worse. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On September 19 2016 08:21 biology]major wrote: Patient Pence can handle trump, can handle anything. Was Ben Carson ever in the vp running? He would have been solid too. I don't think he was in the serious running for vp, though I don't remember for sure. He's very good at being calm, but I really wouldn't want carson as a vp (or pres). my recollection of the vp prospects is they were focused on someone who was already in politics. | ||
|
oBlade
United States5768 Posts
On September 19 2016 08:21 biology]major wrote: Patient Pence can handle trump, can handle anything. Was Ben Carson ever in the vp running? He would have been solid too. He was leading the VP exploratory committee, which people pointed out Cheney did before becoming a running mate himself. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On September 19 2016 06:05 LegalLord wrote: I am strongly of the opinion that Ted Cruz' speech at the RNC is going to be bad for his career. He's hoping to weather the Trump storm and go back to business as usual for next election cycle. But Trump didn't win for no reason, and the factors that made him popular will still exist next time around. You sound like you're making the argument that the party is going one direction and Cruz is going another. That's really not tied to a speech. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On September 19 2016 05:30 zlefin wrote: that's a decent coverage then; but it doesn't change that science, evidence, and reason can be useful tools for exploring those issues. and that most people of the public will get far has NO bearing on whether they're useful tools. and the point is to not blindly follow; that goes against the ENTIRE point of science. The point is that everything is backed up by piles of evidence and support. so again that point has no bearing. i.e. you said a bunch of reasonable things; they just don't support your initial premise, which was the topic of the dispute. fiwikaki is making a great point: trumpism is political. it reinstates the "us vs. them" that defines politics. the technocratic bureaucratization of the Third Way, which is really just the evolution of the apolitical liberalism post-Kennedy, turned politics into economics. the republicans and democrats became competitors in a kind of economic sense, not enemies (hostis), and so sapped the truly political from politics. the only question was which bureaucrat to pick to regularize our lives for us, hollowing out the concept of the sovereign and replacing it with technocratic administration of biopower. now the right (and the left in the form of bernie sanders) have reinjected the human element into lawmaking and the political element into politics. its not surprising given the american obsession with locke that it leads the world in this technocratic move to efface sovereignty, since as carl schmitt notes it was locke who said that "law gives authority" but did not recognize to whom it gives authority. in this case the authority is now diffused through the executive and his administrative/regulative law making/executing apparatus. look at congress. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On September 19 2016 09:04 IgnE wrote: fiwikaki is making a great point: trumpism is political. it reinstates the "us vs. them" that defines politics. the technocratic bureaucratization of the Third Way, which is really just the evolution of the apolitical liberalism post-Kennedy, turned politics into economics. the republicans and democrats became competitors in a kind of economic sense, not enemies (hostis), and so sapped the truly political from politics. the only question was which bureaucrat to pick to regularize our lives for us, hollowing out the concept of the sovereign and replacing it with technocratic administration of biopower. now the right (and the left in the form of bernie sanders) have reinjected the human element into lawmaking and the political element into politics. its not surprising given the american obsession with locke that it leads the world in this technocratic move to efface sovereignty, since as carl schmitt notes it was locke who said that "law gives authority" but did not recognize to whom it gives authority. in this case the authority is now diffused through the executive and his administrative/regulative law making/executing apparatus. look at congress. this is not really germane to the discussion we were having, at all. So I'm not sure why you're replying to our discussion with it. It's also a bunch of pseudophilosophical nonsense. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On September 19 2016 09:00 Danglars wrote: You sound like you're making the argument that the party is going one direction and Cruz is going another. That's really not tied to a speech. He came to the convention and made one hell of a gambit by pretty much implicitly denouncing the party nominee. He didn't explicitly do it but everyone knows that that's what he meant to do. He does that in the hopes that after Trump loses, the party will return to where it was and he'll be lauded for being one of the brave anti-Trump skeptics. Well it's not going to work like that - Trump won because a lot of the party supports him, and Cruz is going to be seen as a mutineer of the party for the next cycle. So he's going to be, at best, a safe Senator that everyone hates. | ||
|
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson appeared on CNN on Sunday, where he had a conversation about the three violent events that took place over the weekend. Unfortunately, the former New Mexico governor slipped up when he seriously undercounted the amount of people who were harmed. Johnson is still coming off of his “what is Aleppo” gaffe from a few weeks ago, and Stelter asked for his thoughts about the attacks. “[I’m] just grateful that nobody got hurt,” said Johnson. “Secondly, law enforcement is on the scene, responders are on the scene. If there’s anything I learned having been governor of New Mexico for eight years is that these people really do care, they are really qualified.” Twenty-nine people were harmed by the bombing in New York City, while 9 more were stabbed by a knifeman at a mall in Minnesota. It is possible that Johnson meant to say that no one was killed, since neither event resulted in any deaths. Following the interview, Johnson’s campaign website put out a statement expressing sympathy for those who were hurt in the attacks. “Our thoughts are with the those injured in the attacks in New York City and Minnesota,” the press release reads. “Our law enforcement authorities will get to the bottom of these attacks, we will learn, and we will act.” Watch above, via CNN. http://www.mediaite.com/online/gary-johnson-is-glad-nobody-got-hurt-in-nj-ny-mn-attacks/ | ||
| ||
