|
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 November 03 2016 05:50 Rebs wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2016 05:46 IgnE wrote:On November 03 2016 05:34 Rebs wrote:On November 03 2016 05:31 IgnE wrote:On November 03 2016 05:23 Rebs wrote:On November 03 2016 05:20 IgnE wrote:On November 03 2016 05:18 Rebs wrote:On November 03 2016 05:16 IgnE wrote:On November 03 2016 05:08 KwarK wrote:On November 03 2016 05:07 IgnE wrote:
[quote]
hence the coercion . . .
Being coerced by your own moral compass preventing you from standing by and doing nothing when a figure like Drumpf threatens the basic civil rights of immigrants, Muslims, minorities, gays, lesbians, trans people and so forth is not really coercion. It's just being a good person. 1) trump has no chance 2) a coerced choice is not a free choice. you can tell me that voting for clinton is the only moral choice but you can't then tell me it's a free choice I dont follow this.. you're predicating your second point on the idea that by virtue of a choice being moral, it becomes the only choice ? That doesnt seem right. well if you want to be radical about it, there is no such thing as coercion right? even w a gun pointed at my head i can always choose the gun. Actually the only thing thats radical about this is your leap from morality to gun in terms of what determines the choice. I dont see the equivalence here in the argument you are making. equivalence to what? i said "coerced" not a literal gun to the head. because you are so obtuse ill give you a metaphor. if there is only one moral option the choice is coerced by a ghostly gun pointed at your immortal soul. you are only "free" to choose the moral option or choose spiritual death I mean I dont get it still, this is a pretty stupid metaphor, you are saying that an immoral decision will kill your soul/spirit when that really isnt the case. People make immoral decisions more often than they change their pyjamas. I dont see how voting for Drumpf even with the knowledge that the decisions to do so maybe immoral is spiritual death. Anyway lets leave it, I think your reasoning is stupid and we can agree to disagree on it. do you not know what the word coercion means or are you just playing the idiot? Slow down bro, just because i dont agree with your befuddling idea that someone who is making a moral choice is being "coerced" and not just being a normal human being you dont have to occupy some higher intellectual high ground that doesnt exist. Please spare me the "coercion is coercion" and none of us are free bullshit you are peddling. Im out, this discussion is absurd.
please spare me the "coercion is not coercion" nitwit. i only occupy higher intellectual ground because you prefer walking in a ditch
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/zRVhP5g.png)
User was warned for this post
|
On November 03 2016 05:56 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2016 05:51 Mohdoo wrote:
Being only 16% less than the first black president is fucking amazing. I do not expect any president to ever match Obama's black turnout. It would be important to note that 16% is comparing to re-election 2012, not the election of the first black president. Otherwise the word "duh" comes to mind. But if I'm reading these polls accurately, most of them are assuming at least Obama's 2012 electorate, which Hillary doesn't seem to be getting. It's certainly more troublesome than Hillary's camp is letting on.
Is your view that black enthusiasm for Obama declined considerably in 2012? That was not my take on the situation. Lower, yeah, but I am saying no president will grab as much black turnout as Obama did in 2012. Even if 2012 was much lower than 2008, I still don't think anyone will hit what Obama did.
|
On November 03 2016 05:59 zlefin wrote:
I scoff in general at people claiming certainty about the outcome, instead of probabilistic estimates with considerable uncertainty.
People are far too sure of things in general, iirc it's one of those well-documented biases.
When I say Trump is going to win, it translates to "most likely". That much is obvious, no one here is omniscient or is able to time travel. It's boring as hell to be "probabilistic" about every facet of life, take a stab at things sometimes and if your wrong, oh well.
|
You do know North Carolina opted to limit the number of polling sites for the beginning period of early voting. You don't think that might not have something to do with it?
In places that are home to significant African-American populations, like Greensboro’s Guilford County and Winston-Salem’s Forsyth County, Democrats are still smarting from legislative changes that significantly restricted the number of polling sites available for the duration of in-person early voting — a method frequently utilized by minority voters.
Guilford County alone went from 16 polling sites available for the entire early-vote period in 2012 to only one location open for the first week of 2016 — and even that site was not open on the first weekend of early voting.
politico
|
On November 03 2016 06:02 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2016 05:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 03 2016 05:51 Mohdoo wrote:
Being only 16% less than the first black president is fucking amazing. I do not expect any president to ever match Obama's black turnout. It would be important to note that 16% is comparing to re-election 2012, not the election of the first black president. Otherwise the word "duh" comes to mind. But if I'm reading these polls accurately, most of them are assuming at least Obama's 2012 electorate, which Hillary doesn't seem to be getting. It's certainly more troublesome than Hillary's camp is letting on. Is your view that black enthusiasm for Obama declined considerably in 2012? That was not my take on the situation. Lower, yeah, but I am saying no president will grab as much black turnout as Obama did in 2012. Even if 2012 was much lower than 2008, I still don't think anyone will hit what Obama did.
Just saying 2012 isn't the high water mark, so that number would be an even larger drop off if we were comparing to the election of the first black president.
It really wouldn't be that hard, the hard part is getting there without losing white people.
On November 03 2016 06:03 CobaltBlu wrote:You do know North Carolina opted to limit the number of polling sites for the beginning period of early voting. You don't think that might not have something to do with it? Show nested quote +In places that are home to significant African-American populations, like Greensboro’s Guilford County and Winston-Salem’s Forsyth County, Democrats are still smarting from legislative changes that significantly restricted the number of polling sites available for the duration of in-person early voting — a method frequently utilized by minority voters.
Guilford County alone went from 16 polling sites available for the entire early-vote period in 2012 to only one location open for the first week of 2016 — and even that site was not open on the first weekend of early voting.
politico
Voter suppression is most definitely part of it, but so is the obviously lacking enthusiasm.
|
On November 03 2016 06:02 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2016 05:59 zlefin wrote:
I scoff in general at people claiming certainty about the outcome, instead of probabilistic estimates with considerable uncertainty.
People are far too sure of things in general, iirc it's one of those well-documented biases. When I say Trump is going to win, it translates to "most likely". That much is obvious, no one here is omniscient or is able to time travel. It's boring as hell to be "probabilistic" about every facet of life, take a stab at things sometimes and if your wrong, oh well.
I prefer to be more accurate in what I say, and to include appropriate cautions.
Also, it's not that uncommon that people say things feeling a sense of certainty that is unjustified, so I can't tell who's doing what.
|
On November 03 2016 06:03 CobaltBlu wrote:You do know North Carolina opted to limit the number of polling sites for the beginning period of early voting. You don't think that might not have something to do with it? Show nested quote +In places that are home to significant African-American populations, like Greensboro’s Guilford County and Winston-Salem’s Forsyth County, Democrats are still smarting from legislative changes that significantly restricted the number of polling sites available for the duration of in-person early voting — a method frequently utilized by minority voters.
Guilford County alone went from 16 polling sites available for the entire early-vote period in 2012 to only one location open for the first week of 2016 — and even that site was not open on the first weekend of early voting.
politico
How about 2013 when the Supreme Court took a hatchet to the voters rights act and now states can pull all sorts of bullshit like NC an Florida? Since the states no longer had to get the approval of the justice department or federal judge they enacted changes, they can pass any bullshit law they want or shut down voting places and claim it is “due to budget limitations”.
Rule number 1: the South does not play fair when it comes to minority voting. Of course people will blame it entirely on Clinton and not a targeted effort by the Republicans to limit minority voting in those states.
|
there was a poll that showed clinton pulling 28% of republicans who had already voted in FL, though the caveats are (i) given the relatively small sample size there's a large error and (ii) it seems too high to believable. still, the fact a decently conducted poll could show that suggests republican defections are probably quite high.
@kwark - while im not as confident as igne about the election being over, i subscribe to the notion that sampling bias is a major factor for the change in the polls.
|
On November 03 2016 05:57 Kickboxer wrote:
People who have been claiming for weeks Trump has no chance are completely delusional.
The magnitude of the delusion is real. You think 20% of intellectual America is pissed off? Wait till you see 40% of pissed off rednecks and lower-low class.
Most of the things the media keeps announcing would "sink" Trump, especially the whole pussygate affair, hardly made a dent. In fact some of it even helped.
This will be a crazy tight race because people who want Trump to win are on a fucking mission, whereas a major share of those who were supposed to vote for Hillary are jaded or don't give two fucks irl, or will have their hairdresser or cair repair or soft depression or tennis yoga and "forget" to vote.
Sums it up. Want to add the MSM is so discredited at this point, that unless this new rape allegation comes with a tape of Trump comitting the deed while shouting "Make America Great Again", it's gonna get instantly dismissed as a hoax. (I think it's not true, that the timing is just lol, and that it is indeed a hoax, but I'm not making that case here)
|
On November 03 2016 05:44 biology]major wrote:
Stop obsessing over the personality of a man you despise and see the country with the eyes of an average american.
I care very little about his personality. I care about the fact that he's demonstrably unable to hold a sustained discussion about policy for an extended period of time, a total political neophyte who doesn't have any experience or understanding of how Washington works, and taken people who I have no confidence or trust for in as his employees and surrogates.
Hell, even independent of everything else, a candidate who Jeff Sessions, Rudy Giuliani, and Newt Gingrich all fervently support would make me think twice about voting for him. The worst scum of the GOP whose political careers should have been over years ago have had new life breathed into them thanks to Trumpism.
|
On November 03 2016 06:15 ticklishmusic wrote:
there was a poll that showed clinton pulling 28% of republicans who had already voted in FL, though the caveats are (i) given the relatively small sample size there's a large error and (ii) it seems too high to believable. still, the fact a decently conducted poll could show that suggests republican defections are probably quite high.
@kwark - while im not as confident as igne about the election being over, i subscribe to the notion that sampling bias is a major factor for the change in the polls.
Rubio's campaign said it showed similar results to their internal polling. (Also showed Rubio up 6)
|
United States42419 Posts
On November 03 2016 06:21 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2016 05:44 biology]major wrote:
Stop obsessing over the personality of a man you despise and see the country with the eyes of an average american. I care very little about his personality. I care about the fact that he's demonstrably unable to hold a sustained discussion about policy for an extended period of time, a total political neophyte who doesn't have any experience or understanding of how Washington works, and taken people who I have no confidence or trust for in as his employees and surrogates. Hell, even independent of everything else, a candidate who Jeff Sessions, Rudy Giuliani, and Newt Gingrich all fervently support would make me think twice about voting for him. The worst scum of the GOP whose political careers should have been over years ago have had new life breathed into them thanks to Trumpism.
This is a man who when asked which part of the nuclear triad, that being the bombers, the missiles and the submarines, he thought most needed renovation, with the nuclear triad listed in the question as I just phrased it, had no idea what the nuclear triad was and needed Rubio to explain it to him. After bragging about how he knew more about nuclear weapons than the START negotiators.
|
On November 03 2016 06:24 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2016 06:21 TheYango wrote:On November 03 2016 05:44 biology]major wrote:
Stop obsessing over the personality of a man you despise and see the country with the eyes of an average american. I care very little about his personality. I care about the fact that he's demonstrably unable to hold a sustained discussion about policy for an extended period of time, a total political neophyte who doesn't have any experience or understanding of how Washington works, and taken people who I have no confidence or trust for in as his employees and surrogates. Hell, even independent of everything else, a candidate who Jeff Sessions, Rudy Giuliani, and Newt Gingrich all fervently support would make me think twice about voting for him. The worst scum of the GOP whose political careers should have been over years ago have had new life breathed into them thanks to Trumpism. This is a man who when asked which part of the nuclear triad, that being the bombers, the missiles and the submarines, he thought most needed renovation, with the nuclear triad listed in the question as I just phrased it, had no idea what the nuclear triad was and needed Rubio to explain it to him. After bragging about how he knew more about nuclear weapons than the START negotiators.
These are such minor grievances, he has no political experience, he will be fully briefed and it isn't going to be a one time thing either. I hope they devote a group of staffers whose sole purpose is to educate him on political matters, in fact I expect that, even beyond the usual security briefings.
|
Not surprised at all by the huge drop in black turnout.
The enthusiasm just isnt there for Clinton and not just because Clinton isnt black although that does play a small part.Not only will black turnout be far lower than 2012 Clinton will also secure a smaller percentage than Obama did.
|
On November 03 2016 05:45 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2016 05:43 zeo wrote:On November 03 2016 05:33 pmh wrote:
Trump is going to win,its a done deal. The salt will be real on this forum in 2 weeks. Yeah, its pretty obvious with the rats in the polling industry jumping ship en-mass this close to the election. They can't bullshit the numbers anymore. Ban bet? If Trump wins I take 2 weeks. If Clinton wins, you take a month? :p
I would take this bet,though in all fairness it would only be a very small sacrifice to make for me.
It seems unbelievable that trump will win but I do notice a shift in the past few days. The media are giving the emails a bit more attention again and I didn't see anything negative about trump,at least nothing new and extraordinary. Trump has the advantage,his image can not possibly get worse. The media put him down all the way already, it can only get better. Clinton on the other hand,her image is pretty vulnerable and there is a lot of downside I think. Past few days gave an indication of this downside potential,if this trend of negative news about Clinton continues to the election then I don't think there is a way Hillary can win. Other then rigging the election off course, ha ha.
I will be here when trump looses, in all fairness I cant hope that trump will win but the political class has messed up so much,maybe a shock therapy will bring them back in line and make them care a bit more about the man in the street. Maybe trump winning would not be that bad in the long run for the ordinary guy.
|
Just six more god-awful days until all this mess goes away... who am I kidding, regardless of who wins, their presidency will be attacked from the very start and it won't stop
|
"The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity." just about sums it up, the second coming could probably be the poem of this election cycle. If people don't get out to vote Trump really has a chance, the 538 numbers over the last few days are pretty frightening.
|
On November 03 2016 06:21 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2016 05:57 Kickboxer wrote:
People who have been claiming for weeks Trump has no chance are completely delusional.
The magnitude of the delusion is real. You think 20% of intellectual America is pissed off? Wait till you see 40% of pissed off rednecks and lower-low class.
Most of the things the media keeps announcing would "sink" Trump, especially the whole pussygate affair, hardly made a dent. In fact some of it even helped.
This will be a crazy tight race because people who want Trump to win are on a fucking mission, whereas a major share of those who were supposed to vote for Hillary are jaded or don't give two fucks irl, or will have their hairdresser or cair repair or soft depression or tennis yoga and "forget" to vote. Sums it up. Want to add the MSM is so discredited at this point, that unless this new rape allegation comes with a tape of Trump comitting the deed while shouting "Make America Great Again", it's gonna get instantly dismissed as a hoax. (I think it's not true, that the timing is just lol, and that it is indeed a hoax, but I'm not making that case here)
Saying that people who claim Trump has no chance are delusional, and then turning around and saying this accusation has no chance because the MSM is finished, is some irony  . The phenomenon of women feeling empowered to come forward after others do is well known now. Trump admitted to assault and currently does have a train of accusers. This story may not get ignored in the court of public opinion.
|
United States42419 Posts
On November 03 2016 06:26 pmh wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2016 05:45 KwarK wrote:On November 03 2016 05:43 zeo wrote:On November 03 2016 05:33 pmh wrote:
Trump is going to win,its a done deal. The salt will be real on this forum in 2 weeks. Yeah, its pretty obvious with the rats in the polling industry jumping ship en-mass this close to the election. They can't bullshit the numbers anymore. Ban bet? If Trump wins I take 2 weeks. If Clinton wins, you take a month? :p I would take this bet,though in all fairness it would only be a very small sacrifice to make for me. It seems unbelievable that trump will win but I do notice a shift in the past 2 days. The media are giving the emails a bit more attention again and I didn't see anything negative about trump,at least nothing extraordinary. Trumps has the advantage,his image can not possibly get worse,the media put him down all the way already. It can only get better. Clinton on the other hand,her image is pretty vulnerable and there is a lot of downside I think. Past few days gave an indication,if this trend continues to the election then I don't think there is a way Hillary can win. Other then rigging the election off course, ha ha.
Unfortunately I have no interest in banning you.
|
On November 03 2016 06:27 plasmidghost wrote:
Just six more god-awful days until all is mess goes away... who am I kidding, regardless of who wins, their presidency will be attacked from the very start and it won't stop
exactly, politics has devolved into shit. I'll take a ban bet just because I need to lower the noise, this is quite distracting. Kwark !
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
