| 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. | ||
|
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
On November 12 2016 07:57 GreenHorizons wrote: had two reply tabs open hit post on the one without the "I sincerely appreciate it" I do. Be nice if some of the more rude dismissers did the same when they had the chance. You might be waiting a while for that given some of them are banned. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23293 Posts
On November 12 2016 08:00 zlefin wrote: blisse -> such differences between people would hardly be new. french nobles in the middles ages would often have more in common with russian nobles than they would with french peasants. these kinds of divides are just an inherent part of the way things are. cities have always been more cosmopolitan by nature, (and definition). it's necessarily true really (probably at least) gh -> I make no concessions! but there's no productive argument to be had, so I'll stick with I disagree generically. Of the people I would have guessed would be willing to admit they were wrong, and that I was right, I would have put you above Mohdoo, my mistake. Though your posting style means I don't really remember what you might have even been wrong about. | ||
|
Logo
United States7542 Posts
On November 12 2016 07:59 Mohdoo wrote: I can't tell if you misunderstood me. I was being serious and I totally admit that I was wildly wrong and you were wildly right. I completely misread the situation and you nailed it. I am bowing. Edit: One thing I realized while I speaking with my friends about the election. In the end, I donated more to Bernie than Clinton. I never really did any outreach or anything for Clinton and I can't help but wonder if I would have for Bernie. Even though I saluted our nominee, my heart was never in it like it was for Bernie early on. Given the fundraising milestones Sanders hit I don't think assuming most people would have done more for Sanders over Clinton is much of a stretch. | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
(I'm pretty sure you actually had a bunch of discussion about NAFTA/TPP during that point too, which was indeed prescient) | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On November 12 2016 07:45 Logo wrote: How does your confidence hold up with the way Trump is rumored to be picking cabinet members that seem to be the same old cronies/lobbyists that have been around forever? I don't doubt the TPP is dead, but that's a small step compared to other things like NAFTA (and the TPP is pretty much universally hated at this point). On the TPP I'm pretty confident. The TTIP seems likely too given that both sides seem to hate it. NAFTA is a maybe. Of all the things that Trump is likely to drop, these are the last that are going to go. They are the core of his entire message. | ||
|
pmh
1352 Posts
| ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On November 12 2016 08:04 GreenHorizons wrote: Of the people I would have guessed would be willing to admit they were wrong, and that I was right, I would have put you above Mohdoo, my mistake. Though your posting style means I don't really remember what you might have even been wrong about. that depends on what claim I actually made, and which claims of yours are being made. your last sentence is right of course; most of my statements are, formally, vacuous, tautological, or trivial. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On November 12 2016 08:09 pmh wrote: tpp death? I missed that then,i thought it was still alive and ready to be signed. Democratic incoming Senate leader says it's dead, and so do Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell. It's pretty much dead with Trump's victory. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15712 Posts
On November 12 2016 08:04 GreenHorizons wrote: Of the people I would have guessed would be willing to admit they were wrong, and that I was right, I would have put you above Mohdoo, my mistake. Though your posting style means I don't really remember what you might have even been wrong about. I'm an arrogant shit head, but I value the truth and I value correctness. My complete 180 regarding populism is due to the fact that it is clearly the more powerful movement right now and I was wrong about that. I thought it was a blip, but it was so much more. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23293 Posts
On November 12 2016 08:05 Logo wrote: Given the fundraising milestones Sanders hit I don't think assuming most people would have done more for Sanders over Clinton is much of a stretch. He had more individual donors up until ~1 month out from the GENERAL election (I don't know how many she finished with, so he might have had more than she ever got). That was a dead give away his support was deeper and wider. That he won practically every primary/caucus where people other than just dems got to vote was another flashing red sign. One thing I'd like people to admit is that closing primaries to protect from outside voters doesn't give you a stronger general election candidate, it seems obvious on it's face, but there were many full throated rebukes of the idea that absurd primary rules (New York stands out as especially terrible) we're a bad idea. At the time people were arguing they should be more closed off, now we can see how ridiculous of an idea that is. Trump is cracking me up right now. Republicans voted for a guy who spent his whole life not doing what he said he would do and now they are going to act surprised when he doesn't do what he told them he would do. Democrats are funny too, they spent the whole election using a liar to try to tell us another liar was telling the truth, when lying was one of the things Trump was really doing. | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
| ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
| ||
|
Ropid
Germany3557 Posts
On November 12 2016 08:08 LegalLord wrote: On the TPP I'm pretty confident. The TTIP seems likely too given that both sides seem to hate it. NAFTA is a maybe. Of all the things that Trump is likely to drop, these are the last that are going to go. They are the core of his entire message. About TTIP, I saw an article today reporting on negotiations being put to rest for the moment. I think it was in German media somewhere. | ||
|
Logo
United States7542 Posts
On November 12 2016 08:17 GreenHorizons wrote: He had more individual donors up until ~1 month out from the GENERAL election (I don't know how many she finished with, so he might have had more than she ever got). That was a dead give away his support was deeper and wider. That he won practically every primary/caucus where people other than just dems got to vote was another flashing red sign. One thing I'd like people to admit is that closing primaries to protect from outside voters doesn't give you a stronger general election candidate, it seems obvious on it's face, but there were many full throated rebukes of the idea that absurd primary rules (New York stands out as especially terrible) we're a bad idea. At the time people were arguing they should be more closed off, now we can see how ridiculous of an idea that is. Trump is cracking me up right now. Republicans voted for a guy who spent his whole life not doing what he said he would do and now they are going to act surprised when he doesn't do what he told them he would do. Democrats are funny too, they spent the whole election using a liar to try to tell us another liar was telling the truth, when lying was one of the things Trump was really doing. On that note I felt it at the time, and still do that the debate moderators constantly saying some form of "it's not our job to fact check the candidates" is a huge disservice to the American people. I really wish they were held accountable for that asinine ideal. I think the first time someone said that before the first debate was the first time I thought Trump actually had a reasonable shot. His performance in that debate assured me otherwise for the time being, but his performance should have been so so much worse. | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
On November 12 2016 08:20 LegalLord wrote: I wouldn't say I was ever against GH, considering that I basically agreed with him on the major issues of Bernie being the best and Hillary being a liar who would suck ass. But what surprised me is how close Washington ended up being. That Trump was winning until about 40% really threw me for a loop. Mind-boggling. Interestingly, Washington was one of the states where Clinton outperformed her polls-by 3 points-and she got pretty much the same margin as Obama did against Romney (17%). Don't underestimate the power of the write-in. Like most of the states she beat polls in, though, it was irrelevant. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23293 Posts
On November 12 2016 08:26 TheTenthDoc wrote: Interestingly, Washington was one of the states where Clinton outperformed her polls-by 3 points-and she got pretty much the same margin as Obama did against Romney (17%). Don't underestimate the power of the write-in. Like most of the states she beat polls in, though, it was irrelevant. Practically ever other candidate, Johnson (his support actually tripled), Stein, The socialist party, all ~doubled their votes, write-ins are up, and we don't know what turnout was yet. That Hillary performed as well as Obama is an illusion, it's likely far more votes went against her than Obama and the two of them generated less voters in general like many other states. | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
On November 12 2016 08:20 LegalLord wrote: But what surprised me is how close Washington ended up being. That Trump was winning until about 40% really threw me for a loop. Mind-boggling. Washington wasn't close at all. As of now: Clinton 1,413,488 votes, 55.3% -- Trump 966,538 votes, 37.82% 2012: Obama 1,620,985 votes, 52.83% -- Romney 1,407,966 votes, 45.89% 2008: Obama 1,750,848 votes, 57.65% -- McCain 1,229,216 votes, 40.48% edit: correct numbers for 2012: Obama 1,755,396 votes or 56.16%, Romney 1,290,670 votes or 41.29%. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15712 Posts
On November 12 2016 08:20 LegalLord wrote: I wouldn't say I was ever against GH, considering that I basically agreed with him on the major issues of Bernie being the best and Hillary being a liar who would suck ass. But what surprised me is how close Washington ended up being. That Trump was winning until about 40% really threw me for a loop. Mind-boggling. Seattle rules Washington with an iron fist. All voting counts until Seattle finishes is totally irrelevant. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On November 12 2016 06:08 Logo wrote: Yeah I'm curious about this too. The media underreporting certain things or not reporting certain things (like say wikileaks) is certainly a subjective matter and there's room for disagreement there, but none of that has to do with the reporting on Trump, but would rather be about the relative difference between Trump and Clinton at best which is irrelevant to how terrible Trump is. The difference really rears its head when people allege Trump is absolutely tons worse than Clinton on maybe five issues they're both awful on. I absolutely believe if you've followed CNN or MSNBC or ABC or Politico or WaPo or others, you'd see how bad Trump was, consider yourself well informed, and deduce Clinton can't possibly be as bad. But she was just as bad on issues of free speech, areas within foreign policy, the economy, Iran deal, healthcare, etc. And who's going to fill in the blanks if you've had years of one-sided coverage and it would take equal time to disabuse you of those notions? Who in this thread will post a dozen stories a week of the flip side of what's going on or the other side of opinion journalism? It's all absolutely debatable, like you say, of course, and both sides will say it's like talking to a brick wall changing opinions on political philosophy and its applications to current events. Trump doesn't even know it, but he understands a big section of America that got tired of being told they're too dumb to comment on the way things are being done in Washington. These great comprehensive plans only rubes would dislike. So Trump's terrible, Hillary's worse. A Trump vote also sent a message that governing against the will of the people in the essential enclave of greater DC must stop, no matter the repulsive messenger we got this time around (and it's rare to be able to choose your champion, you just play the hand you're dealt ala a pleibescite) | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23293 Posts
On November 12 2016 08:44 kwizach wrote: Washington wasn't close at all. As of now: Clinton 1,413,488 votes, 55.3% -- Trump 966,538 votes, 37.82% 2012: Obama 1,620,985 votes, 52.83% -- Romney 1,407,966 votes, 45.89% 2008: Obama 1,750,848 votes, 57.65% -- McCain 1,229,216 votes, 40.48% Where are you getting that 2012 number from? That looks really wrong? | ||
| ||
|
|
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
