|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On July 15 2018 11:41 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2018 11:28 Slaughter wrote:On July 15 2018 11:19 xDaunt wrote:On July 15 2018 11:15 Slaughter wrote:On July 15 2018 11:12 xDaunt wrote:On July 15 2018 11:09 Slaughter wrote:On July 15 2018 11:03 xDaunt wrote:On July 15 2018 10:54 Aquanim wrote:On July 15 2018 10:47 xDaunt wrote:On July 15 2018 10:41 Aquanim wrote:
[quote]
Suppose that the DNC data showed that those states were not in play but the Trump campaign had some data which said they might be (a potential scenario consistent with your post). Knowing that the DNC data would lead the Democrats to spend very little there is still a useful piece of knowledge. Sort of. If a state is in play, and you think you can win it, you put resources there, regardless of what the other side is doing. In a broad sense, yes, but I'm fairly sure in a two-player zero-sum game there's a lot of value in knowing what your opponent is basing their moves on, even if your moves continue to be informed by your own knowledge as well. EDIT: And yes, there's also the possibility that the Trump campaign was just flying blind before that point or something. What's being argued here is that it's possible that the DNC data was handed over to the Trump campaign, which then massively influenced what the Trump campaign was doing. I don't see anything to support that other than coincidental timing. And this idea that the Trump campaign was flying blind and did not have an overall strategic plan until October 2016 is asinine. He very clearly knew what he was doing and who he was targeting from day one when he descended the escalator and announced his candidacy. His campaign also had its own robust analytics operation being spearheaded by Cambridge Analytica with the benefit of RNC voter data. From the very beginning, Trump ran an unorthodox, quasi-contrarian campaign. The idea that whatever he may have gotten from the DNC significantly altered his course makes no sense in this context. If you think that would it not be a fair assumption that their data contradicted the DNC data and that they were confident that the DNC was highly overestimating their strength in states like Mi/OH/Wi etc and that they could exploit that? How would they exploit it? As in, what would they do differently? Isn't the argument that they rerouted resources? Doubling down and going hard on states where voters voted for Obama but might be vulnerable to Trumps message (while the DNC did not detect this vulnerability). But where’s the source of knowing that vulnerability? My whole point is that that information would not have come from the DNC. That’s something that Trump’s team had been honing in on from the beginning, whereas the democrats clearly missed it. Did they though? I am not convinced they really knew they could turn former Obama supporters at the rate they did. Places like Mi were not considered to have large amount of what is generally considered core Trump supporters. At most this is all speculation since we know not what the data or internal strategies were and only have to guess based on vague information that could hint at something or just coincidence. Oh come on. No speculation is necessary. As y'all love to point, Trump ran a "racist" campaign that was expressly premised upon targeting rural and blue collar white voters -- the very type of people who carried those former Obama states for him. You think Trump did this without a rational expectation of winning? You think he did it just for shits and giggles? For once, just presume that Trump is competent, and everything will start making sense.
You can still run a racist campaign and be competent about it lol. I never once in this whole discussion implied his campaign was run poorly. If anything my argument is assuming the Trump campaign saw something combining their data with this alleged leak of DNC data and saw something the DNC was overlooking. You also have to keep in mind that most of the polling data for a lot of those states was not in his favor and people weren't aware how badly they missed the mark until election day.
It is basically assuming that they had competent analytics and confidence they could turn states the DNC were neglecting to squeak out wins. Look at how close some of the margins were in some of those states like Mi.
|
On July 15 2018 04:04 Plansix wrote:
An interesting article about the short term demographic treads of the country. The Midwest and rust belt are losing population for a number of reasons, but the trends mean that those states will have a disproportionate amount of influence over the federal government. Of course, it also means that any economic crisis the country faces will gut those states.
This is what people are talking about when they say gerrymandering isn't really the fight. While Republicans have done plenty of gerrymandering, sometimes making their districts so red they get primaried by someone to their right. They also get the better end as a result of controlling more legislatures. The thing is though that under it all is just a geographical reality that Democrat voters are concentrated far more than Republican voters.
As for the Trump data thing I don't really care at this point. There is absolutely no hope whatsoever (in my mind anyway) that our "justice" system will get any result remotely resembling justice.
Trump's been a criminal pretty much his whole life, being the most powerful man in the world isn't going to suddenly make him accountable. The system is built to protect his criminality not hold him responsible.
All of this Trump-Russia stuff has been a waste of time and potential progress. No one's mind is changing, no votes are changing, no one will be held seriously accountable, Trump's more popular now than he was 6 months ago, media isn't trusted, and Democrats are still arguing about why they lost 2016.
|
On July 15 2018 11:41 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2018 11:28 Slaughter wrote:On July 15 2018 11:19 xDaunt wrote:On July 15 2018 11:15 Slaughter wrote:On July 15 2018 11:12 xDaunt wrote:On July 15 2018 11:09 Slaughter wrote:On July 15 2018 11:03 xDaunt wrote:On July 15 2018 10:54 Aquanim wrote:On July 15 2018 10:47 xDaunt wrote:On July 15 2018 10:41 Aquanim wrote:
[quote]
Suppose that the DNC data showed that those states were not in play but the Trump campaign had some data which said they might be (a potential scenario consistent with your post). Knowing that the DNC data would lead the Democrats to spend very little there is still a useful piece of knowledge. Sort of. If a state is in play, and you think you can win it, you put resources there, regardless of what the other side is doing. In a broad sense, yes, but I'm fairly sure in a two-player zero-sum game there's a lot of value in knowing what your opponent is basing their moves on, even if your moves continue to be informed by your own knowledge as well. EDIT: And yes, there's also the possibility that the Trump campaign was just flying blind before that point or something. What's being argued here is that it's possible that the DNC data was handed over to the Trump campaign, which then massively influenced what the Trump campaign was doing. I don't see anything to support that other than coincidental timing. And this idea that the Trump campaign was flying blind and did not have an overall strategic plan until October 2016 is asinine. He very clearly knew what he was doing and who he was targeting from day one when he descended the escalator and announced his candidacy. His campaign also had its own robust analytics operation being spearheaded by Cambridge Analytica with the benefit of RNC voter data. From the very beginning, Trump ran an unorthodox, quasi-contrarian campaign. The idea that whatever he may have gotten from the DNC significantly altered his course makes no sense in this context. If you think that would it not be a fair assumption that their data contradicted the DNC data and that they were confident that the DNC was highly overestimating their strength in states like Mi/OH/Wi etc and that they could exploit that? How would they exploit it? As in, what would they do differently? Isn't the argument that they rerouted resources? Doubling down and going hard on states where voters voted for Obama but might be vulnerable to Trumps message (while the DNC did not detect this vulnerability). But where’s the source of knowing that vulnerability? My whole point is that that information would not have come from the DNC. That’s something that Trump’s team had been honing in on from the beginning, whereas the democrats clearly missed it. Did they though? I am not convinced they really knew they could turn former Obama supporters at the rate they did. Places like Mi were not considered to have large amount of what is generally considered core Trump supporters. At most this is all speculation since we know not what the data or internal strategies were and only have to guess based on vague information that could hint at something or just coincidence. Oh come on. No speculation is necessary. As y'all love to point, Trump ran a "racist" campaign that was expressly premised upon targeting rural and blue collar white voters -- the very type of people who carried those former Obama states for him. You think Trump did this without a rational expectation of winning? You think he did it just for shits and giggles? For once, just presume that Trump is competent, and everything will start making sense.
LMFAO as funny as it would be to believe trump is competent, he has demonstrated many times that he is not. Furthermore, just because you are bad at the game and still have 50 apm with 2k floating minerals doesn't make your use of maphack any less banworthy.
|
So.. Maybot revealed the "brutal advise" Trump gave her in regards to Brexit.
Theresa May has revealed that Donald Trump advised her to “sue the European Union” rather than negotiate with the 27-country bloc, in a private conversation that the US president referred to during his visit to the UK on Friday.
The prime minister was asked on the BBC’s The Andrew Marr Show what the “brutal” Brexit negotiating advice was that Trump had talked about in their joint press conference outside the prime minister’s Chequers country retreat.
Revealing it for the first time, May said: “He told me I should sue the EU.” After being prompted by a surprised Marr, May repeated: “Sue the EU, not go into negotiations with them, sue them.”
The prime minister smiled, and indicated she had disregarded the advice, saying “actually we’re going into negotiations with them”, in remarks that will be interpreted as a put-down of the president. Trump leaves the UK this afternoon to fly to Helsinki to meet Russian President, Vladimir Putin."
I mean.. I know xDaunt and consorts to the rescue and stuff, but for normal people, i'm not sure how someone would argue that that makes a great deal. Unless Trump also suggested pulling the Island somewhere to the US coast, of course.
It really is beautifully ironic if you think about it, the US president(!) is actively trying to destroy the institution (regardless of how bad it is in certain areas) that brought peace to the european continent for the longest time in history. Lets not forget that he was trying to entice France to leave, too. Absolutely stunning.
|
On July 15 2018 19:33 m4ini wrote:So.. Maybot revealed the "brutal advise" Trump gave her in regards to Brexit. Show nested quote +Theresa May has revealed that Donald Trump advised her to “sue the European Union” rather than negotiate with the 27-country bloc, in a private conversation that the US president referred to during his visit to the UK on Friday.
The prime minister was asked on the BBC’s The Andrew Marr Show what the “brutal” Brexit negotiating advice was that Trump had talked about in their joint press conference outside the prime minister’s Chequers country retreat.
Revealing it for the first time, May said: “He told me I should sue the EU.” After being prompted by a surprised Marr, May repeated: “Sue the EU, not go into negotiations with them, sue them.”
The prime minister smiled, and indicated she had disregarded the advice, saying “actually we’re going into negotiations with them”, in remarks that will be interpreted as a put-down of the president. Trump leaves the UK this afternoon to fly to Helsinki to meet Russian President, Vladimir Putin." I mean.. I know xDaunt and consorts to the rescue and stuff, but for normal people, i'm not sure how someone would argue that that makes a great deal. Unless Trump also suggested pulling the Island somewhere to the US coast, of course. It really is beautifully ironic if you think about it, the US president(!) is actively trying to destroy the institution (regardless of how bad it is in certain areas) that brought peace to the european continent for the longest time in history. Lets not forget that he was trying to entice France to leave, too. Absolutely stunning. The most puzzling thing is the question, sue for what?
Britain triggered the exit and the EU is under no obligation to negotiate a trade treaty with anyone.
I assume Trump is still confused and thinks a country is a business that you can sue over not taking the best action for its shareholders.
|
I have a question for the more politically aware posters.
A few weeks ago someone (Maxine W?) said that the gloves were off in regards to Trump. My feeling since then is that the message against Trump/GOP on the internet has shifted and is now hammering in that he's owned by Putin and committing treason. Is this something that you feel as well or am I just out of sync with reality?
I personally think it's probably the best strategy the democrats can do if they want to win (obviously their candidates will only allude to it but that's enough).
If you run with a candidate who can get down into the dirt and throw (really) personal punches at Trump and is generally likable and the economy dips at least a little in time for 2020 they might even win.
Trumps base will never abandon him but isolating them as a group and labeling them enemies of America could probably work.
I also think this has the potential to turn into the political/social equivalent of a head on collision on the highway and that things may get really ugly.
|
On July 15 2018 21:02 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
I have a question for the more politically aware posters.
A few weeks ago someone (Maxine W?) said that the gloves were off in regards to Trump. My feeling since then is that the message against Trump/GOP on the internet has shifted and is now hammering in that he's owned by Putin and committing treason. Is this something that you feel as well or am I just out of sync with reality?
I personally think it's probably the best strategy the democrats can do if they want to win (obviously their candidates will only allude to it but that's enough).
If you run with a candidate who can get down into the dirt and throw (really) personal punches at Trump and is generally likable and the economy dips at least a little in time for 2020 they might even win.
Trumps base will never abandon him but isolating them as a group and labeling them enemies of America could probably work.
I also think this has the potential to turn into the political/social equivalent of a head on collision on the highway and that things may get really ugly.
It's working to a degree. The "fuck civility" attitude is already taking root. I run a political page on Facebook that reaches ~50,000 people a week and I have watched the way the commentary has changed. It's not a huge sample size, but it's very obvious there at least. Things have gone from civil debating and engaging in good faith to "you're lost and you're stupid. We're done with you and your Russian asset President". Usually it involves more profanity.
I don't think the Democratic party should press the issue too hard until more indictments drop. The polling was something like 64% of Dem voters think there was "collusion" while 7% of Republicans said the same. Losing that other 36% would be terrible, and they need to see the facts laid out for their perusal before we start getting real shrill about it. I'm rather obviously part of the 64%, and do my best to lay out the facts as often as possible.
|
On July 15 2018 21:52 Ayaz2810 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2018 21:02 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
I have a question for the more politically aware posters.
A few weeks ago someone (Maxine W?) said that the gloves were off in regards to Trump. My feeling since then is that the message against Trump/GOP on the internet has shifted and is now hammering in that he's owned by Putin and committing treason. Is this something that you feel as well or am I just out of sync with reality?
I personally think it's probably the best strategy the democrats can do if they want to win (obviously their candidates will only allude to it but that's enough).
If you run with a candidate who can get down into the dirt and throw (really) personal punches at Trump and is generally likable and the economy dips at least a little in time for 2020 they might even win.
Trumps base will never abandon him but isolating them as a group and labeling them enemies of America could probably work.
I also think this has the potential to turn into the political/social equivalent of a head on collision on the highway and that things may get really ugly. It's working to a degree. The "fuck civility" attitude is already taking root. I run a political page on Facebook that reaches ~50,000 people a week and I have watched the way the commentary has changed. It's not a huge sample size, but it's very obvious there at least. Things have gone from civil debating and engaging in good faith to "you're lost and you're stupid. We're done with you and your Russian asset President". Usually it involves more profanity. I don't think the Democratic party should press the issue too hard until more indictments drop. The polling was something like 64% of Dem voters think there was "collusion" while 7% of Republicans said the same. Losing that other 36% would be terrible, and they need to see the facts laid out for their perusal before we start getting real shrill about it. I'm rather obviously part of the 64%, and do my best to lay out the facts as often as possible.
50000 people is a very good sample size. Of course there might be other factors which can scew any statistical results, like for instance if the majority of those 50k are from a certain region or friends circle, or if the fb page is named "We who hate Trump". But as a number in and of itself is very good. As an example, if 64% in your group voted that they think Trump colluded (ignoring that only democrats did), then you can be 99% certain that 64% +- 0.5% of the rest of the population thinks the same.
|
On July 15 2018 22:11 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2018 21:52 Ayaz2810 wrote:On July 15 2018 21:02 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
I have a question for the more politically aware posters.
A few weeks ago someone (Maxine W?) said that the gloves were off in regards to Trump. My feeling since then is that the message against Trump/GOP on the internet has shifted and is now hammering in that he's owned by Putin and committing treason. Is this something that you feel as well or am I just out of sync with reality?
I personally think it's probably the best strategy the democrats can do if they want to win (obviously their candidates will only allude to it but that's enough).
If you run with a candidate who can get down into the dirt and throw (really) personal punches at Trump and is generally likable and the economy dips at least a little in time for 2020 they might even win.
Trumps base will never abandon him but isolating them as a group and labeling them enemies of America could probably work.
I also think this has the potential to turn into the political/social equivalent of a head on collision on the highway and that things may get really ugly. It's working to a degree. The "fuck civility" attitude is already taking root. I run a political page on Facebook that reaches ~50,000 people a week and I have watched the way the commentary has changed. It's not a huge sample size, but it's very obvious there at least. Things have gone from civil debating and engaging in good faith to "you're lost and you're stupid. We're done with you and your Russian asset President". Usually it involves more profanity. I don't think the Democratic party should press the issue too hard until more indictments drop. The polling was something like 64% of Dem voters think there was "collusion" while 7% of Republicans said the same. Losing that other 36% would be terrible, and they need to see the facts laid out for their perusal before we start getting real shrill about it. I'm rather obviously part of the 64%, and do my best to lay out the facts as often as possible. 50000 people is a very good sample size. Of course there might be other factors which can scew any statistical results, like for instance if the majority of those 50k are from a certain region or friends circle, or if the fb page is named "We who hate Trump". But as a number in and of itself is very good. As an example, if 64% in your group voted that they think Trump colluded (ignoring that only democrats did), then you can be 99% certain that 64% +- 0.5% of the rest of the population thinks the same.
lol, simply no.
You can consider it impossible to find any statistically representative facebook group. No matter the size.
|
On July 15 2018 22:14 mahrgell wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2018 22:11 Excludos wrote:On July 15 2018 21:52 Ayaz2810 wrote:On July 15 2018 21:02 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
I have a question for the more politically aware posters.
A few weeks ago someone (Maxine W?) said that the gloves were off in regards to Trump. My feeling since then is that the message against Trump/GOP on the internet has shifted and is now hammering in that he's owned by Putin and committing treason. Is this something that you feel as well or am I just out of sync with reality?
I personally think it's probably the best strategy the democrats can do if they want to win (obviously their candidates will only allude to it but that's enough).
If you run with a candidate who can get down into the dirt and throw (really) personal punches at Trump and is generally likable and the economy dips at least a little in time for 2020 they might even win.
Trumps base will never abandon him but isolating them as a group and labeling them enemies of America could probably work.
I also think this has the potential to turn into the political/social equivalent of a head on collision on the highway and that things may get really ugly. It's working to a degree. The "fuck civility" attitude is already taking root. I run a political page on Facebook that reaches ~50,000 people a week and I have watched the way the commentary has changed. It's not a huge sample size, but it's very obvious there at least. Things have gone from civil debating and engaging in good faith to "you're lost and you're stupid. We're done with you and your Russian asset President". Usually it involves more profanity. I don't think the Democratic party should press the issue too hard until more indictments drop. The polling was something like 64% of Dem voters think there was "collusion" while 7% of Republicans said the same. Losing that other 36% would be terrible, and they need to see the facts laid out for their perusal before we start getting real shrill about it. I'm rather obviously part of the 64%, and do my best to lay out the facts as often as possible. 50000 people is a very good sample size. Of course there might be other factors which can scew any statistical results, like for instance if the majority of those 50k are from a certain region or friends circle, or if the fb page is named "We who hate Trump". But as a number in and of itself is very good. As an example, if 64% in your group voted that they think Trump colluded (ignoring that only democrats did), then you can be 99% certain that 64% +- 0.5% of the rest of the population thinks the same. lol, simply no. You can consider it impossible to find any statistically representative facebook group. No matter the size.
I mean..I did point that out in the very post you're answering to but oh well
|
On July 15 2018 22:15 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2018 22:14 mahrgell wrote:On July 15 2018 22:11 Excludos wrote:On July 15 2018 21:52 Ayaz2810 wrote:On July 15 2018 21:02 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
I have a question for the more politically aware posters.
A few weeks ago someone (Maxine W?) said that the gloves were off in regards to Trump. My feeling since then is that the message against Trump/GOP on the internet has shifted and is now hammering in that he's owned by Putin and committing treason. Is this something that you feel as well or am I just out of sync with reality?
I personally think it's probably the best strategy the democrats can do if they want to win (obviously their candidates will only allude to it but that's enough).
If you run with a candidate who can get down into the dirt and throw (really) personal punches at Trump and is generally likable and the economy dips at least a little in time for 2020 they might even win.
Trumps base will never abandon him but isolating them as a group and labeling them enemies of America could probably work.
I also think this has the potential to turn into the political/social equivalent of a head on collision on the highway and that things may get really ugly. It's working to a degree. The "fuck civility" attitude is already taking root. I run a political page on Facebook that reaches ~50,000 people a week and I have watched the way the commentary has changed. It's not a huge sample size, but it's very obvious there at least. Things have gone from civil debating and engaging in good faith to "you're lost and you're stupid. We're done with you and your Russian asset President". Usually it involves more profanity. I don't think the Democratic party should press the issue too hard until more indictments drop. The polling was something like 64% of Dem voters think there was "collusion" while 7% of Republicans said the same. Losing that other 36% would be terrible, and they need to see the facts laid out for their perusal before we start getting real shrill about it. I'm rather obviously part of the 64%, and do my best to lay out the facts as often as possible. 50000 people is a very good sample size. Of course there might be other factors which can scew any statistical results, like for instance if the majority of those 50k are from a certain region or friends circle, or if the fb page is named "We who hate Trump". But as a number in and of itself is very good. As an example, if 64% in your group voted that they think Trump colluded (ignoring that only democrats did), then you can be 99% certain that 64% +- 0.5% of the rest of the population thinks the same. lol, simply no. You can consider it impossible to find any statistically representative facebook group. No matter the size. I mean..I did point that out in the very post you're answering to but oh well
Yeah, that's exactly what your bolded statement is saying :D
And it simply isn't "there might be factors". You will not find ANY representative facebook group. In fact I would wonder if there is any kind of 'common sense described' group anywhere that would be representative. Be it 'all divers', 'everyone who bought a Mariah Carey CD' or 'everyone who whoke up between 6 and 7 am today'.
|
On July 15 2018 22:24 mahrgell wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2018 22:15 Excludos wrote:On July 15 2018 22:14 mahrgell wrote:On July 15 2018 22:11 Excludos wrote:On July 15 2018 21:52 Ayaz2810 wrote:On July 15 2018 21:02 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
I have a question for the more politically aware posters.
A few weeks ago someone (Maxine W?) said that the gloves were off in regards to Trump. My feeling since then is that the message against Trump/GOP on the internet has shifted and is now hammering in that he's owned by Putin and committing treason. Is this something that you feel as well or am I just out of sync with reality?
I personally think it's probably the best strategy the democrats can do if they want to win (obviously their candidates will only allude to it but that's enough).
If you run with a candidate who can get down into the dirt and throw (really) personal punches at Trump and is generally likable and the economy dips at least a little in time for 2020 they might even win.
Trumps base will never abandon him but isolating them as a group and labeling them enemies of America could probably work.
I also think this has the potential to turn into the political/social equivalent of a head on collision on the highway and that things may get really ugly. It's working to a degree. The "fuck civility" attitude is already taking root. I run a political page on Facebook that reaches ~50,000 people a week and I have watched the way the commentary has changed. It's not a huge sample size, but it's very obvious there at least. Things have gone from civil debating and engaging in good faith to "you're lost and you're stupid. We're done with you and your Russian asset President". Usually it involves more profanity. I don't think the Democratic party should press the issue too hard until more indictments drop. The polling was something like 64% of Dem voters think there was "collusion" while 7% of Republicans said the same. Losing that other 36% would be terrible, and they need to see the facts laid out for their perusal before we start getting real shrill about it. I'm rather obviously part of the 64%, and do my best to lay out the facts as often as possible. 50000 people is a very good sample size. Of course there might be other factors which can scew any statistical results, like for instance if the majority of those 50k are from a certain region or friends circle, or if the fb page is named "We who hate Trump". But as a number in and of itself is very good. As an example, if 64% in your group voted that they think Trump colluded (ignoring that only democrats did), then you can be 99% certain that 64% +- 0.5% of the rest of the population thinks the same. lol, simply no. You can consider it impossible to find any statistically representative facebook group. No matter the size. I mean..I did point that out in the very post you're answering to but oh well Yeah, that's exactly what your bolded statement is saying :D And it simply isn't "there might be factors". You will not find ANY representative facebook group. In fact I would wonder if there is any kind of 'common sense described' group anywhere that would be representative. Be it 'all divers', 'everyone who bought a Mariah Carey CD' or 'everyone who whoke up between 6 and 7 am today'.
The statement you bolded while ignoring the rest was A: an example, and B: Based off of just numbers alone, as I clearly indicated. 50k is a significant amount of people, which with correct polling can give a good indication of what the population thinks of as a whole (Even if there's only 10% republicans on it, you can account for it by adjusting). This seems like a pretty stupid thing to get pedantic about, so I'm leaving it there.
|
On July 15 2018 22:59 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2018 22:24 mahrgell wrote:On July 15 2018 22:15 Excludos wrote:On July 15 2018 22:14 mahrgell wrote:On July 15 2018 22:11 Excludos wrote:On July 15 2018 21:52 Ayaz2810 wrote:On July 15 2018 21:02 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
I have a question for the more politically aware posters.
A few weeks ago someone (Maxine W?) said that the gloves were off in regards to Trump. My feeling since then is that the message against Trump/GOP on the internet has shifted and is now hammering in that he's owned by Putin and committing treason. Is this something that you feel as well or am I just out of sync with reality?
I personally think it's probably the best strategy the democrats can do if they want to win (obviously their candidates will only allude to it but that's enough).
If you run with a candidate who can get down into the dirt and throw (really) personal punches at Trump and is generally likable and the economy dips at least a little in time for 2020 they might even win.
Trumps base will never abandon him but isolating them as a group and labeling them enemies of America could probably work.
I also think this has the potential to turn into the political/social equivalent of a head on collision on the highway and that things may get really ugly. It's working to a degree. The "fuck civility" attitude is already taking root. I run a political page on Facebook that reaches ~50,000 people a week and I have watched the way the commentary has changed. It's not a huge sample size, but it's very obvious there at least. Things have gone from civil debating and engaging in good faith to "you're lost and you're stupid. We're done with you and your Russian asset President". Usually it involves more profanity. I don't think the Democratic party should press the issue too hard until more indictments drop. The polling was something like 64% of Dem voters think there was "collusion" while 7% of Republicans said the same. Losing that other 36% would be terrible, and they need to see the facts laid out for their perusal before we start getting real shrill about it. I'm rather obviously part of the 64%, and do my best to lay out the facts as often as possible. 50000 people is a very good sample size. Of course there might be other factors which can scew any statistical results, like for instance if the majority of those 50k are from a certain region or friends circle, or if the fb page is named "We who hate Trump". But as a number in and of itself is very good. As an example, if 64% in your group voted that they think Trump colluded (ignoring that only democrats did), then you can be 99% certain that 64% +- 0.5% of the rest of the population thinks the same. lol, simply no. You can consider it impossible to find any statistically representative facebook group. No matter the size. I mean..I did point that out in the very post you're answering to but oh well Yeah, that's exactly what your bolded statement is saying :D And it simply isn't "there might be factors". You will not find ANY representative facebook group. In fact I would wonder if there is any kind of 'common sense described' group anywhere that would be representative. Be it 'all divers', 'everyone who bought a Mariah Carey CD' or 'everyone who whoke up between 6 and 7 am today'. The statement you bolded while ignoring the rest was A: an example, and B: Based off of just numbers alone, as I clearly indicated. 50k is a significant amount of people, which with correct polling can give a good indication of what the population thinks of as a whole (Even if there's only 10% republicans on it, you can account for it by adjusting). This seems like a pretty stupid thing to get pedantic about, so I'm leaving it there.
One of the foundational rules of the internet is that you are always wrong about math. Always.
|
On July 15 2018 20:36 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2018 19:33 m4ini wrote:So.. Maybot revealed the "brutal advise" Trump gave her in regards to Brexit. Theresa May has revealed that Donald Trump advised her to “sue the European Union” rather than negotiate with the 27-country bloc, in a private conversation that the US president referred to during his visit to the UK on Friday.
The prime minister was asked on the BBC’s The Andrew Marr Show what the “brutal” Brexit negotiating advice was that Trump had talked about in their joint press conference outside the prime minister’s Chequers country retreat.
Revealing it for the first time, May said: “He told me I should sue the EU.” After being prompted by a surprised Marr, May repeated: “Sue the EU, not go into negotiations with them, sue them.”
The prime minister smiled, and indicated she had disregarded the advice, saying “actually we’re going into negotiations with them”, in remarks that will be interpreted as a put-down of the president. Trump leaves the UK this afternoon to fly to Helsinki to meet Russian President, Vladimir Putin." I mean.. I know xDaunt and consorts to the rescue and stuff, but for normal people, i'm not sure how someone would argue that that makes a great deal. Unless Trump also suggested pulling the Island somewhere to the US coast, of course. It really is beautifully ironic if you think about it, the US president(!) is actively trying to destroy the institution (regardless of how bad it is in certain areas) that brought peace to the european continent for the longest time in history. Lets not forget that he was trying to entice France to leave, too. Absolutely stunning. The most puzzling thing is the question, sue for what? Britain triggered the exit and the EU is under no obligation to negotiate a trade treaty with anyone. I assume Trump is still confused and thinks a country is a business that you can sue over not taking the best action for its shareholders.
Well, it would be like where an ex sues you for the chipotle and other things he/she bought you while you were dating, I guess. Not a great case, but hey it happens.
The other thing is, sue in what court?
|
On July 15 2018 22:59 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2018 22:24 mahrgell wrote:On July 15 2018 22:15 Excludos wrote:On July 15 2018 22:14 mahrgell wrote:On July 15 2018 22:11 Excludos wrote:On July 15 2018 21:52 Ayaz2810 wrote:On July 15 2018 21:02 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
I have a question for the more politically aware posters.
A few weeks ago someone (Maxine W?) said that the gloves were off in regards to Trump. My feeling since then is that the message against Trump/GOP on the internet has shifted and is now hammering in that he's owned by Putin and committing treason. Is this something that you feel as well or am I just out of sync with reality?
I personally think it's probably the best strategy the democrats can do if they want to win (obviously their candidates will only allude to it but that's enough).
If you run with a candidate who can get down into the dirt and throw (really) personal punches at Trump and is generally likable and the economy dips at least a little in time for 2020 they might even win.
Trumps base will never abandon him but isolating them as a group and labeling them enemies of America could probably work.
I also think this has the potential to turn into the political/social equivalent of a head on collision on the highway and that things may get really ugly. It's working to a degree. The "fuck civility" attitude is already taking root. I run a political page on Facebook that reaches ~50,000 people a week and I have watched the way the commentary has changed. It's not a huge sample size, but it's very obvious there at least. Things have gone from civil debating and engaging in good faith to "you're lost and you're stupid. We're done with you and your Russian asset President". Usually it involves more profanity. I don't think the Democratic party should press the issue too hard until more indictments drop. The polling was something like 64% of Dem voters think there was "collusion" while 7% of Republicans said the same. Losing that other 36% would be terrible, and they need to see the facts laid out for their perusal before we start getting real shrill about it. I'm rather obviously part of the 64%, and do my best to lay out the facts as often as possible. 50000 people is a very good sample size. Of course there might be other factors which can scew any statistical results, like for instance if the majority of those 50k are from a certain region or friends circle, or if the fb page is named "We who hate Trump". But as a number in and of itself is very good. As an example, if 64% in your group voted that they think Trump colluded (ignoring that only democrats did), then you can be 99% certain that 64% +- 0.5% of the rest of the population thinks the same. lol, simply no. You can consider it impossible to find any statistically representative facebook group. No matter the size. I mean..I did point that out in the very post you're answering to but oh well Yeah, that's exactly what your bolded statement is saying :D And it simply isn't "there might be factors". You will not find ANY representative facebook group. In fact I would wonder if there is any kind of 'common sense described' group anywhere that would be representative. Be it 'all divers', 'everyone who bought a Mariah Carey CD' or 'everyone who whoke up between 6 and 7 am today'. The statement you bolded while ignoring the rest was A: an example, and B: Based off of just numbers alone, as I clearly indicated. 50k is a significant amount of people, which with correct polling can give a good indication of what the population thinks of as a whole (Even if there's only 10% republicans on it, you can account for it by adjusting). This seems like a pretty stupid thing to get pedantic about, so I'm leaving it there.
10% would be very generous. The people who are interested in news about Trump that doesn't come from Fox (although I have posted stuff from them when they're honest) tends to skew almost exclusively left. The smattering of pro-Trump posters are usually the kind that are combative but not outright crazy.
|
Just to make it extra clear that he wants to weaken / destroy any alliances with non-dictator-led countries, Trump called the EU an enemy of the US. In fact, when asked what the US's biggest foe currently was, it was the first answer that sprung to mind! What fun!
CBS - "I think the European Union is a foe," Trump says ahead of Putin meeting in Helsinki
In an interview with "CBS Evening News" anchor Jeff Glor in Scotland on Saturday, President Trump named the European Union -- comprising some of America's oldest allies -- when asked to identify his "biggest foe globally right now."
To be fair, he does qualify it somewhat but illustrating that he doesn't actually understand the word foe quite as most people do, but using some idiocy to excuse a lot of assholery is growing old real fast.
|
Trump is the king picking fights our allies for no reason.
Edit: on the plus side, MA just voted for automatic voter registration, which passed unanimously. It’s nice to have a state government that works for a living.
|
On July 16 2018 00:08 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:Just to make it extra clear that he wants to weaken / destroy any alliances with non-dictator-led countries, Trump called the EU an enemy of the US. In fact, when asked what the US's biggest foe currently was, it was the first answer that sprung to mind! What fun! CBS - "I think the European Union is a foe," Trump says ahead of Putin meeting in HelsinkiShow nested quote +
In an interview with "CBS Evening News" anchor Jeff Glor in Scotland on Saturday, President Trump named the European Union -- comprising some of America's oldest allies -- when asked to identify his "biggest foe globally right now."
To be fair, he does qualify it somewhat but illustrating that he doesn't actually understand the word foe quite as most people do, but using some idiocy to excuse a lot of assholery is growing old real fast.
Lol, "to be fair." How about instead of giving a half-assed qualification when quoting him out of context, you post the entirety of what he said?
"Well, I think we have a lot of foes. I think the European Union is a foe, what they do to us in trade. Now, you wouldn't think of the European Union, but they're a foe. Russia is foe in certain respects. China is a foe economically, certainly they are a foe. But that doesn't mean they are bad. It doesn't mean anything. It means that they are competitive," Mr. Trump said at his golf club in Turnberry, Scotland.
"I respect the leaders of those countries. But, in a trade sense, they've really taken advantage of us and many of those countries are in NATO and they weren't paying their bills," he added.
The statement looks quite different now in context, doesn't it? #fakenews
|
On July 16 2018 01:27 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2018 00:08 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:Just to make it extra clear that he wants to weaken / destroy any alliances with non-dictator-led countries, Trump called the EU an enemy of the US. In fact, when asked what the US's biggest foe currently was, it was the first answer that sprung to mind! What fun! CBS - "I think the European Union is a foe," Trump says ahead of Putin meeting in Helsinki
In an interview with "CBS Evening News" anchor Jeff Glor in Scotland on Saturday, President Trump named the European Union -- comprising some of America's oldest allies -- when asked to identify his "biggest foe globally right now."
To be fair, he does qualify it somewhat but illustrating that he doesn't actually understand the word foe quite as most people do, but using some idiocy to excuse a lot of assholery is growing old real fast. Lol, "to be fair." How about instead of giving a half-assed qualification when quoting him out of context, you post the entirety of what he said? Show nested quote +"Well, I think we have a lot of foes. I think the European Union is a foe, what they do to us in trade. Now, you wouldn't think of the European Union, but they're a foe. Russia is foe in certain respects. China is a foe economically, certainly they are a foe. But that doesn't mean they are bad. It doesn't mean anything. It means that they are competitive," Mr. Trump said at his golf club in Turnberry, Scotland.
"I respect the leaders of those countries. But, in a trade sense, they've really taken advantage of us and many of those countries are in NATO and they weren't paying their bills," he added. The statement looks quite different now in context, doesn't it? #fakenews
Maybe words don't have meanings to Trump supporters, but they do to everyone else.
|
On July 16 2018 01:27 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2018 00:08 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:Just to make it extra clear that he wants to weaken / destroy any alliances with non-dictator-led countries, Trump called the EU an enemy of the US. In fact, when asked what the US's biggest foe currently was, it was the first answer that sprung to mind! What fun! CBS - "I think the European Union is a foe," Trump says ahead of Putin meeting in Helsinki
In an interview with "CBS Evening News" anchor Jeff Glor in Scotland on Saturday, President Trump named the European Union -- comprising some of America's oldest allies -- when asked to identify his "biggest foe globally right now."
To be fair, he does qualify it somewhat but illustrating that he doesn't actually understand the word foe quite as most people do, but using some idiocy to excuse a lot of assholery is growing old real fast. Lol, "to be fair." How about instead of giving a half-assed qualification when quoting him out of context, you post the entirety of what he said? Show nested quote +"Well, I think we have a lot of foes. I think the European Union is a foe, what they do to us in trade. Now, you wouldn't think of the European Union, but they're a foe. Russia is foe in certain respects. China is a foe economically, certainly they are a foe. But that doesn't mean they are bad. It doesn't mean anything. It means that they are competitive," Mr. Trump said at his golf club in Turnberry, Scotland.
"I respect the leaders of those countries. But, in a trade sense, they've really taken advantage of us and many of those countries are in NATO and they weren't paying their bills," he added. The statement looks quite different now in context, doesn't it? #fakenews
Yeah. It doesn't look insane anymore, just stupid.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
