Slashdot Mirror
Ted Cruz Drops Out Of The Republican Presidential Race (washingtonpost.com)
rmdingler writes: Ted Cruz drops out of the presidential race after losing in Indiana. Donald Trump has become the presumptive nominee before Hillary has locked things up versus Bernie. This is huge. Cruz's decision to drop out came after losing significantly to Trump in the Indiana primary. "I said I would continue on as long as there is a viable path to victory. Tonight I'm sorry to say, it appears that path has been foreclosed," Cruz told a small group of supporters Tuesday night. "Together we left it all on the field in Indiana. We gave it everything we got, but the voters chose another path." He said he would "continue to fight for liberty," but did not say whether or not he would support Trump as the nominee. The exit comes soon after he announced former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina as his running mate in a desperate move to keep his candidacy afloat.
R. Daneel Olivaw for President!
"Every time I see an adult on a bicycle, I no longer despair for the future of the human race." - H. G. Wells
Namely "Cruz for President"
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
Only one Republican crazy person to go and then it is complete!
Checkmate, Republicans.
Signed, Everyone that's not a Republican.
Considering how he now has to lay off his entire campaign staff, picking Carly Fiorina as his running mate looks more and more like a brilliant decision!
Someone's God lied to them......
"Some books contain the machinery required to create and sustain universes."-Tycho
Unlikely, or he would not have the lead he has.
I wouldn't say "Huge". I'd say a %$%^$ nightmare. Except that it may have done some good in showing the Republican party and their deep-pocket funders like the Koch brothers where a race to the bottom eventually gets them.
Where does this take us? Trump is going to score well in conservative White districts, and Clinton (yes, I like Sanders, but he doesn't have the delegates) is going to score well enough to beat him with less conservative Whites and everyone else. I don't know if enough people would have voted for Clinton without someone who inspires people to vote against him like Trump. But even people who would in another situation never have voted for Clinton will cast votes against Trump. Clinton just got handed the White House. Game over.
What really troubles me is what happens after the election. 40 years of anti-intellectualism and pandering to prejudice and we got a significant part of the country voting for someone who really would not have been good for the country. The historical parallels are obvious. What do we do now?
Bruce Perens.
I have inside information that he's undead.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Unlikely, or he would not have the lead he has.
I.e., around half of all Republicans motivated enough to participate in caucuses/primaries. Doesn't sound promising for the general election.
(Except for the fact that Clinton may have a substantial popularity problem on the Democratic/independent side.)
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
I'm not in the US so all I get are news paper reports.
Is it possible for trump to win the presidency? From the outside he looks incredibly divisive even in his own party, but are there enough disenfranchised people that would jump on his band wagon to get over the line?
We had a similar muppet in Australia called Clive Palmer who managed to get elected to our house of reps despite all the press saying he didn't stand a chance.
As a political analyst its simple to understand why a ted cruz candidacy was untenable. We simply need to look at the facts.
.04%. now, while this number is rising at an alarming rate, is nowhere near the 34% required for Ted Cruz to survive outside his spacecraft. his inability to handle Nitrogen and Oxygen perhaps cost him valuable facetime with the american people. Any reasonable subterranean intergalactic cephalopod species could surely identify with the all too common problem of our atmosphere and its no reason to think Ted didnt understand this problem acutely.
1. total Co2 in the earths atmosphere is around
2. The mindgasm with Carly Fiorina was tentative, as the aetherial fluids clearly hadnt been administered yet and the nanites had no substrate on which to build the newmind. Carly lacked ambition, determination, and a plan. Most importantly, she lacked the void stare, obedient subservience, and slow speech and gait that are all classic telltale signs of "the syrum." Of course Ted could have used the mindworms, but its unlikely a true fiscal conservative would take to using them. Theyre just too costly in a campaign.
3. despite liberal restucturing in the identity chamber, teds human form was too precitable and beginning to arouse suspicion of his youthful, larval past as the zodiac killer. Had he simply taken the time to explain that humans are a complete nutritional delicacy for his species and that 4-5 are required to exit the larval stage and return to the hivemind, most conservatives would have viewed this as a good leadership quality.
so heres hoping the Yaylaka prince Don-Al of Ukador persei 9, commonly known as "Don-Al Trumph" does better. and before you bash the candidate, its worth remembering his speech seems to approximate normal english almost 60% of the time! Quite an achievement if youve never slid into a humanform that may or may not have been a long haul trucker from illinois whos been missing for 36 years and presumed dead. I think we can all agree when he says "hail Ji-Ban-Lau forever" he means it.
Good people go to bed earlier.
if that retard needs my clearence to fuck off, so fock off at once, you bastard.
He got more votes in Indiana than Hillary and Sanders.
About damn time. You are the weakest link, goodbye.
Make some positive changes, as this country is sliding into third world status/"late Empire" conditions, or GTFO. Cruz, Rubio, and Kasich were the GOP Establishment's attempt to elect another controlled opposition candidate.
Wait a second...
Rafael Cruz AND Glen Beck both said Ted Cruz was "anointed by god" to be the next president. How could god have gotten it so wrong??
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
I give Slashdot a lot of leeway with anything remotely related to tech...
But COME ON. In no way does purely political news belong here. I can (and have) got this same news item EVERYWHERE. Can't we have one place on the planet that does not cover every minute of the presidential elections? Couldn't you at least have waited until an article came along about how people were using 3D printers to replicate model Trump hair to wear in support or something?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
If need be, I'm ready to vote for Trump!
I had something for this!
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Ok, I know almost none of you would vote for me, but you should...
I'd split right down the middle...
If we can afford our current military, then we can afford to provide basic services to our people. Americans should not be going hungry, or lack for medical care.
Single payer universal health care, free at the point of service. It should be a basic human right. The NHS in the UK isn't perfect, but it spends FAR less than the US does per person and provides at least basic universal care, free at the point of service. It is a crime against humanity that the US does not do this.
As for companies, I'd end the corporate income tax, it is stupid. Companies don't pay tax, people do. Instead I'd adjust the tax rates, no exemptions.
$0-$100K - 10%
$100K-$1M - 20%
$1M+ - 30%
All income from any source, capital gains, labor, etc. is taxed at the same rate. No deductions.
National Sales Tax of 10%, all state sales taxes abolished. No exceptions whatsoever. 7% of sales tax goes to the states, 3% to the federal government.
Monthly food benefits, all US Citizens (must prove citizenship) will get $300 a month for food, this compensates for food sales being taxed.
No more child tax credit, no earned income credit, nothing. Instead, every US Citizen (again, must prove citizenship) will get $500 a month for basic living expenses, this is a citizens dividend for being an American.
I would end birthright citizenship for foreigners, one of the parents must already be a US Citizen to enable the child to be one.
I would cut the military in half, the world does not need a US Policeman. I would probably however, nuke the middle east, because those people are savages living in the 12th century and we'd all be better off without them. (ok, maybe not, but I'd want to!)
---
There are many more things that I'd do, but that would be the start of it. I would never get any votes with that plan I don't think, but it strikes me as quite reasonable. If we can afford 11 nuclear aircraft carriers, then we can afford to take care of our people.
And I'm a right-wing Republican who strongly believes in capitalism... but regulated capitalism, because you need strong rules or people will abuse it.
He's not dead yet.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
All that really needs to be said is Hillary is powerless to stop Trump among just about ALL voting groups, read :
Looking back: How Trump Beat Hillary
Unless the Democrats are smart enough to actually nominate Sanders, which they are not.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Trump will need 70% of the white male vote to win the election without votes from every other voting bloc that he so far had managed to alienate. Not happening.
The overwhelming fact about American general elections right now is that white male voters just aren't as powerful as they used to be. In 1980, when the electorate looked very different than it does today, Ronald Reagan cruised to an easy victory by winning 63 percent of white males, according to exit polls. In 1988, George H.W. Bush took 63 percent of that group in his rout of Michael Dukakis. By 2004, however, winning 62 percent of white men barely got George W. Bush past John Kerry in a squeaker. And eight years later, Romney won 62 percent of white men—and lost to Barack Obama by 3.5 million votes.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/03/donald-trump-needs-7-of-10-white-guys-213699
It doesn't help that 70% of women don't like him either.
Donald Trump's image among U.S. women tilts strongly negative, with 70% of women holding an unfavorable opinion and 23% a favorable opinion of the Republican front-runner in March. Trump's unfavorable rating among women has been high since Gallup began tracking it last July, but after rising slightly last fall, it has increased even further since January.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/190403/seven-women-unfavorable-opinion-trump.aspx
I suspect it won't matter. If the choice comes down to being between somewhat-disliked Clinton and outspoken-bigot Trump, a left-leaning voter will still pick Hillary, just to keep things from getting too bad.
The Clintons have a PR problem. Bill was friendly, and eventually that was a liability. Hillary has had mostly bad PR since becoming a controversial Secretary of State, and the Republican party has consistently amplified that controversy, exaggerating real problems and inventing conspiracies. However, Hillary's stated policy positions aren't too bad. Sure, she has ties to the right, and isn't as far to the left as Bernie Sanders, but if she gets the nomination, she's still a Democrat.
In the general election, though, that's exactly what would happen. It will become us-versus-them, and both sides will be sure to keep that in the public eye. If you're a Republican and you don't vote for Trump, the dirty Democrats will win. If you're a Democrat and you don't vote for Clinton, the rotten Republicans will win. I expect mud-slinging all around.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
I've been following Scott Adams' blog, and he has some insightful things to say about Trump and how he manages to win.
Scroll back a few entries in the blog and they're pretty interesting.
With that background, I've just this morning figured out how Trump managed to pull it off: he's been using "sad" as a verbal kill-shot.
Check out any image of Ted Cruz, and the most notable feature is his sloping eyebrows. He's definitely got that "sad puppy-dog" look.
Trump has been using "sad" in his speeches for months, and associating it with all sorts of slightly pejorative things. He's never made it specific that he's doing this as an association to Cruz, and "sad" is not extreme rhetoric so it escapes peoples' notice. (He sometimes calls Ted sad, but I'm talking about all the other "sad"s over the past few months.)
Furthermore, he masks it by giving people a more transparent and direct kill-shot: "lying Ted Cruz". People are distracted by the extreme moniker and reject it, and all the while they don't notice that they are slowly building an association between "sad" and a wide range of slightly bad things.
So when they see Ted on stage or in the media, that association is what they feel.
I think it's a case of priming, and Trump has masterfully arm-wrestled Ted's reputation to the floor without him realizing it.
Pundits are quick to point out that Trump's unfavorability is at 70%, and all polls show that Hillary would beat Trump in an election.
What they *don't* say is that Hillary herself is only 12 points lower (56% unfavorability), and that's bound to change over the next 6 months.
In fact, Hillary's unfavorability seems to be creeping up of late, and Trump's is falling.
It's starting to look like he might win.
And that he's winning on purpose.
Who'd of think it?
No joke?
Trump has a lot of negatives, yes.
And that might matter - if he were not running against Clinton.
Read Looking back: How Trump Beat Hillary
It's pretty amusing how much your posts parallels all of the people claiming Trump had no chance of winning the Republican nomination... The fact is you simply do not understand the vast majority of voters, women and men, white and black, hispanic or any other racial groups.
You've not even factored in how much more strongly Trump is against big banks than Clinton is (not hard to do since the Democrats have for some time been deeply intertwined with the likes of Goldman Sachs, which Trump has taken very little money from banks and has a natural animosity towards them having had to go through them in dealing with business ventures).
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Trump is literally going to plaster the walls with Hillary, after the first debate that all become apparent even to you... I doubt Hillary will do more than one open debate, and then where will the reclusive sulking get her? Exactly nowhere.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
You're ignoring the fact that now that he has the nomination, he's free to move to the center and make nice with women, blacks and mexicans. Anything can still happen.
Silent Ted Cruz?
Is there such a phenomena even in parallel worlds?
He'll be back.. filiblustering the entire Election. More Green Eggs and Ham Fiorina!
WOW between a sociopathic narcissist temper-tantrum bully republican and a Washington democratic insider who thinks National Security laws do not apply to her, it is just for the little people.
It truly is the Apocalypse and don't know if the USA could ever recover from this.
Lesser of two weasels.
I'm hoping this election cycle results in the GOP splitting in two.
How does that not happen without the Democrats splitting similarly?
I have a number of strongly Democratic friends on Facebook. I have NEVER seen such a massive dislike of the front-runner (Hillary) and support for the candidates being shafted (Sanders). I would be surprised if even half of the Democrats I know will vote for Hillary ever.
The same is true on the Conservative side of course, with (again) probably about half not willing to vote for Trump either...
So to me that means the end of BOTH parties as we know them, and some very large percentage of hugely disenfranchised swing voters. Trump gets most of those this round but it doesn't seem like all of those people can stay registered as Republican or Democrat, and no way will they identify with libertarians... so it effectively means a large unaligned block of simply Independent voters.
I don't know what happens after this but moth parties are in for a major overhaul, and if neither can do it both will lose big-time.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Celebrate diversity, right? Democrats could not convince the electorate of their ideas, so they changed the electorate — by diluting it with a heavy dose of people from countries, where the government is the source of what little wealth there is.
They don't mind big government, and are happy to receive "free" help from it. The dilution is ongoing — while the same Administration fought tooth-and-nail to deport refugees from a rich country, who fled over homeschooling...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
You would be surprised to know, but he does have quite a lot of support from other ethnicities as well, but mostly due the whole "i'm bringing jobs" speech.
Seems like people are more interested on actually getting a job from a racist guy than a pat on the head from the "cute" face of the corporations.
Clinton is 16 points lower, not 12 points as typoed.
The most recent unfavorability ratings are:
Trump's unfavorability has dropped to 65%.
Hillary's rating has been mostly steady at 55%.
So this month there is only 10 points difference.
Man, I *totally* can't type numbers tonight!
The 56 <-> 70 numbers were correctly entered. The difference between them is 14 points!
It may surprise you, but Hillary is not Bill.
The only effort Hillary got to lead during Bill's time was a healthcare fiasco that sunk any healthcare reform for Decades, and even now only gave us "reform" that was meant to boost the insurance industry profits, not help people.
If Hillary was president will she accept idea one from philandering Bill? Hell no. It's health care fiascos all the way down, only in the space of foreign relations, the economy, etc. We already had a preview of what Hillary looks like as foreign policy genius with everything that has happened in Libya, Syria, and Russia. If you liked all that you will LOVE four years of Clinton at the helm!
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
It's a democracy, right?
The majority wins, even if they later on have to say autsch!, it hurts.
That's how things work. There are many examples in history where the majority was all excited about a person and full of hope and the shining luminary ran the cart in the ditch big time.
We'll see what happens.
There was a saying, that the lower consciousness cannot recognize the higher, only the reverse works....
Maybe democracy isn't fitting this scheme.
The election will test the validity of that presumption.
Can you win the national election on pure PC virtue signaling? Because... Hillary has a lot of problems as a candidate as well.
She's a robotic speaker that is not especially charismatic. Not good in a president.
Just as Trump has problems with women, Hillary has problems with men... including Democrat men.
Just as Trump has a harder time with older voters that find his vulgarity off putting... hillary's corruption scandals have hurt her amongst younger voters which is why Bernie is trending as well as he is.
Very little you say against Trump is something you can't say against Hillary... the Flipflopping... the allegations of corruption... The being against one group or another. You can say Trump is an evil billionaire but then you have to admit that Hillary is getting most of the money from the other evil billionaires. So... sort of a wash really.
At the end of the day, the democrats are going to have to go positive on themselves. Say "we will do this good thing" whatever that is... with credibility. Because going negative on Trump and expecting to win the office on that alone is probably not enough to get elected at this point.
No one has a crystal ball into the future on this issue. But keep in mind that no one... means no one.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
What an awesome post!
I've already posted in this thread, but if I had the mod points you would get them!
You're ignoring the fact that now that he has the nomination, he's free to move to the center and make nice with women, blacks and mexicans.
According to Donald Trump, he has no intention of doing that. If he did, his base will stay home.
http://ezkool.com/2016/04/donald-trump/
Broadcast to the rest of the world. Hillary vs. Donald. Proceeds to pay off the national debt and really tall wall needed to keep the remaining 322,760,000 citizens from leaving.
Meanwhile Ben Carson is still standing in the hallway waiting for the New Hampshire debate to begin.
If they stall too long they might have to consider Trump's nominee instead.
2016
I suspect you will see his policies shift, but not in any way that allows for easy categorization. But there is one thing that Trump is very very good at which is he is a mainstream media prediction killer. From pretty much day one every prediction about him by the mainstream media has gone up in smoke. The initial prediction that I read about his campaign was that it would last just long enough for him to promote his show or a book.
Yet, it is the country that elected AND reelected a black president.
Exactly. It's kindof scary that the most likely next president is hated by 75+% of the population. At least with Sanders or Kasich, the other side of the aisle tolerates them. I'm a republican/libertarian and disagree with most of what Sanders believes but I still think that he is a decent human being. I can't say the same about Hillary or Trump. If it was Kasich vs Hillary, I would vote for Kasich, if it was Trump vs Sanders, I would vote for Sanders, but Hillary vs Trump and I have no idea who to vote. We're either going to have one of the highest turnouts or lowest turnouts in voting history and most people are going to be voting *against* a candidate instead of for a candidate.
And to top it all of, Cruz accidentally punches his wife and elbows her while giving a hug onstage.
It's completely accidental, all of us have done the same thing at some point in our lives, and I hate that this is what's going to be all over the news tomorrow.
I'm a big fan of rational political discussion, and this media circus makes me sick.
You say that the billionaire thing is a wash, but one thing that plays very well is when he says that Hillary is bought and paid for because he bought and paid for her in the past.
I think that this election will boil down to one of two things. First is if the Bernie voters vote for anyone let alone Hillary. The other is if one of these skeletons pops out of her closet and says BOO!!! Not just the DOJ investigation but there could be others that just brew up into a storm over the next 6 months. Either of those could hand him the election on a platter.
Someone like Bernie, who has never been a strong party supporter, could encourage his voters to either sit this out, or not very likely, vote for Trump because he is at least a proponent of campaign finance reform. He might be sore over Hillary's abuses.
You speak the truth.
This is going to be a scary election.
Decency is a lost value in the U.S.
Indiana has only gone to the Democrats once in the last 50 years (2008)... the results just confirm that it will likely to Republican this time around... Florida however is a more important state to watch.
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
Unlikely, or he would not have the lead he has.
I.e., around half of all Republicans motivated enough to participate in caucuses/primaries. Doesn't sound promising for the general election.
(Except for the fact that Clinton may have a substantial popularity problem on the Democratic/independent side.)
Obama won twice without "independents." Bernie's best wins have all been in states that let independents vote in their primaries.
So methinks that any problems she'll have are over-rated.
Fascinating, Captain...can the politician who got where he is by defying all conventional wisdom about how to be a successful politician then expand on that success by suddenly employing the primary tactic of all conventional politicians?
I don't think those problems are congruent, though. Trump has problems with women directly because of his sexism. In contrast, Clinton's problems with Democrat men aren't because of her feminism, but rather are because of all her other issues as a candidate, which men are less willing than women to give her a pass for.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
In 40 years the major cities will be full of 80 year olds and people serving them coffee.
Except for SF which will be entirely populated by 20 year old billionaires. (all coffee shops staffed by robots there).
The future belongs to the people that show up, and the only people having babies in significant numbers are in rural areas.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
You just missed which god. Lucifer incarnate, after all.
It seems insane to leave when Bush was president, only to return under Obama who had an even worse unprovoked war in Libya, who decided that instead of intelligent troops who could avoid shooting may innocents he would rather fight with indifferent and blind drone strikes, who made sure that Syria was to become a wasteland....
In your hatred of Bush, you helped grow something far more vile. But that what else would come of raw hate other than something vile?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The founding fathers never thought or anticipated that their great great great... grand sons would be corrupt and anti-American. This is what we see in families where the future generations destroy the best values generated by their ancestors. Had the founding fathers had one more amendment, call it
Anti-Corruption amendment and declared that all political crooks will be expelled from the US soil and their crime is against the whole USA and its hard working people. It is too late now. Most corrupt republicans and many democrats do not care about America or its citizens and in the pocket of lobbyist.
It does not matter Ted Cruz or Santa Cruz wins, they will destroy our unique democracy.
Don't worry about Trump. He will never make it to the general election. Someone is going to arrange for a little deadly airplane accident. She might wait until after the Republican convention though, just to add to the chaos.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
To the contrary the "war on women" campaign backfired in the congressional elections and it is not polling well as a political concept. Look at the number of college age women that self identify as feminists as well. There is a preception whether real or not that the PC thing has gotten out of control. It has become "uncool". Whatever women believe, when queried they are openly less willing to associate with these things because they're seen as divisive.
This perception is largely the result of males generally seeing modern feminism as hostile to men. Whether that is true or not is not really the issue here because we're talking about politics and politics is about perceptions. Those are the perceptions.
So it is a wash. The numbers were so bad that the Hillary Campaign or their proxies went so far as to claim male democrats voting for Bernie were merely doing so because they don't like women in power. THAT sort of behavior has consequences.
The Attraction of playing the woman card is that you want to get 50 percent of the voters on your side. The risk however is that you may turn off half the voters in the process. What is more, women have very interesting voting patterns depending on whether they're single or not. Single women tend to vote very differently from married women. To a large extent... Hillary is going after single women... that is the demographic that responds to this sort of thing. But the risk is that she can turn off men and even married women in the process which could easily be fatal.
The ultimate fallout here is unknown to either of us. Its all speculation. We won't know what happened or why until after it happened.
Various groups on the internet are over represented and under represented. Judging things based on activity in social media is unreliable.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Columbine happened in 1999, right there in the middle of the AWB.
Obama won twice without "independents." Bernie's best wins have all been in states that let independents vote in their primaries.
THIS. I'm one of those that couldn't vote in either the R or D primary. I suspect that over 90% of 3rd party / independent supporters would vote for Bernie. With Trump on the other ticket, a lot of that party may not know where to cast, though the same could be said for moderates on the D side too.
Kasich and Bernie may both come across as level headed and pragmatic, but i completely rebuke your comment that both sides tolerate them.
Bernie is so far to the left he makes Hillary look like a Republican. He's not even tolerable to a centrist. The man literally wants to double-triple-quadruple taxes on everyone from the lower middle class and up to pay for massive government expansion. We're talking about tax increases that will actually cause almost everyone in the country to not be able to afford their house payment. That type of politics has never been overwhelmingly popular in America, except during the great depression, and still in academia.
Kasich has shown to be fairly moderate, but i highly doubt any self described Democrat would side with him over Hillary or Bernie.
Scott
Florida pretty much a red state.
Can't say I like Hillary that much, but there is one major aspect I do like: She has excellent taste in enemies. Not saying that the enemy of my enemy is automatically my friend, but her loudest and most prominent enemies are on the scale from "despicable" to totally "despicable". I'm liking her more and more just for the nasty things the flagrant bastards say about her.
The second thing I rather like about her candidacy is that she is obviously vastly more qualified and competent than Trump (or Cruz) and significantly better than any of the other prominent candidates the so-called Republicans were considering. If they had found a candidate like Abe Lincoln, Teddy, or Ike, today's fake Republicans would have booed him out of the first debate.
The main reason I still prefer Bernie is that his primary personal identity is "idealist", and I think they are basically harmless compared to most of the alternatives. Hillary's #1 identity is probably "corporate lawyer" and "idealist" probably isn't in her top 10. I'm not sure "politician" is in the top 5, but she has Bill on her side, and his clear #1 is "politician", so I think she's covered there. (President Obama is also a primary politician, if you ask me, and I regard that as a bad (but evidently almost absolute) requirement for the office these years. I think Carter and Ford were the last exceptions.)
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
Country may be fucked. But it's going to be one hell of an election year. Buckle up and pass the popcorn.
My money's on Trump. Why?
1. He has already shown your polls and theories and all are a bunch of horseshit. He has won the Republican nomination against all odds, same situation in the general - except
2. Trump is vicious and Clinton's closet is full of skeletons. For fuck's sake, the woman could be dragged into court over the e-mail thing any day now! She has said and done plenty that won't play well with voters. Benghazi? The story about getting shot at? She is not as likable as Slick Willy.
I hope Trump wins just so I can come read the comments on the Slashdot story.
Have you not seen a series of Sanders supporters here saying they will vote for Trump? It astounds me how few people here see the cross appeal.
What is really going to blow people's minds is when Trump asks Sanders to be his VP. Only thing that can stop that happening is Sanders.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
She's a robotic speaker that is not especially charismatic. Not good in a president.
As opposed to GWB who was a jerk, and Trump who is an equally big jerk? Funny it wasn't that long ago that we had a presidential election where we were concerned with which candidate had more foreign policy experience, now instead we're more concerned with which candidate looks better on camera?
Just as Trump has problems with women, Hillary has problems with men... including Democrat men.
Do you actually know any Democrats personally? I do. I caucused with democrats this year and went to a sub-state convention. When they did their caucus I was able to see the local delegate distribution between the two presidential contenders. The men split roughly 50:50 Bernie:Hillary and the women did as well. If anything the women tended to lean further away from Hillary in this convention of several hundred delegates.
hillary's corruption scandals have hurt her amongst younger voters
What? There are plenty of things that younger voters don't like about Hillary but "corruption scandals" - for whatever you mean by that - is almost never even in the top 10 things they don't like.
which is why Bernie is trending as well as he is.
Has it occurred to you that there are actual policy differences between them? Including some things that are really important to younger voters like college costs, health care, and the chance of being drafted into the military?
So long Rato
What in the world? Hillary Clinton's two biggest "controversies" are Benghazi, which is about as much of a controversy as global warming, and this whole email scandal where she used a private server instead of the State Department one. Given how many government servers have been hacked in the last ten years, the emails were probably safer there than they were on the government system anyway.
Pretending that Hillary Clinton is anywhere in the same zip code as despicable a person as Trump is to ignore basic facts about the two people and their history. The only reason people even think stupid things like this is because we've been taught by the 24-hour news cycle to look at the constantly-updating horse race statistics rather than the actual policies and histories of the candidates.
It's funny that the American version of "extreme leftist" looks somewhat centrist from a European/Australian perspective.
Ted Cruz and the GOP tried every dirty trick they could think of to stop Donald Trump.
Nothing worked.
The voters want Trump.
I will never have respect for Cruz, Kasich, Romney or many other members of the Republican Party who tried to go behind the backs of the will of the people for political gain.
To hell with them all.
Now support your nominee.
It's Donald Trump!
George Vreeland Hill
Clinton just got handed the White House. Game over.....
Well, the question is if it enough people are going to vote?
With the poor voter turnout in the US, anything could happen... The sane people might be too ignorant to actually vote.
It's not a given that Trump won't win. Because Americans don't care. So anything could happen.
Good thing is that US geopolitically is as good as ever. Europe as usual is in trouble...
Please elaborate? There is UK voting on EU membership (ironically the politicians there is probably learning the same lesson as the GOP: don't produce fear mongering using opinions you don't really share)...
Then there is some ongoing financial trouble in Greece... Economic growth isn't completely back yet (but that the same case for 99% of the Americans).
But these are likely solved given time and luck, things are definitely being addressed.
The whole refugee crisis, is not a crisis, just an under-investment in refuges... The European countries can fix that anytime. It's mostly a superficial issue, not actual trouble in any sense.
So I'm curious how do you see a Europe in crisis?
Now watch Trump air Hillary's dirty laundry 24x7 all the way until the election. I would not be that she would win, especially if he starts acting more "presidential" so to speak. There are a shit ton of very bad skeletons in her closet, some of them chucked there by her husband.
> However, Hillary's stated policy positions aren't too bad.
Like no encryption for anybody? Stronger IP laws, less privacy, etc.?
Even Trump managed to do better than that.
You guys are proper fucked.
Florida is purple. Latinos are the majority in Florida and Trump won't win 30% of that vote.
I'm not American but my understanding is that it is actually the Republican Congress that would have to pass any tax increases and the President can't do much more then make suggestions and veto if it is not an overwhelming majority.
What would Bernie actually be able to accomplish?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
So I guess the time has finally come that the US might admit their two-party political system isn't such a great democracy after all?
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
..and don't let the door hit you on the way out.
We now will hopefully have a 4 year respite from having to deal with hearing more of this crackpot evangelical nonsense and assorted deluded fantasies.
It's also pretty centrist from an American historical perspective, and from a policies-the-general-American-populace-actually-support perspective.
It's only "extreme leftist" from a myopic, mainstream-media-manufactured view of the political spectrum.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
Yeah, as a European, the whole cold war just seems to have increasingly polarized the former USSR to the extreme left and the USA to the extreme right.
In the US, any mention of the word "social" seems to be interpreted as "communist" to the point where "anti-social" has become a positive.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
The president's powers are so limited without a cooperative congress that none of this matters anyway. As much as I detest Clinton, she will probably win. The house and senate will probably remain very Republican and nothing will get done. Unless she screws up royally, Hillary will probably be re-elected which will again push congress more Republican in the mid-terms.
Get ready for 8 more years of nothing getting accomplished. I would be surprised if the supreme court seat is ever filled. Maybe 2024 will offer something different.
"Almost everyone in the country" can't afford a house payment in the first place, and THEIR taxes won't be going up. "Lower middle class" is already better-off than almost everyone in the goddamn country.
You realize ~50% of Americans make under ~$25k a year, and ~75% of them make under ~$50k?
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
Bernie has said that if he did fail to get the Democratic nomination, he would throw his support behind Hillary.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
Vote Trump.
If it comes down to Hillary or The Donald, I think the lessor of two evils is The Donald, simply because his unfiltered rants are preferable to the shrill non-answers given by the consummate politician.
In truth, the results will be pretty much the same either way, so for me it comes down to who's press conferences I'd rather hear for the next 4 years. (Or less, Hillary could stroke out at any time, and Trump could just say "fuck it", so it will be interesting to see who the veeps are...)
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
If those that dislike Hillary and Trump voted for a single 3rd party candidate, they'd probably win. I'm a Bernie supporter that has decided to vote 3rd party. I've heard "you're wasting your vote" every time I've mentioned it. I don't care at this point. It's the only way we'll ever buck the current two party system.
Hillary has no real accomplishments short of getting her husband and herself elected to numerous offices and then using those offices to make as much money as they possibly can. How much do they charge the secret service rent? Is it really enough to pay their mortgages? I bet it is enough to pay the average American's mortgage. Probably the average 10 Americans. How much do they charge to speak? How many foreign governments and companies have they taken money from? What exactly does their non-profit do besides pay for their travel expenses to speaking engagements?
She talks about giving the average American the same chances she had. How is she going to do that? Seminars on trading in cattle futures? Maybe how to setup a large scale chicken farm with her moneyed friends?
Her term as secretary of state was a disaster. She chose to intervene in Libya and not to confront ISIS. She made a big deal out of pressing a big red reset button with Vladimir Putin, who reset Russian expansionism.
As far as her policies, it would be better to look at whatever Bernie Sanders said two weeks ago. That's assuming she really means what she says and what the definition of is is.
Taxation was a primary motivator for the rebellion against the UK.
American politics can be nonsensical ... That said Canada is a way way cooler place.
Considering that Hillary isn't exactly popular either that's not a good reason.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
But will his voters follow him then? Especially when Trump is the one that shows that the system is already broken and may cause a change.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
The analysis is all bullshit. Scott Adams is full of shit and possibly mentally deranged. The word "sad" is not what swung that primary election.
And "Priming" routinely fails all of the replications anyone tries for it. From your link: "Nobel laureate and psychologist Daniel Kahneman has called on priming researchers to check the robustness of their findings in an open letter to the community, claiming that priming has become a 'poster child for doubts about the integrity of psychological research.'"
Gee, "some random anonymous dude on the internet", that's a particularly cogent and persuasive argument you got there.
I happen to know that priming works because I use it.
As one of my AI lectures, I use a priming example that requires audience participation(*). It's always worked, never had it fail.
But again, who am I to argue? I'm just another "dude on the internet".
Here's a video of Derren Brown using priming as a sort of magic trick.
Priming is sort of like bullets. The fact that *you* don't believe in them doesn't mean that they don't work.
(*) As part of my argued position that AI is not based on hidden Markov models. HMMs are a fine construct and a fertile ground for research and innovation, but have nothing to do with AI.
It's not over yet. The similar sort of "superdelagates" that prevent Sanders having a chance on the D side haven't been wooed by Trump on the R side. It could be Jeb or someone who hasn't been near the primaries that will be put up for election.
It's an expected outcome of playing deliberate wedge politics for far too long just to distinguish a "brand" (yes it is that petty) and history shows it can get violent.
The folks with Parliamentary systems seem to be able to handle this better than we do.
Oh Really
(Fox News was only news site I could find with working non-flash video)
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Richard Nixon was so far to the left that he would have made Hillary look like a Republican!
I wish it was a joke but with the EPA, his health care proposals and a few other things he would be called a Communist by some Republicans if he was pushing such things today. That was of course before Koch and other similar donors made the demands that shaped current politics.
There was a lot more than that - worth keeping in mind before electing an autocrat like Trump.
It's no accident that there are elected groups with various levels of power running the place instead of a King.
Which is truly bizzare since real scandals such as with Pfizer getting nothing but a rap on the knuckles then becoming a big donor, and the stuff from the Manning leak (ordering agents to get info to blackmail UN delegates) are ignored.
The email thing was dismissed as a non-issue with Palin by the same people that lazily push that instead of worrying about real problems. Of course opening the donor corruption can of worms could backfire on the R side so maybe that's why they don't push it.
Well, yesterday. Whatever. All I know is our long national nightmare is finally over... Except for the near certainty of a Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton Presidency. I'm still hoping Jibbers will send an asteroid to destroy the Earth before the general election. But Jibbers Crabst works in mysterious ways. May his naysayers boil for all eternity in the great stock pot of brackish water!
Since so few of you people actually bother to turn up and do your duty as citizens and vote he has more of a chance than you think. Even Reagan's landslide was under 20% of the people who could have voted in that election and that was an exceptional turnout. If Trump uses a few old carpetbagger tricks (or a few more of them than he currently is) he could get a few more people to vote for him even if the population at large wouldn't. Then there's always the possibility of gaming the electronic devices and gaming the legal system such as with Florida in 2000.
Hillary has one thing over Trump. She has experience with political campaigning going back decades
All of that experience is experience in LOSING.
She lost the nomination to Obama.
She lost her attempt at healthcare reform when her own well-liked husband was president.
Even now she is actually losing against Sanders, even with a billion super delegate firewall arrayed against him it's hardly enough. Only the incredibly rigged system built to assure her coronation makes it fairly certain she will be the Democratic candidate, but how can it be a victory if there never was a real fight to begin with?
Basically she has lost at just about everything she has tried... she was the mastermind behind Libya after all, which went ever worse than Iraq.
She has just as much money, if not more than Trump.
So what do you think Money does? Magically win elections? Nope. Hasn't been true for some time now. Many, many spoiled elections where big money lost... And Trump so far has been winning spending just about nothing compared to other candidates. Why should that not remain true going forward? Now that Trump is the official candidate do you think Trump will get less or MORE coverage?
You also seem to have totally forgotten where Hillaries vast money has COME from. It's all as dirty like a mud pit in a tar storm. It's every single favor bought during her time as secretary of state, every large "donation" from every big bank and insurance company you can think of. THAT's an ASSET?
Her money, and where it came from, is actually her biggest albatross...
Even one of the Koch brothers spoke out in her favor.
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA and you think that's going to go over well with all of the incredibly pissed off Sanders voters? Or sway even a single conservative?
These are the people that matter, and who elect the candidates.
No, they are the ones who pull some strings but people like you forget voters are very much an independent whaling mass who were just barley under control in the past, but no longer seem to be...
the Sauds are likely going to throw a lot of money her way
Like I said, mud pit in a tar storm.
but because she IS the system.
And that... is why you FAIL.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I guess people of USA are tired and want to commit harakiri with a rusty, dull blade (Trump). Goodbye US of A. I will miss your cars! I'll see you when i get there (afterlife that is).
You do realize that the 'black' president you are seemingly attacking has done more to help America in his time in office than basically the previous 15 presidents before him...right? Or have you not read history?
You mean he is a liar who changes his stance every week?
What will his other voters think if he changes his tone?
Will the women, blacks and mexicans trust a pathological liar?
Then it's quite clear what the answer is. "This just in. Mainstream media predicts Trump will NOT eat human fetuses."
You underestimate the dislike for Clinton.
Take the Hillary vs Trump debacle as an opportunity to vote for a Libertarian candidate! Or, really, any third-party candidate. You won't be contributing to the eventual failure of the American people to elect a decent leader, and you will be contributing to the long-term emergence of a viable third party which we desperately need.
Time for a good old fashion assassination!
Taxation also was a primary motivator for the Magna Charta in the 13th century. For the english king to get the barons to agree to additional taxes, he had to grant them the rights stated in the Magna Charta.
Plus she raped that girl: http://obsceneworks.com/blog/h...
- In Soviet Korea, only old people loose all their bases to Natalie Portman's petrified hot grits overlords.
Hillary's biggest problem is her creepy, wide-eyed, teethy stare-smile. Like she's an alien from Mars Attacks wearing a mask. I don't know who told her to look that way, but it's definitely not making her more likeable. And many voters go for such signs more than for what candidates say.
I'm a progressive Democrat, and I'll vote for Pat Paulson's corpse before I soil my hands pulling the lever for Clinton OR Trump.
What they *don't* say is that Hillary herself is only 12 points lower (56% unfavorability), and that's bound to change over the next 6 months
In fact, Hillary's unfavorability seems to be creeping up of late, and Trump's is falling ...
England's Leicester became the champ, even though they were roundly dismissed at the beginning of this year's Premier League
I started to keep track of Leicester's progress 2 months into the season and boy, did they gain momentum
Same thing with Trump's campaign --- now I gotta reckon that I have been pretty interested in Trump ever since I read about his first marriage with a foreign beauty queen --- but the longer I observe Trump's campaign the more it looked to be a replication of Leicester's progress
My own prediction is that on Jan 21st 2017, the new president who moves into the White House gonna have a 'J' in his name
You're ignoring the fact that now that he has the nomination, he's free to move to the center and make nice with women, blacks and mexicans. Anything can still happen.
I'd comment, but I'm late for my date with Jessica Alba. I've got to move the Torana so I can move the Gallardo to get my flying unicorn out of the garage.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Dude, if you could make all that happen you got my vote. Problem is that common sense (your approach) doesn't work in politics. But I agree with the simplicity of your plan.
Only thing I know is that the next President is going to be the most hated one of all history.
Polls are garbage until like a week from the election. If you want to know probabilities, look at people who study such things dispassionately... people who have money riding on making the correct assessment and are unlikely to be clouded by their political preferences... bookies.
Election Betting Odds
Shit.
Hillary has had bad PR since the Watergate investigation when she was kicked off being one of the most dishonest lawyers Jerry Zeifman has ever seen.
He regrets to this day that he did not report her to the bar association.
Have you ever fallen asleep at the keybhanusdiog?
The party bosses, still interfering with the voters right to elect a serial killer.
At the beginning of this little endeavor by the 17 candidates on the republican and the 3 on the democrats. The republican put on notice the media that they were not going to fall for the "Gotcha" questions.
What has followed is this drivel of debates where the candidates just spew what ever their platforms are and no one is asking them any questions. They are just feeding the monster they created in the first place.
For fuck sakes at least go down fighting, Media asking questions to tough questions is how you vet these morons, it how it showed that Sarah Palin was not fit for office.
You keep saying that US president is the most important job in the world. Wake the fuck up and ask these guys questions and not just fluff.
I know you have your agenda and ratings are king but come on.
So I guess the time has finally come that the US might admit their two-party political system isn't such a great democracy after all?
Although it wouldn't directly affect the presidential race, I think we should move to having members of the house elected at large. Physical districts don't make any sense in today's world where you can drive across a state in a couple hours. It would be much better if the top X candidates of each state became the house of representatives. This would allow someone to run as a libertarian, a representative of chicago, a representative of rural america, but it would also allow people to run as a representative of old people, hispanics, blacks, etc... Basically, in a state with 12 representatives, any group that could get more than 1/12 of the votes for their representative would get a voice. It would be much better than the gerrymandering system we have today where 49% of most districts are unrepresented.
Perfectly spoken for someone who has now idea how democracy works and who doesn't actually understand much. Do you even know who said "I didn't vote for him, but he's my president and I hope he does a good job"?
Hint: He was a sincere conservative but too wise to run for president. Unlike a certain fool who took the country halfway down the rathole, mostly by destroying most of public education.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
The fundamental problem is that most of the so-called Republican Party now stands for "government of the corporations, by the lawyers, for the richest 0.1%", while Trump is much simpler. He just wants "government of the Donald, by the Donald, for the Donald", and that is why they hate him.
The threat is that his supporters are gullible or ignorant or both. The gullible ones believe whatever Trump says that they personally agree with, even though he has been on every side of every issue. The ignorant ones have fundamentally short attention spans and can't even remember what he said yesterday.
Going forward Trump is going to create so much confusion that he might actually win. He is a master of playing the mass media for fools, and I'm strongly reminded of a book Harlan Ellison wrote in 1968, when he predicted that Reagan would eventually become president only because he really understood television. As I've already noted, Trump is a con man or liar (or both), but he understands how the new social media work.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
are going to be voting *against* a candidate instead of for a candidate.
I turn 40 next year, so this is my 9th presidential election, the 8th of which I can remember. There hasn't been one in my life time where that wasn't the case.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Voting for Trump is voting for Hitler's re-election.
And in 60 years, assuming anyone survives the war this time, people will wonder how we ever allowed such a man to be elected.
And people will respond: "We thought we were free.".
no real accomplishments
http://addictinginfo.org/2015/...
You don’t have to like Hillary Clinton or her ideas. I get it. She’s a Democrat, a progressive (in most eyes), and conservatives don’t like that. However, you cannot say she does not have any accomplishments. Here are just a few:
Even though her major initiative, the Clinton healthcare plan, failed (due to Republican obstruction), you cannot deny that it laid ground for what we have today, the Affordable Healthcare Act, something Clinton supports and would continue.
She played a leading role in the development of State Children’s Health Insurance Program, which provides the much-needed state support for children whose parents cannot afford nor provide them with adequate healthcare coverage.
She was also instrumental in the creation of the Adoption and Safe Families Act and the Foster Care Independence Act.
Successfully fought to increase research funding for prostate cancer and asthma at the National Institute of Health (NIH).
She spearheaded investigations into mental illness plaguing veterans of the Gulf War; we now have a term for it – Gulf War Syndrome.
At the Department of Justice, she helped create the office on Violence Against Women.
She was instrumental in securing over $21 billion in funding for the World Trade Center redevelopment.
Took a leading role in the investigation of health consequences of first responders and drafted the first bill to compensate and offer the health services our first responders deserve (Clinton’s successor in the Senate, Kirsten Gillibrand, passed the bill).
Was instrumental in working out a bi-partisan compromise to address civil liberty abuses for the renewal of the U.S. Patriot Act.
Proposed a revival of the New Deal-era Home Owners’ Loan Corporation to help homeowners refinance their mortgages in the wake of the 2008 financial disaster.
Was a major proponent of sensible diplomacy which brought about a ceasefire between Hamas and Israel, and brokered human rights with Burma.
Oversaw free trade agreements with our allies such as Panama, Colombia, and South Korea.
Was the most traveled Secretary of State to date.
The Clinton Foundation, founded by her and her husband, has improved the living conditions for nearly 400 million people in over 180 countries through its Initiative program.
These are not all of her accomplishments. Her activism on behalf of women a children across the world is renowned. Her activism for raising the minimum wage and combating climate change is stellar. You do not have to support what she does or stands for. But do not say she doesn’t have any accomplishments. The conservatives who say this are the ones who are pushing for Ted Cruz – who brought on a $24 billion shut down. That, to them, is an accomplishment?
Yes, Hillary Clinton has accomplishments. You don’t have to like them, but they do, in fact, exist.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/zeifman.asp
Carly is like the kiss of death... Ted Cruz shot himself in the foot by announcing the VP would be the biggest idiot in IT history.
No Trump fan here, but your accusation of Bigotry is simply Bullshit.
I was about to reply that your statistics are totally bogus, but then I found this:
http://www.statista.com/statistics/203183/percentage-distribution-of-household-income-in-the-us/
I've surrounded myself by people in I.T. and other high income professions so long, I've lived in a bubble.
As much as I detest Trump and Cruz, the commercial Cruz (?) did showing a bunch of guys in suits running across the border with the caption asking if illegal immigration was costing white collar professional jobs, would liberals be as tolerant made me take a step back and think.
yeah, that was my prediction too...I've pretty much given up with predictions this election cycle, I now have a 100% failure rate when it comes to prediction accuracy...
He won't "make nice" if he keeps saying stuff like how well he is liked by "the African Americans" and by "the Hispanics" while referring to his supporters about how "we will win".
Did you actually hear his speech last night?
I know you think you're being clever here, but you really just look like an idiot. Check out an article the BBC did comparing the various candidates to presidents of the past and you see that Sanders made even the most liberal presidents in the past look quite right wing. The only thing in the US history that was further left than any of Sanders positions was FDRs view on gun control. Yes, FDR was well right of Sanders except on gun control.
Trump will need 70% of the white male vote to win the election without votes from every other voting bloc that he so far had managed to alienate. Not happening.
I wouldn't be so sure. Romney got 62% of the white male vote last time round. That isn't 70%, but its in hailing distance.
Hillary's controversial status goes back before Secretary of State to her attempts
at Health Care Reform. Just say'n.
To the contrary the "war on women" campaign backfired in the congressional elections and it is not polling well as a political concept.
Backfired? That implies it was somehow utilized. Maybe your local district managed it, but mine didn't. I'd call it a misfire, because what happened was that 2014 had a very low turnout. If it was even tried. I honestly don't remember any such efforts at the time of the election, a bit before when the birth control pill was big, but not the right timing there.
My congressman didn't believe it when I told him he didn't have the support of his constituents, he had the support of a third less people.
Whatever the Democrats did, they didn't get people to vote for them, but it's not like Republicans did MUCH better. 40 million versus 35 million?
I'd have been ashamed to take office.
There is a preception whether real or not that the PC thing has gotten out of control. It has become "uncool".
Worse, being "anti-PC" is perceived as cool, as patriotic, as liberty, as freedom, no matter how you make it up. That's why stories about the War on Christmas and the War on Men, and the War on Whiteness get so much play.
Of course, the same thing happened when it was the Know-nothing Party.
This perception is largely the result of males generally seeing modern feminism as hostile to men.
Just like they saw the suffrage movement in the 1800s?
So it is a wash. The numbers were so bad that the Hillary Campaign or their proxies went so far as to claim male democrats voting for Bernie were merely doing so because they don't like women in power. THAT sort of behavior has consequences.
Yes, it does. It'd better be true. And sadly, it probably is. But it probably won't work to get them to change their minds, they'll just redouble their intent out of anger at being caught doing something shameful.
Common reaction, really. It's why dog-whistles still work.
Various groups on the internet are over represented and under represented. Judging things based on activity in social media is unreliable.
Judging anything is unreliable, even actual ballots, as numerous conflicts show.
But since when did anybody let that stop them?
Some things never change, do they?
I can't believe it! Otherwise this is just a dumb ass space filler.
Clinton is a square shooter
Trump is actually leading Clinton right now. Most other current polls show the same result, or have them tied. Given Trump just came out of a very nasty primary (as compared to the milquetoast competition on the Demcrat side), he will inevitably rise in the polls.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
I wonder how he is going to do it.
Trump has barely spend any money at all by today's standards. To air dirty laundry you need to convince a lot of media sources to give you air time to pour through that dirty laundry.
Media sources are really torn. Trump generates a lot of viewership and extraordinary ratings, which means money to the media sources. However most mass media pundits clearly dislike Donald.
I am putting my money that Media will go after the ratings and money. People will be entertained. The show must go on. This is America!
Hey, quit showing up the fact that most of those who will vote in this US election haven't a bloody clue about how their Government works! What, you want them to get educated, and then really get pissed off about what the US Federal Government is actually doing versus what it was originally supposed to be limited to do? That's downright anarchist talk - where's the NSA and the CIA and rendition for you?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
ADJUSTED gross income is not the same as actual income. Add in deductions for the kids and mortgage, and an AGI of $25K is easily hit with a person making the actual median of $51K per year, about double that you state.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Build that wall! Trump 2016!
Remember, we in Canada don't have right wing radicals in power any more. We provide an American quality of life without Trump level racism or radicalism. Come live the good life you always dreamed and never found (aka, the American dream). Plus, if you are an international business owner, if Trump does become president, your business would find relations with your international parts in other nations, including India, China, most of Europe and the UK rather strained, whereas here in Canada, we are nearly everybody's friend (with a few exceptions in Afghanistan). Amazon liked us so much, they tested their drone delivery services here. So it's a benefit to your business to host your internal corporate headquarters with us. Plus, we have better health care than at least 50% of the USA (the ones that choose not to participated in extended Medicare/medicaid and we likely have better government health coverage then those that did). Lots of room in Nova Scotia at Cape Breton Island, but we have room in other places too.
Better politics, better international relations, better health care, friendlier people, less racism. USA quality of life. What more could you ask for?
Canada: It's better up here, eh?
"Imagination is more important than knowledge" - Einstein
Time to start a campaign to elect Mike Rowe as a write in candidate!
Although I am happy to see Cruz drop out I am even more happy to see Carly Fiorina get taken out with him. She was a bigger threat to the middle class than Cruz. Now we just need to get Trump elected to shake up Washington and get this country refocused on internal growth.
-==- Buy a Mac and leave me alone!
What the heck does Kasich think he is achieving by still running?
Trump has had just over 10M votes cast for him so far, which doesn't even match up with what GWB got in the 2000 primary. He's had 15M votes cast against him so far.
He won because the opposition never coalesced behind a particular anti-Trump candidate, until far too late.
Look at this graph
Sure, total vote tally isn't the measure for getting the nomination - delegate count per state is. And total vote tally isn't the measure for winning the general either, vote tally per State is, as filtered through the Electoral College. But it doesn't bode well for him - he's going to have to find a way to roll back a lot of nasty things he's said before November unless he wants a big chunk of those 15M people to stay home.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
I'm not attacking him, i'm attacking the notion that america is gigantic pile of racists that certain people from a certain cult seems to preach, like the OP tried to imply.
Get out of my head! I've been fretting about this since I voted for Kasich in the Ohio Primary. I knew it was unlikely that he could get the nomination, but I don't think I can even hold my nose and vote for either Trump or Clinton - it's a choice between a Dorito-tinted proto-fascist and a thoroughly untrustworthy carpet-bagging flip-flopper.
Maybe the Democrats in the remaining primaries will overwhelmingly vote for Sanders and spare us all?
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
Bernie is so far to the left he makes Hillary look like a Republican.
Or, phrased another way, Hillary is so far to the right she makes herself look like a Republican.
Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
I'm voting for honest Gil Fullbright.
We were all told that Ted Cruz had been anointed by God himself to be the next President. Clearly dropping out of the race is blasphemy to the Almighty. What the hell is wrong with Cruz, has he completely lost his faith? Why doesn't he stay in the race and wait for the miracle that he should know is coming?
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
I heard an awesome quote yesterday:
"Yeah, Trump needs to prove he's not Hitler but Hillary needs to prove she's not Hilary which is a lot harder to do".
For as many people who will believe he is honest after his opinions shift and was just pretending before, just as many (or more) will believe that he was honest before and is trying to appeal to voters only until he gets elected. I doubt his base will stay home in significant numbers for any reason. Parts of the GOP base, however, is another story.
You mean like when he advocated boycotting Apple over the San Bernadino investigation?
Love him or hate him - Trump has run a brilliant campaign. Personally I don't think he will be able to implement half of the policies he has promised but that doesn't seem to matter to his supporters. I think it comes down to this - a lot of people are pissed off right now. Some people are pissed off about the economy, some about ISIS, some about immigration, you name it. Somehow he has managed to unite these groups.
I think a lot of people are tired of the same old political BS we get every election cycle and are not in a hurry to have another lawyer in the White House. Trump represents the anti-politician. Is he full of shit too? Yeah, probably. Time will tell. But some people are willing to take that chance.
I never saw Cruz as a viable candidate in the first place. His appeal is too narrow. In a general election he would be nothing more than a bible belt candidate. We saw this in how poorly he did in the north east. That pitch to include Fiorina was pure desperation. How can you even announce a running mate before you have won the nomination? The fact that she would even accept it probably speaks more to her desperation than his.
You forgot the third option, that a lot of Dems just won't vote. I think Hillary is going to have a hard time getting turnout from young people.
love is just extroverted narcissism
Your median is household income (for the median two-person household), not personal income (which is unsurprisingly half that).
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
1. Playing to peoples' emotions regarding current issues (H1Bs and immigration, ISIS, PC, etc)
2. Attacking other candidates hard (see: Lyin' Ted, low-energy Jeb)
As for #1, a lot can happen between now and the election. Even things that happen in Europe like immigration crises and terrorist attacks help fuel Trump's support, regadless of whether or not his ideas actually constitute good solutions to those problems. As for #2, once he starts going after Hillary (or, on the offchance, Sanders), you can bet his opponent will lose some support.
And those figures aren't even the ones I was talking about; those are household incomes, where the median household is two people. So that median $50k household is the product of two $25k incomes, on average. Individuals making over $50k themselves are about twice as rare as those in household making over $50k combined.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
Yeah, that's because Indiana is like 80% Republican.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
wouldn't be so sure. Romney got 62% of the white male vote last time round. That isn't 70%, but its in hailing distance.
Right. Ronald Reagan/George HW Bush got 63%, John McCain/Mitt Romney got 62%. Over the last 40+ years, the white male voter demographic for the Republican Party has been getting smaller and smaller. Trump can't pull enough voters out of his ass to get in hailing distance.
ADJUSTED gross income is not the same as actual income. Add in deductions for the kids and mortgage, and an AGI of $25K is easily hit with a person making the actual median of $51K per year, about double that you state.
Your post says "person" but your link goes to the page about household income. The page on personal income would be more relevant:
"The overall per capita income for all 155 million persons over the age of 15 who worked with earnings in 2005 was $28,567"
Of course, even that isn't counting all the people who don't work for various reasons.
Enigma
...our new Trump overlords.
Never mind the Doomsday Clock, we need a Trump Doomsday Clock. If this fat bastard becomes POTUS, it's Game Over for the United States, and maybe the rest of the Free World, too. No, I'm not kidding. He'll ruin us.
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
Trump is actually leading Clinton [rasmussenreports.com] right now. Most other current polls show the same result, or have them tied.
Yeah, right. What are these 'most other polls'?
Here's the real situation.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html
Currently shows: Average Clinton Lead 6.5%, most recent poll Clinton Lead 13%, No polls apart from Rasmussen show Trump lead.
The Clinton vote % in the Rasmussen poll is miles out of line of all the other polls. The 13% looks out of line. The 6.5% average looks pretty reasonable.
But hey, if it fits your preconceptions you're free to cherry-pick as much as you like...
So I've had some predictions, and it looks like I am doing pretty good so far. I have a friendly two part 10$ bet with a friend at the start of this whole mess. The first part was that Trump would win the Republican nomination, the second was that he would beat Hillary to become president. Neither of us live in the US, but he thought I was crazy to take that side of the bet.
There are a whole lot of reasons for this firstly the Republicans showed a lack of cohesion by diluting their leader nomination with 16! candidates. Trump if he has done anything well with his life it was building the name recognition of the "Trump" brand. If you asked 10 people who the candidates are, most people probably couldn't remember the other 15 names, but everyone will know who the hell Trump is. Second, for having so many candidates, how the heck did you find so many crazy ridiculous people? I mean Trump for all the nutbar things he has said, is the least crazy person on the list. I know I was briefly excited about Ben Carson, hearing he as a neurosurgeon, I figured he must be smart and educated, surely he will have some good ideas! Though it seems all you need is steady hands, not a stead mind... (Though I did seem him on the Daily Show and he did seem much better, perhaps he just did a really horrible job of presenting himself). At any rate another thing is that he is "honest" and not a politician, which speaks to a lot of voters who are really disenfranchised with the whole process and want real "change" (would be funny if he stole Obama's slogan!). Lastly Trump is able to reasonably argue that his fiscal success, and deal making etc... will be a boon for the American economy, jobs, etc... As that is always a top 3 if not #1 election issue every single year. So yeah, I predicted it, and I am not in the least surprised. For good or ill, I also think that he was the only one that could challenge the Democrats.
Now on the other side, the Democrats, I really like Bernie Sanders, I think he would probably be the best thing for the US in a very long time. That said, I think Hillary is going to beat him for a number of reasons. First is the fact that he is Old. Just some bad timing really. You only have a set window to be able to do this sort of thing, and he couldn't have won against Obama, but now he is the oldest Candidate, and while not by a large margin, he also does really look old, which people make fun of all the time. There would be the fear (real or not) the guy might die while in the job, never a good thing. Here is where him having a really really strong VP running mate would have made a huge difference I think. The other thing that Hillary has going for her that Bernie does not is a lot of the minority vote, which I am not sure really why to be honest, but it is definatly there. Lastly and also a big one is Money. Hillary has a ton of it, and Bernie does not. In US politics this doesn't always trump (pun intended) not having it, but it does make a big difference. As Bernie has pointed out Hillary stands for the wall street, and a lot of special interests which also inflates her coffers. So unfortunately for Bernie (and probably the US) I think Hillary has a big advantage and is likely to win the Democrat nomination. Oh and Hillary also has a whole bunch of "super delegates" in her corner, which if I am honest I am really not all that certain how that all works, but it doesn't sound good for Bernie.
Now when it comes down to the actual election between Hillary and Trump, I think there is (as crazy as it sounds) a pretty good chance, and I would say a better chance that Trump will win over Hillary. When my friend was incredulous over this prediction asking how that is even possible, the first thing I pointed out was US recent historic voting record. They elected George W Bush, despite him being the obviously crazy guy that he was. Then they elected him again. So just like Toronto mayoral races, where a guy like Mel Lastman gets two terms, a guy like Rob Ford can also win. So there is a precedent for electing a pr
There is absolutely no chance of people being drafted again. Vietnam saw to that - a conscription army is far less trained and motivated than a volunteer army, and any attempt to bring back the draft would be instant political suicide in any political climate less than an all-out invasion of the continental US.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
That's why Trump brilliantly forewarned about Cruz's father being Kennedy's assassin. If "something" were going to happen to Trump, all fingers will now naturally point to Cruz and that will mean the end of the GOP.
Get off the Internet. Your post is too balanced and well-reasoned, it clearly does not belong on Slashdot or any other website.
It was nationally pushed through national media and coordinated through local political organizations and national political organizations. This does not mean that anything specific happened in literally every single voting district. I can't speak to where ever you're from. It was NATIONALLY applied. I can post you links to national media articles from the time. And it was also reported after the congressional election that it backfired because there was a huge drop in MALE democrats showing up to vote.
Now you can either note what happened and adjust your strategy to take reality into consideration or your opinions on reality lose their value.
As to your opinions on what is good or bad... we're not talking about your feelings. I don't care about your feelings. I'm talking about politics. That anti PC is seen as patriotic or whatever whilst at the same time seen as "cool" is not a good thing for your position politically. It means you're losing the argument. Now if you want... you can double down on your position, ignore how you're being perceived, and just assume that because Jesus is with you that you're going to win. Or you can note that some of the things you're doing are not working and you should adjust your policies to be more politically effective. Choose. Because if you just double down and ignore how things are playing out... you're going to lose bigger.
As to conflating suffrage with modern feminism, I don't think you can sustain that argument.
As to conflating losing a political argument by having people vote in the polling stations in a manner you don't like with rape... Come on... this is a big part of the reason you're losing this argument. You can't just conflate everything with rape. It makes you sound crazy.
As to judging things by voting patterns being unreliable... not when it comes to who wins an election. Who wins the election is pretty much decided by who got the most votes on election day.
Look, you can be a political zealot if you want. But you need to be responsive to reality if you want to be effective in your political advocacy. If you're not... then you're just going to fail. Just a helpful word of advice there.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
The jerk point is not politically relevant.
As to men voting for hillary, Hillary through her proxies has accused male democrats of voting for bernie because of sexism. And the war on women thing did backfire in the congressional election. The smart money says that its going to have negative consequences for male turn out. Whether those consequences will be decisive is another matter. Neither of us have crystal balls.
As to corruption not making the top 10 things with Hillary... it tends to be in the top 2 actually. Would you like to see the polling? Or would you like to save me the time and yourself the embarrassment by simply conceding the point?
As to the policy differences between the two... this is probably one of the funnier things you've said:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Six hundred and sixty six comments? That's not a coincidence!
Sure, charisma gap.
if you're less charismatic than bernie sanders... oh well.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Damn, not much of a choice left...an unpolished blowhard or un-convicted felon with zero accomplishments and a payola sheet a mile long.
Society fail. Super sized!
Except that Cruz isn't the one who has a history of killing off enemies with airplane "accidents".
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
They know that the Republicans control both the House and the Senate, and that the SCOTUS is even, and missing a judge.
Normally that would matter more but this year the feelings about BOTH Clinton and Trump are so strong is has driven that long-term fact to the back of everyone's minds.
And even if you DO think that is a factor, do you think Clinton would push a more left leaning justice than Trump? I think it's a wash. So it's not like that's even a factor.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Trump got a *higher percentage* of female voters in New York than Clinton did!
The laughable mistake you make is thinking that anyone besides those who hated trump already cared a whit about what he said. In effect, Trump offended no-one because there was no effect from any of his statements that supposedly offended people.
Now, you may not attribute much voting power or political astuteness to those groups, but I do.
I attribute a great deal of power to those groups. But unlike you I understand the degree of Trump support within said groups, which you are trying to hide your head in the sand and ignore.
In particular, Trump is vasty more popular with millennials than Hillary is, primarily because of all of the things Hillary has done to stop Sanders. Do you really no see that?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The jerk point is not politically relevant.
It most certainly is when you are discussing a continuum of personalities. If you want to place it as being orthogonal to characteristics of personality that you care about, you can make that argument but it most certainly is a type of personality.
As to men voting for hillary,
You have no useful information to present on that matter. You have exposed your hatred of her enough that we know you wouldn't have voted for her if she was running against an actual reincarnation of Hitler. You are free to dislike her for whatever reasons you see fit, and you are free to vote for whomever you like in November. I don't particularly care why you hate her, I'm not much a fan of hers either.
The fact of the matter though is that your bit about her losing this vote or that vote based on your imagination of how voting group X will respond to her doing Y is just that - your imagination. You should read actual polling data or attend actual political functions before you go making yourself look even more ridiculous on these matters.
As to corruption not making the top 10 things with Hillary... it tends to be in the top 2 actually. Would you like to see the polling?
I know I would. You have not shared a single bit of polling data yet, so I'll even bet you can't provide any for this. I'll remind you that you earlier said
hillary's corruption scandals have hurt her amongst younger voters
So you need rather specific data - not just random surveys of angry conservatives - to support that claim.
As to the policy differences between the two... this is probably one of the funnier things you've said:
You know you linked to an SNL video, right? What is the point you think you are making with that link? If you are just trying to reinforce the notion that you are ignorant on the policy differences between Bernie and Hillary, you did a pretty good job there. Otherwise you might want to look for something with some substance.
Right. Ronald Reagan/George HW Bush got 63%, John McCain/Mitt Romney got 62%
No, McCain only got about 56% of the white male vote. So a 7 point swing up in that demographic in a single cycle is certainly feasible, since that's what happened last cycle. A similar swing up again would get them close to 70%.
So the real question here is will that upward trend continue, or is 62-ish% that party's white-male ceiling, and the McCain election was just an aberration? It isn't tough to find people out there arguing the former. Admittedly, the aberration theory seems to best satisfy Hanlon's Razor at the moment. But we only get datapoints for inter-cycle theories like this once every 4 years, so its tough to separate the evidence from the noise.
Considering the track record of any public policy with "social*" in the name, and the track records of socialist and communist countries... it seems to me that loathing them is the correct reaction.
I can't pull your head out of your ass if you're so desperate to be up there.
http://gazette.com/editorial-w...
http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek...
http://www.newsweek.com/war-wo...
Look, I'm trying to make sense not advocate for a political position. You are trying to advocate. I don't care.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
As to playing to emotions, all politicians do that. "Hope and Change" is not a policy position. Its touchy feely position. All politicians do it.
So some are shitty at it and some are good at it.
As to attacking opponents, all politicians do that as well. All politicians do it.
Some are shitty at it and some are good at it.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
And how many of those sources showed polling data that supports your argument of
hillary's corruption scandals have hurt her amongst younger voters
Answer: not a single one.
So why are you holding on so dearly to this argument that you cannot support? There is plenty wrong with Hillary, why do you feel the need to make shit up? Just go with the things that people actually dislike about her, there is no shortage of it.
The fact that you abandoned the rest of your "argument" is duly noted as well.
Any fool could use google to find lots of young people complaining about the corruption at hillary and bernie rallies... and if you talk to bernie supporters they will often cite that as an issue. And bernie's voters shift younger.
If you want to stick your head up your own asshole and pretend otherwise... that's your choice. But that's all you're doing.
Sticking your own head up your ass is not a counter argument. It merely makes you an object of pity.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Insightful. The USA appears to be following past empires -- Russia, Greece and Rome in particular -- down the path of controlling itself to death.
By US standards of "social", pretty much every democratic country in the world except the US is social.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
At least vote for Gary Johnson instead of Sanders. Voting for someone whom you disagree with on just about everything makes no sense.
The next thing you should ask yourself is if Progressives are really the best fit to represent blue collar workers in the bottom 2 quintiles of income.
The sources to that one are kind of sketchy....But what Hillary did actually do was get the charges against a child rapist dropped on a technicality. That's generally OK. Everyone deserves representation, and mishandling of evidence is a bad thing. The part that shows she is an evil, powerhungry, money whore is the fact that she laughed about it.
Evil Hillary
Any fool could use google to find lots of young people complaining about the corruption at hillary and bernie rallies... and if you talk to bernie supporters they will often cite that as an issue. And bernie's voters shift younger.
Which is not the same as polling data. You said you could provide polling data. Where is the polling data?
You asked the AC if they wanted to see the polling. The AC replied in the affirmative. You have not shown any polling that supports your claims. The AC's claim that you cannot support your claims with actual polling data is much better substantiated than are your claims.
As was pointed out, you already have walked away from your other "arguments" upon realizing that you cannot support them. It may be time for you to do the same with this one as well.
It doesn't matter. If your hope of having a good life with a long career depends on a manufacturing job, you're kind of out of luck.
Except for nuking the Middle East, this sounds pretty good actually. I do disagree on the tax rates; it should be 0% for lower incomes. Since you've thrown a UBI in there, it doesn't have to be very high, maybe the first $10k is tax-free. However, to make your UBI and universal healthcare work you'll need much higher taxes at the top end, more like 50% for the $1M+ people and 35% for the $100k-1M people.
As for the military, the thing really needs to be revamped. We should be able to afford just as much military hardware for half as much money. Look at how much an aircraft carrier costs now. 20 years ago, it was around $2.5B for a carrier. Now it's suddenly $15B. Military costs have risen far more than the rate of inflation. And there's been a huge amount of merging in the defense contracting industry, which probably isn't a coincidence. I'm not exactly sure what the solution is, but we taxpayers are not getting much for our defense dollars, and it needs to be fixed.
This is a problem I see with a lot of analyses: they assume that current costs are fixed or rising, and that there's no way to make them lower. The government does have the ability to change the costs of things if it manages things smartly. And it is possible to manage things more intelligently: various European countries have proven this by doing it. Healthcare costs (per capita) are much cheaper there, telecom/internet service is much cheaper, etc.
The man literally wants to double-triple-quadruple taxes on everyone from the lower middle class and up to pay for massive government expansion. We're talking about tax increases that will actually cause almost everyone in the country to not be able to afford their house payment.
Sorry, but this is just dumb. Go find a calculator and plug in your income and see what your tax increase would be. I did (I make probably average for a professional software engineer on Slashdot), and came up with a somewhat high-sounding number. Then, I calculated how much I spend per month on my health insurance premiums. It's a wash. I'll pay higher taxes, and then save just as much by having universal healthcare. Sounds like a good deal to me, especially when I can see that my poorer friends aren't struggling with healthcare problems.
Yeah, if you're netting $500k/year or something, you're going to pay higher taxes. Boo hoo. For everyone making less than 6 figures, it's going to be an improvement.
http://beforeitsnews.com/resources/2010/12/do-not-trust-responses-from-snopes-and-factcheck-309506.html
https://therionorteline.com/2013/08/16/snopes-got-snoped/
Now you know why Trump is on the other side. Hillary just had to look saner by comparison and the worst that happens is that people who would vote for a decent Republican stay home.
Not really. What about all the people who would vote for a decent Democrat? They'll stay home instead of voting for Hillary (or maybe vote Green Party). Trump actually has enthusiastic voters, and they will turn out. The only real chance the Democrats have now is to give Bernie the nomination. He can beat Trump. Hillary cannot.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Once Trump is elected President, the hate will be palpable. Looking forward to it.
At least the Republican party is now toast. The establishment of that party will never recover.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
What would Bernie actually be able to accomplish?
More than Hillary, that's what. Bernie would actually push for a lot more, and then compromise, so we'll get something rather than nothing. Hillary will just go straight to "compromise" and get nothing that the opposition wasn't already prepared to agree to in the first place.
And Bernie would use the bully pulpit to push Congress to do better, and to help get more like-minded politicians elected. Hillary will only help with the campaigns of fellow corporatists like her buddy Debbie Wasserman-Schultz who's a huge fan of payday lenders who prey on low-income people with usurious interest rates.
Polling data on what? You want exit polls? What would you accept as valid data. I want you to be explicit so I can know if you're asking for something unreasonable or if you're going to make it easy for me to instantly win.
Its going to be one of those two because we both know I'm right. The DNC pundits and political strategists are aware of it.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Media gives Trump free air time because gas bags bring higher viewership.
mfwright@batnet.com
And Teddy Roosevelt did some good stuff, too. Today's politics don't seem to be too linked to the old systems, and in particular today's so-called Republican Party is just a brand hijack. No relation to the progressive and liberal Republican Party of Abraham Lincoln or the pragmatic if too-pro-business-for-my-taste GOP.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
Actually young single women are far less likely to identify as feminists than older, married women. This may be because of self preservation... men don't tend to want to go out with/commit to women whom they see as natively hostile to their gender. A married woman or an older woman who no longer require/depend on male attraction can afford to be seen as openly feminist.
But Hillary's core constituency is definitely feminist... and of the more militant shade. The bulk of her support from women who are 50 or older, post-menopause, generally angry and bitter for their perceived loss of status due to old age/discrimination and who have hostile attitudes towards men in general.
Except for nuking the Middle East, this sounds pretty good actually.
I was mostly joking there... that is an emotional viewpoint, not a rational one. At the end of the day, rational would win. (I think!)
I do disagree on the tax rates; it should be 0% for lower incomes. Since you've thrown a UBI in there, it doesn't have to be very high, maybe the first $10k is tax-free.
Actually, that is why I put a UBI in there, to avoid 0% tax rates.
I believe that everyone should pay something into the system, everyone takes part. If millions of people pay nothing, then they have no investment in the system.
Consider UBI to be the counterbalance to the removal of 0% tax rates.
However, to make your UBI and universal healthcare work you'll need much higher taxes at the top end, more like 50% for the $1M+ people and 35% for the $100k-1M people.
Maybe... I haven't done a serious study on it or anything, but consider that large numbers of people pay amazingly little in taxes. Under my plan, my personal tax rate would double, for example.
As for universal health care, I don't think that would cost a dime, it may save money. Take all the money from insurance companies, all the money from medicaid, all the money from welfare, food stamps, writeoffs from medical bills not being paid, plus the economic damage from 1 million+ bankruptcies from medical bills, and I think it pays for itself.
Of course, I'd do it differently... I'd suggest simply hiring 250,000 doctors, pay them a salary, and tell them to take all comers with the goal to provide quality patient outcomes. Consider that we don't allow "for-profit" police departments or fire departments, some things just shouldn't be profit driven. Of course doctors have to be paid, but they don't need half a million dollars either.
Keep in mind, my wife is a doctor, she makes in the comfortable six figures, but takes home less than half of it. She has to employ a medical billing person who does nothing but chase down insurance companies for money. She would LOVE to take a $100k salary and just treat all comers, free of charge.
As for the military, the thing really needs to be revamped. We should be able to afford just as much military hardware for half as much money. Look at how much an aircraft carrier costs now. 20 years ago, it was around $2.5B for a carrier. Now it's suddenly $15B. Military costs have risen far more than the rate of inflation. And there's been a huge amount of merging in the defense contracting industry, which probably isn't a coincidence. I'm not exactly sure what the solution is, but we taxpayers are not getting much for our defense dollars, and it needs to be fixed.
Yep, that is a long story in itself... In short, we love flashy and fancy, but we tend to waste a huge amount of money. We make far too few long term plans. The F22 is wonderful and you need those, but the F35 has been a mess. And they KEEP trying to kill the A10, what a wonderful and cheap airplane, I'd love to build 200 more of them.
One thing that I'd like to consider is merging all the services into a united military service. There is a lot of overlap between the branches and while they would fight tooth and nail, the question is how much could be saved by having a single purchasing department instead of 5, a single testing center instead of 5, etc.
Maybe lots, maybe little, but I'd look at it.
As for the carriers, keep in mind that exists for 2 reasons:
1. Jobs program
2. Maintaining the ability to build nuclear ships at all - once lost, that ability is hard to get back
European countries have proven this by doing it. Healthcare costs (per capita) are much cheaper there, telecom/internet service is much cheaper, etc.
Too many Americans think we're the best at EVERYTHING, without being willing to look at other nations and seeing what they do best... This is foolish, we are not the only "great nation" in the world.
It was nationally pushed through national media and coordinated through local political organizations and national political organizations. This does not mean that anything specific happened in literally every single voting district. I can't speak to where ever you're from. It was NATIONALLY applied.
But all I've got is your say-so.
You contend something happened. I didn't see it. Is my district that exceptional? Is the media I get somehow censored? Am I isolated from the norm?
I can post you links to national media articles from the time.
Well, that would be something other than your say-so.
Since I would find it very hard to post articles covering something that didn't happen, it's in your ballpark, not mine.
And it was also reported after the congressional election that it backfired because there was a huge drop in MALE democrats showing up to vote.
There was a huge drop in EVERYONE showing up to vote. Turnout was under 40% period. You'll have to show that not only did MALE democrats not show up to vote, that there was a discrepancy in their voting caused by it. But since the turnout was so low, and trends have been going that way anyhow, it may be rather difficult to prove.
Even if it happened, like I said, I'd call it a misfire. Backfiring has a different meaning to it. For that, I'd really expect to see you showing that more people voted for Republicans than not, and like I said, in my district alone, a third fewer people voted for the Congressman than in the previous election, a pattern common across the country, with rare exception, so...
Now you can either note what happened and adjust your strategy to take reality into consideration or your opinions on reality lose their value.
Ah, the thing about noting what happened, is that it's possible to come to the wrong conclusions, all too easy, in fact, as perception can often different from actuality, and even when observed correctly, your reaction can be the worse decision.
See for example, the Chernobyl disaster. Caused by a lot of misunderstandings and poor reactions, including some counter-intuitive ones.
Happens in politics too.
As to your opinions on what is good or bad... we're not talking about your feelings. I don't care about your feelings. I'm talking about politics.
You should, caring about people's feelings is important in politics. It's often the more important driver than reason.
That anti PC is seen as patriotic or whatever whilst at the same time seen as "cool" is not a good thing for your position politically.
It's not a good thing, but perhaps for more reasons than you realize. There's other reasons it is bad, including it simply being a way to get people behind some very bad things.
It means you're losing the argument.
Again, I find your chosen terms to be ill-fitting. The term you want is related to persuasion, not argument. The use of the term argument implies logic, but that's a mistake when it's people's feelings that are really driving the reaction.
Now if you want... you can double down on your position, ignore how you're being perceived, and just assume that because Jesus is with you that you're going to win. Or you can note that some of the things you're doing are not working and you should adjust your policies to be more politically effective. Choose.
Because if you just double down and ignore how things are playing out... you're going to lose bigger.
Well, you can assume it'd be a loss. Or it might be a perseverance comes forth with a win. Of course, there's a difference between changing tactics, and changing strategy. It's one thing to rethink messaging. It's another to change your whole existence.
It is a tough choice in politics, just think how the elect
As for the carriers, keep in mind that exists for 2 reasons:
1. Jobs program
2. Maintaining the ability to build nuclear ships at all - once lost, that ability is hard to get back
I disagree: nothing about these two factors have changed in 20 years. But the costs are far greater. There's other factors at work.
Too many Americans think we're the best at EVERYTHING, without being willing to look at other nations and seeing what they do best... This is foolish, we are not the only "great nation" in the world.
We have a massive case of NIH.
Actually, that is why I put a UBI in there, to avoid 0% tax rates.
I believe that everyone should pay something into the system, everyone takes part. If millions of people pay nothing, then they have no investment in the system.
This isn't a big point, but I somewhat disagree. The UBI still isn't much money, and I think people should be encouraged to work. I think a tax-free amount at the onset would help that, because taxes discourage activities. Give them a little carrot that they can keep 100% of their first $10k and not have to bother filing taxes. After that, they have to pay, but then they won't feel so bad about it because they're making more significant money (and are probably more educated anyway). Again this isn't a big point; where and how much to set these taxation thresholds is something you really need to do a big study for.
cite your district please... we'll see if it didn't happen or you just weren't paying attention.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Well there are also generational distinctions about what "feminism" means. So when someone says they identify with something from one generation it doesn't mean the same thing as someone from a past era in politics and culture associating with that.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
cite your district please... we'll see if it didn't happen or you just weren't paying attention.
Hmm, you're the one who said it was:
It was nationally pushed through national media and coordinated through local political organizations and national political organizations. This does not mean that anything specific happened in literally every single voting district. I can't speak to where ever you're from. It was NATIONALLY applied. I can post you links to national media articles from the time.
I want you to prove it was national, you don't have to worry about what happened in my district, or proving me wrong, even if for some reason, I completely missed some campaign ads by the local candidate, it still wouldn't prove your contention.
I can accept that my district is an anomaly. Even my media market, since sometimes we get ads for the two adjacent states' districts, and the ones adjacent in-state as well. So show me something national.
He tells some people one thing, and others something completely different. Hence why religious wars and schisms happen.
Would a Republican Congress actually compromise with an actual left winger? Shit look how they've worked with Obama, someone that was barely left of Romney. With Hillary, they'll agree to increase spying on the people, agree to trade agreements that help the rich at the expense of the common man and all those other things that always get bi-partisan support.
Of course either way, they'll argue about the things that the rich don't really care about, abortion, equal rights and the other talking points that the right hates and the left likes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Yes, the elite used taxes to get the common man riled up enough to go along with the elite. Another leading cause was the Royal Proclamation of 1763 where the tyrant proclaimed that the natives were equals and had a right to keep their land, something that really pissed off the big land speculators such as Washington. The tyrant also extended more rights to the evil Papists, even allowing them to take part in government without swearing allegiance to the Anglican Church as well as not stopping them from bearing arms, contrary to the Bill of Rights of 1689.
There was also the first rumblings about ending slavery which upset the south
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Of course, I'd do it differently... I'd suggest simply hiring 250,000 doctors, pay them a salary, and tell them to take all comers with the goal to provide quality patient outcomes.
That would be a quarter or so of the doctors in the US now.
Even allowing for this only being partial coverage, that's still a large way off.
One thing that I'd like to consider is merging all the services into a united military service. There is a lot of overlap between the branches and while they would fight tooth and nail, the question is how much could be saved by having a single purchasing department instead of 5, a single testing center instead of 5, etc.
Maybe lots, maybe little, but I'd look at it.
The Defense Logistics Agency has been in existence since the 1960s.
You'd do well to look at it.
Not to mention the GSA.
Honestly, you may be well intentioned, but your facts are off.
I think Bernie would be a better choice for two reasons here:
1) Hilary is despised by the Republicans. Bernie, not so much. They just don't agree with him.
2) As you point out, with Hillary they'll pass bipartisan legislation to increase spying, etc. With Bernie, they won't because he'll veto that crap. So even if he's unsuccessful in getting anything good passed, at least he won't sign off on anything bad like Hillary will. I'd rather Washington come to a complete standstill than getting more pro-corporate/pro-0.01% garbage passed and little to nothing good. And then with that much gridlock but Bernie as President, at least he'd have a chance at convincing voters to get out to the polls in 2018 to vote for some better Congresspeople so maybe he can do some good stuff in 2019-2020. Hillary isn't going to work to get anyone good elected, she'll just help get her corrupt buddies like DWS elected.
I don't disagree and originally responded to a poster who seemed to think that Bernie would snap his fingers and raise taxes.
As a Canadian, I'd much rather see Bernie then Hillary elected and I'd like to see your Congress reflecting the will of the people. Unluckily it seems the deck is very stacked and things won't change in 2018 no matter the will of the people. http://www.salon.com/2016/04/0...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Oh don't give me that. You're moving the goalposts now to avoid having to admit that you don't have any polling data to support your earlier claim. Either admit that you don't have the polling data, or stop trying to talk your way around it. If you had any polling data for it, you would have provided it the first time you were asked for it - notably that first request came only when you claimed to have such polling data.
You don't have any polling data to support your claim. You know it, the AC knows it, and any other person who might be reading this at this time knows it as well.
I have lots of data. To the contrary, I want you to cite the data you will accept so that YOU cannot goal post move. Tell me what you will accept now so I can win. If I just cite my data you're going to concoct some retarded reason to reject it.
So either give me criteria, admit your challenge was false and you're merely attempting to waste my time with bullshit, or keep tap dancing and prove to my satisfaction that your challenge was false.
Your move. Cite the acceptance criteria or I'm going to conclude one way or the other that your challenge was bullshit.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Stop lying. If you had lots of data you would have already shown it. Now you're trying to come up with an excuse to not present the data that we both know you don't have. You had plenty of chances already to present your data, and every time you either ignored the request or made up some arbitrary excuse to not show it. I could never give you criteria that would correspond to any data you have, because you don't have any data.
You lose. Just admit that you made your claim about having data before because you didn't expect anyone would notice it or call you out on it. Now you've been exposed on lying about having data. Just give up and move on to a different topic.
Maybe reddit has a discussion board that is more your speed?
Will he really throw his support, mumble some platitudes, or just vaguely wave his hand in her general direction?
I think that many Bernie supporters are so polarized against her that they won't even contemplate voting for the evil one. Where many of them are young and haven't really set in their political ways, Trump is not an irrational leap for them to make. Minimally their lack of political party loyalty may allow them to sit it out.
One thing that I can say for certain is that I am glad that I am not having to vote in this election. People often joke about voting for the least worst. In most elections I usually can't imagine any even vaguely qualified candidates that I would have preferred to be running; so least worst it is. But in the US I would look at the two choices and then think Warren; then know that the two choices really really suck.
It's like going to the doctor and being told, you lose a foot, choose which one. While looking at the doctor next door treating a patient with the same problem but that patient is getting a single pill that not only will cure the problem but is tasty as well.
Your dodge is noted.
If you want to play we can play. But if you're going to play coy on your location when you're citing your location as evidence is just a concession on your part. Cite where you are so I can show you're not paying attention or that the reason you were not targeted probably involves you living on the dark side of the moon.
Its one of the two. Cite where you live if you're honest. Make up a fake place after doing some research to try and find a reasonable dead zone if you're a shithead.
Either way... You can either give me what I want and I'll show you're wrong. Or you can dance and concede by default.
Either way... its heads I win or tails you lose.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
From my perspective in Europe, I want to thank America for putting on the hugely entertaining and suspense filled spectacle the U.S. Presidential race has become every 4 years. It must cost billions and there's always blood on the floor. This time it's much better than usual. Just like in Ireland, you don't seem to mind if the candidates are lacking in sanity (e.g. Trump), or wit (e.g. George W. Bush), and it really adds to things that you take it so seriously. From here, we can enjoy the show, but you have to put up with the consequences.
This one seems set to top Al Gore vs George W. in 2000 for negative voting in November, presuming it's Trump vs Clinton. Would people sleep with Donald Trump's finger on the Nuclear Arsenal? Personally, I thought the real power in the U.S. lay with an Oligarchy of big business interests & lobby groups who can and do "fund"(=buy) politicians by financing their campaigns. For example, perhaps that's why George W Bush appointed an ex-Monsanto exec as head of the FDA, for him to whitewash GMOs (Monsanto's Products) as "Essentially the same" AGAINST the advice of FDA Scientists, and modern research highlighting valid concerns. Many unhealthy aspects of the American diet can be traced directly to favorable political appointments or decisions, and thence to the corporate profit motive. But the convoluted Election process is better than reality tv - it's reality!
we will get a new letter from the zodiac soon, lol
Kodos' human suit runs out of power:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
And the hands malfunctioned...... https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Cruz killed his own campaign by choosing that nag Fiorina as his running mate. She's almost as laughably pathetic as Palin.
Cruz is simply too polarizing to be a politician. He needs to get a job as a televangelist.
... So... looking for a criteria you will accept... none offered. Suspension confirmed. You will reject all evidence thus rendering my previously hesitation to engage with you in this manner valid.
Thanks for playing.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Stop moving the goalposts and start showing your polling data. You know, the polling data you freely offered several comments ago. Stop making up excuses to not provide it, and start providing it. Several times you have been asked to provide it, and not once have you done so.
Oh, wait. We all know you don't have it. You don't have ANY polling data at all to support your earlier assertion. You've been called out and your pants are down. Take your ball and go elsewhere, you lost. You are not capable of supporting your assertion, you were just hoping that nobody would call your bluff on polling data.
Your bluff has been called and you have scattered low number cards of differing suits. You would have done better folding sooner.
Now you've lost and you're blaming the other participants when it was your own ego that caused this.
Your dodge is noted.
If you want to play we can play. But if you're going to play coy on your location when you're citing your location as evidence is just a concession on your part. Cite where you are so I can show you're not paying attention or that the reason you were not targeted probably involves you living on the dark side of the moon.
Its one of the two. Cite where you live if you're honest. Make up a fake place after doing some research to try and find a reasonable dead zone if you're a shithead.
Either way... You can either give me what I want and I'll show you're wrong. Or you can dance and concede by default.
Either way... its heads I win or tails you lose.
You're the one who said you had evidence, which you claimed to be able to produce, for national media.
That's your requirement to meet. You set your own bar, I didn't. Cite your sources. Show it happening.
Or did you forget what you said again? If so, I'll repeat:
It was nationally pushed through national media and coordinated through local political organizations and national political organizations. This does not mean that anything specific happened in literally every single voting district. I can't speak to where ever you're from. It was NATIONALLY applied. I can post you links to national media articles from the time.
Post me some national media articles.
Go ahead. Provide them. You said you could do it. Do it.
Wrong. It is EXACTLY because Trump is despised by the extremes of both the left AND right that he will win.
That's because Trump the the candidate VASTLY closer to the center of the political divide than Hillary is or ever can be.
There's a reason why Trump polls with 2x the minority support of any previous Republican candidate.
There's a reason why Trump got a higher percentage of women voters i the New York primaries than did Hillary.
It's because the people who are not at the extremes, real people living real lives LIKE Trump, or at least think he's way better than Hillary and admire his candor EVEN IF THEY DISAGREE WIHT HIM.
That last part is really the thing you and others are incapable of comprehending, why his eventual landslide election will be such a mastery to you for all time.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
if you had data you would have already presented it. it is understood that you have none. you're just playing this silly game with preconceived terms to try to blame your absence of data on someone else. you have no polling data, that is clearly understood.
perhaps you should have thought this through a little further, before laying down your claim of having data that you never had. now you have egg on your face as everyone knows that claim was a lie.
One thing I've noted is the shift among younger women.
They mostly trend democratic, but their reaction to Hillary basically ranges from Meeh to Slightly more popular than Yeast Infection.
That's very different than back in 2008 (and the last Bush term)
Amazing he dropped out.
Looks for criteria... none cited. Your request for data is void without criteria.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
No, I have the data. I am attempting to stop you from goal post moving when I post it. Your refusal to cite acceptance criteria validates my suspicion. You have no interest in the data.
What you will TRY to force me to do is to get MORE data and then more and then more and then more and then more... Every time I provide data you will reject it on some grounds and tell me to get more.
I have no interest in playing that game. I want you to cite the criteria then I will post what I have and win.
The alternative is that you refuse to post criteria and your request for data will then become void. Thus ending the discussion.
You can either play or concede. Your choice.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
That's not going to get anyone out to vote.
The issue here is that you can't just get voters to choose you as the lesser of evils kinda sorta... you have to make them show up on polling day.
Trump and Hillary have huge negatives. People that don't like them REALLY don't like them. Those people can be relied upon to vote for the opposing candidate. Interestingly, these negatives don't line up perfectly with the party battle lines. So some democrats really don't like Hillary and some republicans really don't like Trump. So that introduces interesting dynamics in that the parties have to win over some of their own base to candidates that are seen by some of their own people as unacceptable.
What is more you have the middle... people that dont' have strong feelings about either party or who say the entire system is a joke and that's why they don't vote. Trump might actually have a big advantage there... he's running a more subversive campaign than is Hillary who is running more of a business as usual campaign. The middle might find subversion attractive. Regardless... nothing you make a voter "feel" will matter unless it changes what they do on polling day.
We'll see what happens.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
You're lying, and everyone knows it. You don't have any data to support your earlier claim. You would have posted it by now if you had any. It doesn't matter what anyone posts in response to your obvious moving of the goalposts as you would use it as an excuse to not post any data, after which you would again attempt to claim victory.
The simple fact of the matter is you made shit up under the apparent assumption that you could get away with it.
As was pointed out multiple times, you claimed previously
hillary's corruption scandals have hurt her amongst younger voters
And you have shown repeatedly that you have absolutely no data whatsoever to support it. There are plenty of reasons why younger (and older, and middle-aged, and any other age segment you can imagine) voters don't like Hillary, but you don't have any data whatsoever to support your claim.
Here, I'll give you criteria. Show me data that surveyed at least 100 people who were under 35 and supports your claim.
You won't be able to. No survey exists that supports that notion. If you had data for it you would have already shared it. You lose.
If I was in a conciliatory mood I could say that your claim of
What you will TRY to force me to do is to get MORE data and then more and then more and then more and then more.
Is almost a reflection of reality (in a rather generous way) as currently you have NO data and I am asking you to find some.
Criteria for acceptance is a prerequisite. I detect sophistry in your position and I will not waste my time providing data unless you've already agreed to accept a given criteria of data.
You will obviously just reject anything I post arbitrarily without that condition. If I get you to agree before hand you will not be allowed that flexibility and I will be rhetorically rewarded for providing the data.
Your entire position is a blatant attempt to make information and facts meaningless. I will not cooperate with that strategy. You will either provide criteria or I will not bother citing anything. The reason conversations on the internet turn into insult fests is because a lot of people discussing things are not doing so honestly.
You get MAYBE one side trying to discuss something honestly and the other is just dicking around to fuck everything up. People like you will enter discussion and PRETEND they care about facts or figures when all they're really doing is wasting the time of people that are TRYING to have a legitimate discussion. I am shutting your bullshit down at the gate by forcing you to accept self identified criteria as a price of getting me to jump through any "where is the data" hoops. If you won't do that, then that reads to me like someone fucking the discussion up on purpose.
And that's fine. I saw you coming. Your troll was detected and shut down instantly. Get better.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
No criteria for data submitted... request for data null.
Try again.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
You fail at reading comprehension, apparently. The previous comment specifically said
Here, I'll give you criteria. Show me data that surveyed at least 100 people who were under 35 and supports your claim.
Can't you even come up with data that meets that very generous set of requirements for your earlier assertion of
hillary's corruption scandals have hurt her amongst younger voters
We accept that up to this point you have had no data whatsoever. You know that to be true, as does everyone else reading this thread. Can you redeem yourself and find data? That is absolutely criteria. You can try to come up with data that fits that exceptionally generous criteria, but of course that would require you put some effort into finding data (which you have not done to date). Or you can just admit that you don't have any data to support your claim, in spite of you previously having offered to be able to provide some.
First link that came up when I did a search.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/10/...
yawn.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
And where does it say or support your notion of
hillary's corruption scandals have hurt her amongst younger voters
Oh, right. It doesn't. Just because young voters tend to prefer Bernie over Hillary (in that sample set, no less) doesn't mean that they did it for the reason you claimed.
In other words, you still don't have data to support your claim. You know, the claim that you said you could support with data? Just admit it was a lie and move on.
Trump will destroy her in the debates, and if we're lucky Hillary will slip and reveal her TRUE SELF again and again!
Criteria for acceptance is a prerequisite. I detect sophistry in your position and I will not waste my time providing data unless you've already agreed to accept a given criteria of data.
You will obviously just reject anything I post arbitrarily without that condition. If I get you to agree before hand you will not be allowed that flexibility and I will be rhetorically rewarded for providing the data.
Your entire position is a blatant attempt to make information and facts meaningless. I will not cooperate with that strategy. You will either provide criteria or I will not bother citing anything. The reason conversations on the internet turn into insult fests is because a lot of people discussing things are not doing so honestly.
You get MAYBE one side trying to discuss something honestly and the other is just dicking around to fuck everything up. People like you will enter discussion and PRETEND they care about facts or figures when all they're really doing is wasting the time of people that are TRYING to have a legitimate discussion. I am shutting your bullshit down at the gate by forcing you to accept self identified criteria as a price of getting me to jump through any "where is the data" hoops. If you won't do that, then that reads to me like someone fucking the discussion up on purpose.
And that's fine. I saw you coming. Your troll was detected and shut down instantly. Get better.
I repeat your claims, just in case you've forgotten them:
It was nationally pushed through national media and coordinated through local political organizations and national political organizations. This does not mean that anything specific happened in literally every single voting district. I can't speak to where ever you're from. It was NATIONALLY applied. I can post you links to national media articles from the time.
Bolded for emphasis.
You're the one who made the claim. These are words you typed yourself. You have set your own bar already. It's up to you to follow through with what you presented as something you can do. If you wanted to set further conditions, you should have done so as part of your initial claim, but you didn't, so you are bound by your own words. You said you can do it. So do it. Post those links to national media articles. Provide what you said you can provide.
Pretty simple. Go ahead. You said you can do it. So do it. Get to doing it. Do it.
C'mon, Karmashock said you couldn't challenge his links already, so therefore whatever link he posted, no matter what its content, must be unchallenged.
It's entirely unfair of you to expect Karmashock to even remember what he was trying to prove, let alone take the time to show that what he posted showed it.
Obviously, it's your fault, because you can't just let Karmashock words go unquestioned. That's just unacceptable behavior.
Any fool can type "war on women backfires" into a search engine and find it.
http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek...
http://gazette.com/editorial-w...
the list of articles goes on for pages and pages and pages.
As to whether it was applied nationally, what do you want... statements from the DNC at the time? What will make you drop to your knees on this issue? Because... you tell me what it is... and I'll do it.
You say "I WANT ARTICLES"... you got them. pages of them. Endless pages after pages after pages after pages of them.
If that doesn't do it... you need to be more specific. And that will just mean the inevitable kowtow.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Any fool can type "war on women backfires" into a search engine and find it.
That wasn't what you typed earlier though, you typed:
It was nationally pushed through national media and coordinated through local political organizations and national political organizations. This does not mean that anything specific happened in literally every single voting district. I can't speak to where ever you're from. It was NATIONALLY applied. I can post you links to national media articles from the time.
If you wanted to type something else, you should have. But what you did say was that you could post links, so naturally you were asked to follow through with doing so. If you don't want to do something, I suggest refraining from making any claims that you can do something.
http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek...
Hmm, a lot of talk, but very little evidence to go with the conjecture. That's one of those talking head things, not much in the way of analysis that can be examined. I'd have chosen a different link, rather than that one.
At least you didn't link to one featuring that one guy who claimed to be a CIA agent, except he turned out to be lying. Well, I think, I can't quite tell, maybe he's there in disguise.
But the most you've demonstrated is that there are people who think it existed. Ok, I'll grant you that, I've not disputed it, and I've heard it before. But as I said already, it's possible to come to the wrong conclusions, all too easy, in fact, as perception can often different from actuality.
http://gazette.com/editorial-w...
An editorial focusing on a single candidate, in a single state? But you said it was a nationally coordinated campaign. There is a brief mention of an article in that one that some made claims of a national scope, I'd have suggested a link to that instead. So far, you've got what, one guy out of 33 or so? What about the others, and what about the House districts? What did they do? How did they coordinate?
Still, if you want to talk about the Colorado Senate elections in 2014, we can. The interesting thing I see, is that both candidates got fewer votes than the loser in 2008. More than the other Senate election in 2010 so I guess it's still an increase. The real blow-out was in 1998, however. Close to 2 to 1. But turnout, well, let's see if we can dig that up.
Here it is, 54.5 percent.
Wow, over 50%. That is an exception. Disheartening that they're THIRD though.
But still, now you just have to show that the drop was voters didn't vote because of what Mark Udall did in regards what you claimed. You know, to get a backfire out of it.
If not, at most you get a misfire, and even then, he did get more voters than the candidate in 2010.
Not as many as he did in 2008, but that was the Obama wave. And in 2012, while Colorado had no Senate election, more people voted for Obama in that state than in 2008. So maybe Udall should have had the President come by for a few more visits, you think?
the list of articles goes on for pages and pages and pages.
In that case, I'd suggest choosing more carefully if you ever claim to post any again, the ones you have are rather poor when it comes to meeting your claims.
At most, you have demonstrated belief that it exists, which in politics is often very different from reality.
As to whether it was applied nationally, what do you want... statements from the DNC at the time?
Well, you did say natio
You want criteria? OK. You said you had data that showed young people felt Clinton was corrupt.
If that is the case, then it should be trivially easy for you to show us a survey involving Americans under 30 who said they thought she was corrupt and that they would vote for Sanders specifically because of that. I won't even be picky about who conducted the survey as long as they surveyed living human beings who are eligible to vote in the US. However as you yourself said it was "corruption" that was driving voters away from Clinton your data should directly be asking about corruption.
So there you go. Easy-peasy, lemon-squeasy. This request is basically tailor made to fit the data you earlier claimed to have. So far you have given lots of reasons to believe that you do not have this data, can you show that you actually do?