[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by SuchFriendsAreDangerous

(a) you brought Jesus into this
(b) even if i support monarchy did i mention it anywhere in this discussion over the past year?
you're deflecting and yes, playing games because you would rather try and discredit me than address the issues i raised directly.

whateverz.

so you're a monarchist then?

okay great thanks.

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

and what bearing does that have on my point i made about y'all needing to focus on positives about Hillary instead of negatives about Trump?

[The Soup Nazi]

Originally Posted by The Soup Nazi

Alright, sorry to poop on your philosophical party here with some actual goddamn numbers [...]

Well at least the Veep got it right: Tim Kaine in Orlando: 'Florida is checkmate'

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by SuchFriendsAreDangerous

and what bearing does that have on my point i made about y'all needing to focus on positives about Hillary instead of negatives about Trump?

that you're not a test case for convincing anyone that would vote, of course!

i said that already

okay i gotta go floss. can't floss and type. good night.

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

that you're not a test case for convincing anyone that would vote, of course!

i said that already

okay i gotta go floss. good night.

but that is the thing, i never said that you have to convince me so much as the way y'all were posting certainly wouldn't.

this is my last time wasting my breath

it would be more effective in general to post positives about Hillary instead of negatives about Trump.

i have no personal beef with Hillary i am not the NeverHillary people, and i would have appreciated discussing such but instead y'all wanted to call me lazy, stupid, a baby, and a pussy simply for sharing my honest perspective.

and yet I AM the one supposedly playing games?

[!@#$%!]

ah, clean teeth are nice. that was a sweet meal. anyway, here i am back to ruin my digestion

Originally Posted by SuchFriendsAreDangerous

but that is the thing, i never said that you have to convince me so much as the way y'all were posting certainly wouldn't.

that's impossible to assess-- you would never vote for a presidential candidate anyway so it's a moot argument.

Originally Posted by SuchFriendsAreDangerous

this is my last time wasting my breath

ah ha ha ha-- if only!

Originally Posted by SuchFriendsAreDangerous

it would be more effective in general to post positives about Hillary instead of negatives about Trump.

as someone who will never be convinced, because you're against the whole institution of democratic elections anyway--how do you know, and who do you speak for? this is just hot air.

Originally Posted by SuchFriendsAreDangerous

i have no personal beef with Hillary i am not the NeverHillary people, and i would have appreciated discussing such but instead y'all wanted to call me lazy, stupid, a baby, and a pussy simply for sharing my honest perspective.

well, you call her overlord hillary and throw jabs. and your perspective wasn't honest-- you're a monarchist pretending that you want to be convinced to vote, whereas you're not gonna vote no matter what. so it's not an honest perspective--it's a fake one--an act.

Originally Posted by SuchFriendsAreDangerous

and yet I AM the one supposedly playing games?

of course you are, and this is obvious to everyone at this point. because if you were honest you'd argue monarchy vs democracy instead of playing "earn my vote" with people who argue tirelessly against your false representations, to no end-- and you drive them bananas with your deceptions, and when they lose patience you play the victim and ask people to have good manners.

hail the emperor trollius maximus!

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

why would i argue something that is not going to happen? and besides, i have discussed monarchy in the past and elsewhere, people like you were equally flippant and scoffing then, so why expose myself to that again?

whether i am voting or not i still have a brain and still am able to have a discussion about the election.

i didn't have any way or right to vote in Brexit, neither did you, are you saying we aren't allowed to have an opinion about it?

see reality is you think you can silence ny voice because it is in dissent, but you can't hence why you would rather play games and deflect rather than address my posts head on. you STILL haven't posted anything positive about Overlord Hillary, you did know there are lurkers here right? what if you posted something positive that people other than me also didn't know and could help them.

remember, I'm not voting but i shared that Frontline with stuff you never knew about Hillary and Trump and you seemed to appreciate it. just because i am not voting doesn't make me a troll and doesn't mean i can't also be informed

[!@#$%!]

nobody is silencing your voice. evidently. you just go on and on with it.

all i did was laugh because evollove told you to stop treating your vote like it was your hymen

even if it doesn't apply because as a monarchist you dont vote as a matter of principle.

but yes it was an accurate and funny criticism of your position. even though your position was not sincere.

and thanks for the frontline stuff, but that has nothing to do with the rest.

[!@#$%!]

and yeah i find monarchy as a form of government to be wholly absurd in this day and age but that has nothing to do with you in particular. i mean some people have kings as national symbols but a king who actually rules a nation these days we call a dictator. having lived under a dictatorship, i repudiate them in principle.

[Severian]

Originally Posted by SuchFriendsAreDangerous

why would i argue something that is not going to happen? and besides, i have discussed monarchy in the past and elsewhere, people like you were equally flippant and scoffing then, so why expose myself to that again?

whether i am voting or not i still have a brain and still am able to have a discussion about the election.

i didn't have any way or right to vote in Brexit, neither did you, are you saying we aren't allowed to have an opinion about it?

see reality is you think you can silence ny voice because it is in dissent, but you can't hence why you would rather play games and deflect rather than address my posts head on. you STILL haven't posted anything positive about Overlord Hillary, you did know there are lurkers here right? what if you posted something positive that people other than me also didn't know and could help them.

remember, I'm not voting but i shared that Frontline with stuff you never knew about Hillary and Trump and you seemed to appreciate it. just because i am not voting doesn't make me a troll and doesn't mean i can't also be informed

Oi with the "you still haven't done what I asked you to do" stuff. Just dial it down. You want to steer the discussion to Hillary and you're mad that the discussion is about your vocal and stubborn insistence on not voting.

Why would anyone bother to respond to your demand that we give you good reasons to vote for Hillary? You will not vote, and as a public school civics teacher you know everything you need to know about how the democratic platform supports education, higher teacher salaries, accessible education... in fact demonrail already gave you the answer you wanted (good reasons to vote HRC), and you're still asking for it! After thanking him for giving it to you! And ... like... WHY?! If you're not going to vote what's with your unyielding insistence that we all waste our time convincing you to?!

And nobody wants to silence your voice. I really think you have lost sight of what happened here. Namely, that you made a big to-do about how not voting was your thing, and said a bunch of things that people then reacted to in ways you didn't like. This "give me a reason" stuff is just a red herring. Intentional or otherwise.

I think everyone would chill if you just stopped hammering away at this honesty.
You keep insisting that you're not hurt, but I think that's a front. You're clearly emotionally invested in this and feeling very much like a victim. So, take a freakin breather man! Do something else with your Sunday.

Nobody hates you. It's just that this is getting goddamn insufferable.

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

 

[ilduclo]

from Electoral Vote.com

GOP strategist and pollster Frank Luntz appeared on "Face the Nation" on Sunday, and opined that Donald Trump was probably (but not definitely) going to lose the election. Luntz lamented the lost opportunity, declaring that victory in 2016 should have been a "slam dunk" for the Republican Party.

Any Republican who hears this kind of assessment from a veteran GOP operative, whether Luntz, or Karl Rove, or Mary Matalin, or any other, should be very concerned. At the moment, there are no "slam dunks" for the GOP when it comes to the White House. As we have pointed out many times, the Party begins an election cycle up against a blue wall of 242 electoral votes from states that have gone Democratic six straight times (soon to be seven). Other states (Virginia, North Carolina, New Mexico, Nevada) are moving toward the Democratic column, and they are not being offset by equivalent states moving toward the Republican column. If Hillary Clinton wins, the GOP will have taken the popular vote just once since George H.W. Bush was elected in 1988, and that occasion (2004) was by only a small margin. If Party leaders convince themselves that 2016 was just bad luck, they are overlooking serious demographic problems that are not just going to go away.

[Severian]

Originally Posted by ilduclo

from Electoral Vote.com

GOP strategist and pollster Frank Luntz appeared on "Face the Nation" on Sunday, and opined that Donald Trump was probably (but not definitely) going to lose the election. Luntz lamented the lost opportunity, declaring that victory in 2016 should have been a "slam dunk" for the Republican Party.

He's right! It should have been a GOP year. Historically speaking, after two terms of Democrat, there has almost always been a GOP bounce back. A year and a half ago, I was thinking we'll be lucky to get a moderate republican. But I thought if any politician in the world can beat the odds, land this seat and keep the lid on the pot, it's Hillary Clinton.

It's not over yet of course. Hillary will have to beat historical precedent and make history in earnest. And those electoral projections are still far closer than they should be, so I'm not about to start sleeping well at night. But I'm not sure anyone else would have much of a chance at all.

With Obama, a certain expectation of progress was established, and it's my hope that old whit guys have a harder time vying for office from this point forward. Within 25 years, people will want to see an openly gay president, and maybe they'll even get one in a century. But minorities are fired up now, and that spells bad news for the GOP in the years to come.

[Severian]

They're neck and neck again in the popular vote, which is very unsettling. How can this be exactly? Like... really... given the past 2 weeks, how in the HELL has Trump's appeal with the populace increased?

Electoral numbers still very much in HRC's favor, but the people at the polls are freaking me out.

Let the Repos in Utah go for Johnson!
I loathe Gary Johnson... he's barely even a libertarian, not that I have any love for Libs. But now would be a great time for a Johnson surge in the Bible Belt. Let him have his moment, earn the party's funding for 2020, and have a hand in castrating Trump while he's at it.

And yet Johnson's numbers are down, and have been slipping since last month.

I don't even know what's happening.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by Severian

They're neck and neck again in the popular vote, which is very unsettling. How can this be exactly? Like... really... given the past 2 weeks, how in the HELL has Trump's appeal with the populace increased?

Electoral numbers still very much in HRC's favor, but the people at the polls are freaking me out.

Let the Repos in Utah go for Johnson!
I loathe Gary Johnson... he's barely even a libertarian, not that I have any love for Libs. But now would be a great time for a Johnson surge in the Bible Belt. Let him have his moment, earn the party's funding for 2020, and have a hand in castrating Trump while he's at it.

And yet Johnson's numbers are down, and have been slipping since last month.

I don't even know what's happening.

uh? i've seen this morning news of hillary's numbers reaching 50%

of course complacency is not a good thing (vote early/ vote often lolol)

but verify your sources

[Severian]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

uh? i've seen this morning news of hillary's numbers reaching 50%

of course complacency is not a good thing (vote early/ vote often lolol)

but verify your sources

FiveThirtEight had the popular vote at something like 49 and 43. Even 50/40 is terrifying considering.

Just one site, for that half hour. Saw a few headlines about it too, but they were greatly exaggerated, using phrases like "Dead heat." Oi.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by Severian

FiveThirtEight had the popular vote at something like 49 and 43. Even 50/40 is terrifying considering.

Just one site, for that half hour. Saw a few headlines about it too, but they were greatly exaggerated, using phrases like "Dead heat." Oi.

oh, i see what you're saying. yes. i mean-- 40% of the country voting for an unstable egomaniac is too much however you cut it

thing about polls is that they're probabilities not certainties and yes that aspect is a spooky one. people get too complacent and BLAM.

here's a nice article on electoral stats and probability that explains how 538 accounts for unlikely outcomes with "fat tailed" distributions, plus other fun stuff

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/...hers-on-trump/

is everyone here voting early? avoid lines and suprises on election day

[!@#$%!]

oh, found this on today's paper which explains to me why, besides the working class populism, trump's base is holding steady as such high percentage in spite of his madness. it's an opinion piece about the relation between the republican party and right-wing media.

here's a key section that illustrates what the republican base thinks are "facts"

Seven in 10 Republicans either doubt or completely disbelieve that President Obama was born in the United States. Six in 10 think he’s a secret Muslim. Half believe global warming is possibly or definitely a myth concocted by scientists.

Among just Trump voters, 7 in 10 believe government economic data are fabricated. Half don’t trust that votes will be counted accurately in the November election.


and later, the conclusion:

In other words, Trump is not some black swan, whose unique cocktail of charisma, telegenicism and political fluidity landed him the nomination. His nomination is the product of years of race-baiting, conspiracy-theorizing, expert-delegitimizing right-wing media nonsense, which Republican politicians aided and abetted because it seemed politically expedient at the time. They helped the alt-right create the alternate reality that made a Trump nomination inevitable.


the whole bit is here, and the intent is more prescriptive than analytical, but regardless of the viability of the prescription, the diagnosis for the prescription seems (to me) to be the correct one:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...=.77b6b201c1f6

[Severian]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

His nomination is the product of years of race-baiting, conspiracy-theorizing, expert-delegitimizing right-wing media nonsense, which Republican politicians aided and abetted because it seemed politically expedient at the time. They helped the alt-right create the alternate reality that made a Trump nomination inevitable.

I think this is completely on point. Again, someone found a more articulate, clever and refined way of saying something I was trying to find words for earlier. That being that Trump (or some version of Trump) has been building up in the vas deferens of right-wing America for YEARS. 9-11, Obama's election and re-election, the blossoming of the Tea Party and neo-liberalism... it's all been action and reaction. Rcial "tensions" have morphed back into covert and overt racism and sexism among the voters.

Something or someone like Trump has been growing and gaining power for a long time. And the seed has been planted now. It's anyone's guess as to how HRC will handle the fallout -- the very probable rioting in the streets -- that happens if Trump isn't elected. His children are out there now.

[!@#$%!]

Well, Fox News just turned 20. I remember how insane it was to see their shit on the TV screen when they first came out. Now they're "mainstream."

And yes if you recall the rise of the Tea Party there'd be people with rifles slung on their shoulders at these demonstrations.

I've mentioned before I live in an open carry state, but I do not support open carry in urban places because it's likely to be seen as a provocation rather than a practical thing. In other words, when you're herding cattle on the range open carry is fine, but when you're visibly holstered in a Starbucks you're just an asshole trying to scare people.

So, with this in mind, I don't know about riots, but expect at least more people marching down the streets armed to the teeth like the Black Panthers used to do when Governor Reagan was in favor of gun control.

More Waco or Cliven Bundy scenarios will likely happen for various wackadoodle reasons if/when Hillary wins. Either way, the rabid dog is off the leash.