Now That Trump's President... (not any more!)

  On 10/25/2016 at 4:39 AM, very honest said:

 

  On 10/25/2016 at 4:18 AM, marf said:

i think it was a rigged election in the sense that Hillary was the chosen one by what appears to be a massive establishment and the fucking leaks by the DNC proved that. Im sad that Bernie hasn't highlighted this more.

i've gone over this before but it bears repeating because apparently everybody is under the wrong impression, and it's feeding the hillary hysteria. the parties pick the nominees. the colorado gop didn't even count votes this year. the parties reserve the right to utterly disregard votes. the process was never supposed to be free from bias.

Not quite. The dnc has precise language insisting upon neutrality and impartiality among its officers. I don't think the idea is that the party is expected to chose whatever the fuck candidate they feel like, I believe they are expected to assess the candidates in an even-handed manner and make a decision based on a fair assessment. One cannot ignore the fact that the chairperson and senior staff resigned/were fired precisely for violations of neutrality bylaws throughout the primaries.

 

Is that how politics works? Nah, not really. But it's not cool to suggest that people are "hysterical" for having a different take on that.

alright you make a good point.

 

it remains true that things like contested conventions and states deciding to not let people vote for nominees punch a pretty big hole in the idea that primaries are supposed to be purely democratic.

 

i didn't say concern over this issue is hysteria, i said it feeds the hysteria.

 

hillary hysteria is palpable, and is largely a product of republican propaganda consisting of plausible nonsense.

 

those guys profit off the destruction of humanity's earth habitat, they're like bad guys from inspector gadget. they take three times more money from wallstreet than democrats, and fight to cripple the consumer financial protection bureau, but they've got everyone fighting against hillary as though she is the wall street stooge.

Edited October 25, 2016 by very honest

https://represent.us/

  On 10/25/2016 at 5:19 AM, very honest said:

alright you make a good point.

 

it remains true that things like contested conventions and states deciding to not let people vote for nominees punch a pretty big hole in the idea that primaries are supposed to be purely democratic.

 

i didn't say concern over this issue is hysteria, i said it feeds the hysteria.

 

hillary hysteria is palpable, and is largely a product of republican propaganda consisting of plausible nonsense.

 

those guys profit off the destruction of humanity's earth habitat, they're like bad guys from inspector gadget. they take three times more money from wallstreet than democrats, and fight to cripple the consumer financial protection bureau, but they've got everyone fighting against hillary as though she is the wall street stooge.

Ah gotcha on the hysteria comment, I read you wrong there. Yeah, it *is* palpable. The whole "crooked hillary" as the most corrupt being on earth thing is something I've found consistently among the few trump-supporters I've met irl. i would be willing to bet the vast majority of trump supporters have absolutely no specific understanding of what is entailed in any of their accusations. It's just like "Emails. Bad. Vote trump."

well, if you think about it, Trump is the perfect candidate to run against Hillary. (think)

What's 'a massive establishment'? I suppose you're not implying a democratic majority. (Lame, i know) There were some assholes in the dnc and that Sanders deserved a better treatment for sure. But Sanders didnt lose because of a rigged system.

 

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-system-isnt-rigged-against-sanders/

  Quote

Realistically, if you throw everything together, the math suggests that Sanders doesn’t have much to complain about. If the Democratic nomination were open to as many Democrats as possible — through closed primaries — Clinton would be dominating Sanders. And if the nomination were open to as many voters as possible — through open primaries — she’d still be winning.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-bernie-sanders-meant/

  Quote

Let’s start with the most obvious problem that Sanders ran into: He never caught on with black voters and didn’t improve with them as the primary season went on.

...

Sanders also struggled tremendously with Latinos, who are growing as a percentage of eligible voters. Sanders lost every contest, except for Colorado, where Latinos made up at least 10 percent of the voting eligible population.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/has-the-hillary-clinton-campaign-been-lucky-or-good/

  Quote

And the Bernie constituency consisted of people who are by and large not Democratic base voters. Instead, lots of independents and young voters. Those voters might be important to the future of the Democratic Party and/or the future of left-wing politics, and it was really impressive that Sanders was able to mobilize them. But Clinton crushed Sanders with the voters she needed to win.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-political-process-isnt-rigged-it-has-much-bigger-problems/

  Quote

Here’s the truth: Washington is rigged, but not in a literal sense and not in any of the nefarious ways those loud voices are contending. Instead, the blame may lie more with voters than politicians: Our legislative process is not designed to withstand the current levels of partisan polarization in the electorate.

 

Voters’ vexation with standard-issue, do-nothing D.C. politicians and party elites helps explain the Trump and Sanders phenomena of 2016, and the “rigging” theories seem to arise out of that frustration and suspicion. Yet much of this anger with “insiders” is misdirected. If only our political problems were due to “rigging” elections, we could arrest someone and get on with it. But our problems are much more structural.

Well, my only defense is i follow shitloads of media outlets and the "let's control the lemmings" feel to every single one of them is blatantly obvious. Im old, News isnt news anymore. Unless it is like war reporting. Trump running was maybe Bill's idea. He's a very smart and savvy man. 

Edited October 25, 2016 by marf

Following lots of media outlets is indeed common lemming behavior that seems to be wrecking lots of minds these days. I feel very sorry for you. ;d

  On 10/25/2016 at 7:23 AM, marf said:

Well, my only defense is i follow shitloads of media outlets and the "let's control the lemmings" feel to every single one of them is blatantly obvious. Im old, News isnt news anymore. Unless it is like war reporting. Trump running was maybe Bill's idea. He's a very smart and savvy man.

 

Seriously though, I think the "let's control the lemmings- feel to every single one of them" is mostly a feeling which is further from the truth than you seem to be aware of.

IMO, the reality is actually more the other way around: media-outlets are closely following other media outlets and they're also catering towards their audiences. They're as much lemming as the people following them, I'd argue.

Lots of reporting is simply copy pasting what others have reported. Very explicitly. They often mention upfront what their sources were. (Not always though). But what should be blatently obvious is the amount of catering they're doing. Media-outlets are sellers of news. Not autoritarian teachers. If they actually tried to control their audience, their audience would soon shrink like snow in a hot summer sun.

Edited October 25, 2016 by goDel

  On 10/25/2016 at 5:03 AM, marf said:

 

  On 10/25/2016 at 4:39 AM, very honest said:

 

  On 10/25/2016 at 4:18 AM, marf said:

i think it was a rigged election in the sense that Hillary was the chosen one by what appears to be a massive establishment and the fucking leaks by the DNC proved that. Im sad that Bernie hasn't highlighted this more.

i've gone over this before but it bears repeating because apparently everybody is under the wrong impression, and it's feeding the hillary hysteria. the parties pick the nominees. the colorado gop didn't even count votes this year. the parties reserve the right to utterly disregard votes. the process was never supposed to be free from bias.

 

Well, that is not a democracy. Good heavens they were in bed with the media. Something needs to change

Remember, the US is a republic, not a democracy; we choose the people that choose our leaders, we don't choose them directly. The founding fathers set it up that way on purpose.

  On 10/25/2016 at 5:19 AM, very honest said:

alright you make a good point.

 

it remains true that things like contested conventions and states deciding to not let people vote for nominees punch a pretty big hole in the idea that primaries are supposed to be purely democratic.

 

i didn't say concern over this issue is hysteria, i said it feeds the hysteria.

 

hillary hysteria is palpable, and is largely a product of republican propaganda consisting of plausible nonsense.

 

those guys profit off the destruction of humanity's earth habitat, they're like bad guys from inspector gadget. they take three times more money from wallstreet than democrats, and fight to cripple the consumer financial protection bureau, but they've got everyone fighting against hillary as though she is the wall street stooge.

Well, our standards for politicians have been dragged so low that the ambient level of corruption exhibited by Hillary is just seen as no big deal, and that if we're on the left we have a duty to defend Hillary from criticism lest we lose ground in the left/right tug-of-war that is politics.

 

Hillary is a deeply corrupt piece of shit who belongs in prison (along with her war criminal husband), and it's okay to acknowledge that and still vote for her. Some people really have trouble countenancing that kind of ambivalence, and actually see that as a weakness. And with so many people being so blinded by ideology, it's not hard to see it as a sheer power game, where truth and merit are mere weapons to use when they happen to validate you, and mere obstacles to be avoided when they don't.

voted yesterday. straight ticket dem for the first time ever. also remembered my state senator, thanks to gerrymandering, is based out of Laredo, despite the fact that I live in SE Austin. it was nice changing out of a GOP district though.

Trump doesn't seem to have done anything retarded the last few days, there's not a chance he could still win this thing is there?

  On 10/25/2016 at 11:00 PM, tec said:

Trump doesn't seem to have done anything retarded the last few days, there's not a chance he could still win this thing is there?

 

 

the polls could be wrong. 

 

watched that adam curtis doc "century of self" i think it was? i can't recall.. anyway.. in it he talks about UK election of john major and how he was down 5 points or so but it was because the people polled had all been too embarrassed to tell to the truth that they planned on voting for Major so the pollsters had bad data. or that's what he says in the doc. is it actually true? idk.. seems so.. since all the polls were wrong. 

 

hopefully the polls are right here in the USA.  though i read something on Vice news about early voting in florida has trump up by 5 points.. but no idea how that factors in since early voting by mail is probably a certain demographic that always votes one way or something.. ???

 

idk.. fuck it.. i voted (vote by mail in oregon is best thing ever) and now i'm just waiting. aargh. 

The main reason polls get things wrong is because they fail to correctly predict the turnout, as long the democratic turnout is high, Trump basically has no chance at this point. There is a smaller chance their demographic models are wrong, which could also affect the numbers (e.g. that LA Times tracking poll which had a single black respondent, who was a Trump supporter, so the poll was massively skewed in Trump's favour because it over-weighted his support amongst black folks), but given the sheer number of polls being done that's far less likely to be a problem (they've almost all been very closely aligned, and it's unlikely all the polsters' models are wrong, but not impossible I guess).

I don't entirely trust the polls, I thought Labour were close to the Conservatives in the last general election but it was a complete slaughter. 

also re early voting in Florida, in previous elections that has heavily favoured republicans, but far less so this year, I heard the difference was only 1.7%, but was 5-6% in the last election*. That would lead you to think he's not going to win in Florida, where Clinton has been leading in the polls for the last number of weeks.

 

* http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/trump-clinton-florida-230275

Edited October 25, 2016 by caze

  On 10/25/2016 at 11:13 PM, caze said:

The main reason polls get things wrong is because they fail to correctly predict the turnout, as long the democratic turnout is high, Trump basically has no chance at this point. There is a smaller chance their demographic models are wrong, which could also affect the numbers (e.g. that LA Times tracking poll which had a single black respondent, who was a Trump supporter, so the poll was massively skewed in Trump's favour because it over-weighted his support amongst black folks), but given the sheer number of polls being done that's far less likely to be a problem (they've almost all been very closely aligned, and it's unlikely all the polsters' models are wrong, but not impossible I guess).

 

 

what you talking about? lot's of blacks support trump.. like this lady.. 

 

I've heard a lot of people bring up the brexit polls as evidence not to get too complacent as well, this graph shows why the comparison is invalid:

 

https://twitter.com/aedwardslevy/status/790638388554661888/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

Michael Moore (aka the Rush Limbaugh of the left) thinks Trump is gonna win

Trump will win because of the undecided voters, they'll go to the voting booth not knowing who to vote for and in the last second they'll think to themselves "fuck it lets vote trump and see what happens" 

clinton does represent a stupid amount of intense status quo.. which for scared voters could be scary.

 

i totally get why people are conflicted between comfortably voting trump over clinton or clinton over trump. but i still get the impression it'll land with clinton winning.

he's wearing a fucking camo hat now!

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/10/25/politics/donald-trump-joe-biden-fight/index.html

 

full-on fatigues next?

Why stop there?

 

lol^

 

In my part of town (the burbs of Detroit), I've seen a shit ton more Trump signs up the past week.

Like I said last week. I'll believe the polls on Nov. 9th.