|
Crowsbeak posted:Seriously what the gently caress? I mean yeah I know Libertarians harbor alot of racists... Shocking stuff from a party founded by racists whose core ethos is protecting the property of white men, I know.
|
#
?
May 21, 2016 03:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 13:00 |
|
|
mrfreeze posted:Does anyone have recommendations for good U.S. politics podcasts? So far I've got Chapo Trap House, Keepin it 1600, and Slate Whistlestop when it actually freaking updates, but I need more! Reading Marx's Capital with David Harvey
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2016 03:08
|
|
|
Twitter loving sucks and I wish it was never invented.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2016 03:12
|
|
|
Grondoth posted:Twitter loving sucks and I wish it was never invented. Twitter is the best thing ever. I will fight you.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2016 03:20
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Shocking stuff from a party founded by racists whose core ethos is protecting the property of white men, I know. But enough about the Democrats! 
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2016 03:23
|
|
|
Good or bad it's hilarious to think how different this primary would have been without it. How much less free press would Trump have gotten without crazy tweets. Would he just have sent crazy letters to journalists all the time?
Fuck You And Diebold fucked around with this message at 03:36 on May 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 21, 2016 03:23
|
|
|
Thanks goodness that organization put a stop to the guy being mean on Twitter to a person who advocated bombing Libya, taking their resources, and using the proceeds to pay for the US deficit.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2016 03:24
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Thanks goodness that organization put a stop to the guy being mean on Twitter to a person who advocated bombing Libya, taking their resources, and using the proceeds to pay for the US deficit. I still can't believe the first Trump ad. I thought it was a joke, because it seemed like something out of GTA. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qa3edsMzHkA
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2016 03:26
|
|
|
Star Man posted:Twitter is the best thing ever. I will fight you. Counterpoint: constant passive aggressive insults that can't be longer than an AIM signature being the baseline of Crowsbeak posted:I still can't believe the first Trump ad. I thought it was a joke, because it seemed like something out of GTA. (Joementum ain't talkin' about trump)
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2016 03:26
|
|
gently caress You And Diebold posted:Hood or bad it's hilarious to think how different this primary would have been without it. How much less free press would Trump have gotten without crazy tweets. Would he just have sent crazy letters to journalists all the time? That's pretty much what he did before Twitter, so yeah, that's probably what he'd be doing.
|
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2016 03:30
|
|
|
jeong and bruenig are both good, but only jeong blocked me as collateral damage when she was being harassed. i assume because i also followed bruenig or someone else on some lost she used
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2016 03:45
|
|
|
gently caress You And Diebold posted:Good or bad it's hilarious to think how different this primary would have been without it. How much less free press would Trump have gotten without crazy tweets. Would he just have sent crazy letters to journalists all the time? 30 years ago a guy in a defunct magazine wrote articles that refered to Trump as a Short Fingered Vulgarian. To this day he gets envelopes from trump that contain pictures of Trump with the hands circles in gold sharpie. Sometimes in addition to the gold sharpie circle, Trump includes notes on the picture like "See, not so short!" So yes. Yes, Trump would be sending crazy letters to journalists with weird things circled and the craziest notes hand written on them. This is what Twitter stole from us. Crowsbeak posted:I still can't believe the first Trump ad. I thought it was a joke, because it seemed like something out of GTA. *joke about the General Election pivot* I'm beginning to think that Trump actually believes in the silent majority. Those thousands and inflated numbers of thousands of supporters showing up at his rallies have convinced him that there is a vast and untapped resource of angry white people. Or Trump really is the greatest trick that the Clintons ever pulled.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2016 03:48
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:There's a libertarian party convention? Christ that must be something. I HAVE THE CONCH SHELL
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2016 03:52
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Thanks goodness that organization put a stop to the guy being mean on Twitter to a person who advocated bombing Libya, taking their resources, and using the proceeds to pay for the US deficit. Well, we live(d) in an era of deficit politics after all  The worst part is Too Woke Twitter making GBS threads on the Bruenigs for having a GoFundMe because white people are immune to fiscal shocks or something and thus no one should give them money
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2016 03:57
|
|
|
Rygar201 posted:Well, we live(d) in an era of deficit politics after all I really don't give a gently caress what anyone says on Twitter, but I do think we maybe shouldn't turn a blind eye to the person who's going to be Hillary's Chief of Staff saying we should bomb people and loot their corpses. 
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2016 04:00
|
|
|
I follow Jamelle Bouie and it's 33% him tweeting about his job, 33% responding to dipshits who respond to tweets about his job/chastise him for being anti-Bernie/say racist poo poo during one of the first two things, and 33% photography. It's pretty cool. edit: An Example https://twitter.com/jbouie/status/733742737732734977 Yoshifan823 fucked around with this message at 04:06 on May 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 21, 2016 04:04
|
|
|
There's a lot of cool poo poo on twitter. There's also a lot of immensely tiresome left center left slap fighting, misogynists, alt rightists, and other undesirables. It's still my favorite social media platform
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2016 04:07
|
|
|
Bernie does have a big lead with Caucasians.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2016 04:18
|
|
|
Whatever you do, don't listen to Keepin it 1600 after listening to Chapo Trap House, it's like Diet Coke and Mescaline.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2016 04:19
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Bernie does have a big lead with Caucasians. Actually, he lost Georgia.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2016 04:19
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Bernie does have a big lead with Caucasians. Are Caucasians even that big of a voting group? Wouldn't they be counted as Russians? Or maybe Georgians? E. B by Joementum.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2016 04:21
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Actually, he lost Georgia. They were always Menshevik pussies.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2016 04:26
|
|
|
Yoshifan823 posted:I follow Jamelle Bouie and it's 33% him tweeting about his job, 33% responding to dipshits who respond to tweets about his job/chastise him for being anti-Bernie/say racist poo poo during one of the first two things, and 33% photography. It's pretty cool. gently caress, why wasn't I pointing out the unconscionable voter suppression of non-Democrats in the Democratic primary in 2008? That totally would have got me dinner with Obama Girl.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2016 04:33
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Bernie does have a big lead with Caucasians. Joementum posted:Actually, he lost Georgia. 
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2016 04:43
|
|
|
Mr Hootington posted:ahahaha I imagine Mary Fallin sweating profusely while utter "We hate the gays you morons! Not women!" Sorry, no. She's anti-abortion, too. She's just faced with the fact that it will cost a lot of money - money we really don''t have - to fruitlessly fight the Feds on this one. If we weren't so hosed for money, she would likely sign it.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2016 04:44
|
|
|
Evil_Greven posted:Sorry, no. She's anti-abortion, too. I'd like to know more about this argument. It would cost a lot of money which would otherwise go where? Because on the one hand: she passes it, spends the money litigating, thus has to cut from programs unpopular to her base from which she would have cut anyway, and she looks like a defender of the faith to her base. Is OK so pressed for money that she fears having to cut from things that her base supports?
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2016 04:54
|
|
|
Plexiwatt posted:I'd like to know more about this argument. It would cost a lot of money which would otherwise go where? Because on the one hand: she passes it, spends the money litigating, thus has to cut from programs unpopular to her base from which she would have cut anyway, and she looks like a defender of the faith to her base. Is OK so pressed for money that she fears having to cut from things that her base supports? A combination of really stupid tax cuts with really poor triggers starting in 08 and going through today and also because of fallen oil prices means the state budget is gutted. Im sure theres more
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2016 04:59
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Actually, he lost Georgia. That's because he didn't have the Iomentum going for him.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2016 05:29
|
|
|
GalacticAcid posted:N+1 published a masterful, fascinating essay on American religion, Scalia, and the Supreme Court. The paywall was lifted today. Thanks for this post. This is a really thought provoking and interesting article, and I would have never come across it otherwise.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2016 05:53
|
|
|
How many more polls need to swing Trump's way before we start reevaluating his chances of being the 45th President? It's not a rhetorical question. I'd be interested to know what would have to happen for USPOL posters to start thinking he's probably going to win.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2016 06:00
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:How many more polls need to swing Trump's way before we start reevaluating his chances of being the 45th President? Wait until after the DNC and it's closer to the general.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2016 06:07
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:How many more polls need to swing Trump's way before we start reevaluating his chances of being the 45th President? It is less a question of how many and more a question of when. I'd say July or August is when things will start mattering.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2016 06:09
|
|
|
I wouldn't really be shocked if he won. Mostly since Hillary fits in the same sort of "smug snooty insider" wrestling heel personas that Mr. Populist ran a train on. That and Hillary has a bad track record in fighting against that kind of narrative. I'm not expecting him to win, however. He's got a lot of really toxic stuff going on with him that I'd at least hope the general electorate wouldn't be able to overlook.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2016 06:10
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:How many more polls need to swing Trump's way before we start reevaluating his chances of being the 45th President? For me, this question isn't about how many polls, but which polls in which states, and what the timing is. Before I start worrying, Florida and Pennsylvania are the two states that would both need to start consistently tipping his way. If they both still lean blue by the time we know who the VP picks are, then the math will be laughably stacked against him. Without either of those states, Trump would have to sweep every other swing state, which isn't likely. And Florida's got a substantial Hispanic population, while Pennsylvania hasn't gone red since '88. They're handy as panic thresholds. Supercar Gautier fucked around with this message at 06:19 on May 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 21, 2016 06:11
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:How many more polls need to swing Trump's way before we start reevaluating his chances of being the 45th President? Look at my posts in this thread and you'll find a map where Trump could win the popular vote by a substantial margin and still lose. If statewide polls show him winning all of Florida, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Ohio, then I'll worry. Or if he looks like he's going to win California or New York or something insane like that.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2016 06:13
|
|
|
Tiler Kiwi posted:I wouldn't really be shocked if he won. Mostly since Hillary fits in the same sort of "smug snooty insider" wrestling heel personas that Mr. Populist ran a train on. That and Hillary has a bad track record in fighting against that kind of narrative. The difference was that Republicans didn't actually have a lot of policy grounds to disagree with Trump because they actually agree with him.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2016 06:25
|
|
|
The Democrats are not going hard enough against Trump. Without a doubt, a Trump presidency means nuclear war, which means the end of civilisation. I unironically believe this. Until they start positioning Trump as that threat they will fall behind.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2016 06:35
|
|
|
Obama only won Pennsylvania by a little over 5 percent. Is it really that unreasonable that Hillary would underperform there by a few points? Then all Trump needs to do is overperform in the Pittsburgh and Philly suburbs while nabbing Ohio, Florida, and the Romney states and he'll be president. FL+OH+NH+IA+CO is another plausible path. Of course, he's a serious underdog overall still, but his chances are at least 30%. Another thing relevant to this post that's been floating in my head and I want to put out there is the punditry wisdom that says 'states don't really matter because national polling tells the story' might break down a little bit this election. Hispanics are an easy example here, geographically isolated in states Trump doesn't really need to compete in, mostly in the southwest. If Hillary wins Cali and New Mexico by huge margins, and Nevada comfortably, that could inflate her national popular vote standing while bringing her nowhere closer to a win. I'm also skeptical of how much anything that happens between now and the election will matter. Voters will align themselves based on ideology (or perceived ideology), gaffes and day to day campaign nonsense is for the political junkies. Of course if you're one of the posters who believes Trump could never, under any circumstance win Colorado or Pennsylvania, yeah, I guess there's no map for you. Rest easy. I shall rest slightly uneasy.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2016 06:36
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:How many more polls need to swing Trump's way before we start reevaluating his chances of being the 45th President? They'll have to keep swinging his way all the way to the DNC for anyone to notice. And at that point it will depend on what the supers decide.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2016 06:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 13:00 |
|
|
A Bag of Milk posted:Obama only won Pennsylvania by a little over 5 percent. Is it really that unreasonable that Hillary would underperform there by a few points? Then all Trump needs to do is overperform in the Pittsburgh and Philly suburbs while nabbing Ohio, Florida, and the Romney states and he'll be president. FL+OH+NH+IA+CO is another plausible path. Of course, he's a serious underdog overall still, but his chances are at least 30%. Demographics in PA are such that things are going to get worse for the GOP before they get better, and it started before 2012. The only reason it used to be swingy (well, people thought it would be every cycle and were wrong) is because of allll that land in the middle, but that land is losing people and the cities are gaining others, and those others aren't reliable GOP voters to put it mildly. The ideologues aren't going to budge, but poo poo like 47% does have a measurable effect on things so it's a bit bold to dismiss the impact of the general. Especially when one of the targets is someone like Trump, with a world book encyclopedia set of skeletons and attack ad fodder who has only been up against incompetents who couldn't attack him on anything
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2016 06:41
|
|
