-->
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
March 28, 2024, 09:27:03 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
News: peteramescarlin.com
Home Help Search Calendar Login Register
+  The Smiley Smile Message Board
|-+  Non Smiley Smile Stuff
| |-+  The Sandbox
| | |-+  Campaign 2016
Pages: 1 ... 21 22 23 24 25 [26] 27 28 29 30 31 ... 81   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: Campaign 2016  (Read 522941 times)
0 Members and 8 Guests are viewing this topic.
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #625 on: March 30, 2016, 01:11:53 PM »

Oh, don't get me wrong, when it comes to having a game plan, the Democrats will ALWAYS have one up on the Republicans. There's something respectable about that.

Funny, every Democrat (and every liberal, actually) I know thinks the exact opposite. They always talk about--or at least, did before the past cycle or two--how the Republicans are a well oiled machine with everyone on board on all the talking points, even as Democrats can't seem to get their stories straight.

As institutions, I think they both suck. Clearly I have more in common with some of the policies the Democrats have favored at times, but I think both major parties are garbage whose interests lie almost wholly in preserving themselves first, and each other second.
Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
Douchepool
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 883


Time to make the chimifuckingchangas.


View Profile
« Reply #626 on: March 30, 2016, 01:16:50 PM »

That's precisely why I began following the Libertarians. I don't follow their party platform 100% as I've leaned more towards paleoconservatism than straight libertarianism lately (libertarian ideals regarding multiculturalism are dangerous), but they're pretty much on track. Gary Johnson is currently polling at 11%. That's huge.
Logged

The Artist Formerly Known as Deadpool. You may refer to me as such, or as Mr. Pool.

This is also Mr. Pool's Naughty List. Don't end up on here. It will be updated.
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #627 on: March 30, 2016, 01:46:29 PM »

Both parties are a mess right now.
Logged
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #628 on: March 30, 2016, 01:51:43 PM »

That's precisely why I began following the Libertarians. I don't follow their party platform 100% as I've leaned more towards paleoconservatism than straight libertarianism lately (libertarian ideals regarding multiculturalism are dangerous), but they're pretty much on track. Gary Johnson is currently polling at 11%. That's huge.

Johnson is at 11% among whom--general public? That's surprisingly high.

Re the multiculturalism thing, I've read your thoughts before and at some point want to have a more complete discussion about it. But I don't even have questions properly framed, and this isn't the thread anyway. But you've been warned  Grin
Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #629 on: March 30, 2016, 07:17:05 PM »

There's something so contradictory on the right. Are the same people who support our incredibly loose weapons laws because of the 'right to protect ourselves against a tyrannical government' also Trump supporters? Because this looks like the lead-up to an openly violent tyrannical government to me. Isn't a president that encourages that sort of violence against the opposition exactly what they claim 'the people' need to be armed against? Do they support Trump because they'll finally have their justification for their weapons realized?

I don't support Trump one bit; I see him as the "right-wing" equivalent of Sanders in just about every way. Trump courts the same low-information voters that elected and re-elected Obama and his two predecessors. I'm also pretty much convinced that he's only there to ensure Hillary wins the presidency. Years of donating to Democrats can't fool everyone. Sadly, The Donald's fanboys aren't that perceptive. They're literally trying to elect another Obama because they're pissed off with Obama.
I haven't mistaken you as a standard right-winger for quite a while.
Logged
Douchepool
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 883


Time to make the chimifuckingchangas.


View Profile
« Reply #630 on: March 30, 2016, 08:07:19 PM »

I don't know whether that's complimentary or not. LOL
Logged

The Artist Formerly Known as Deadpool. You may refer to me as such, or as Mr. Pool.

This is also Mr. Pool's Naughty List. Don't end up on here. It will be updated.
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #631 on: March 30, 2016, 09:19:48 PM »

I don't know whether that's complimentary or not. LOL
While I strongly differ with some of your views, I credit you with independence of thought. It's a compliment. 
Logged
halblaineisgood
Guest
« Reply #632 on: April 01, 2016, 09:02:23 PM »

I don't belong here.



    
« Last Edit: April 01, 2016, 09:23:00 PM by Golden Raisins » Logged
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #633 on: April 02, 2016, 05:16:07 AM »

Well thanks for stopping in to let us know. If you change your mind, we'll be here.
Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #634 on: April 02, 2016, 03:24:03 PM »

Donald Trump is bringing Americans together. I followed a link from Salon to National Review (see?) and read a column by Jonah Goldberg and agreed with it (except the Cuba nonsense)!
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/433571/donald-trump-michelle-fields-corey-lewandowski-lies-followers
Logged
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #635 on: April 02, 2016, 04:05:00 PM »

Donald Trump is bringing Americans together. I followed a link from Salon to National Review (see?) and read a column by Jonah Goldberg and agreed with it (except the Cuba nonsense)!
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/433571/donald-trump-michelle-fields-corey-lewandowski-lies-followers

The Cuba stuff IS nonsense. Though I am sympathetic to this phrase: "our instinctual desire to have our lives run by an alpha-ape." Not to say I necessarily think that's what Marxism is all about, as Goldberg claims, but rather that I do think we've got that instinct, and in fact I think it explains why we're so quick to get on board with charismatic leaders, almost regardless of what they say or do (and certainly regardless of political system). In fact, that really explains Trump...I mean, he does have big hands or whatever. And did you hear he's rich!?

Anyway, on the main point of the article, the most startling thing to me wasn't that Goldberg is anti-Trump. That's not unusual. It's his assumptions as to the Fields situation. Unless he's being funny and I'm missing it, his assumption of her "7-step plan" is awfully light on, you know, any actual substance. I mean, my assumption of him writing that column is that Trump paid him to badmouth Trump, because everyone knows the more people talk bad about The Donald, the more his followers get all riled up and double down. So it's a show of support to Trump. And Goldberg is no doubt being paid under the table, or being promised a guest-host spot on the next reality show Trump hosts, or whatever. That's my opinion.


Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #636 on: April 02, 2016, 04:23:51 PM »

Donald Trump is bringing Americans together. I followed a link from Salon to National Review (see?) and read a column by Jonah Goldberg and agreed with it (except the Cuba nonsense)!
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/433571/donald-trump-michelle-fields-corey-lewandowski-lies-followers

The Cuba stuff IS nonsense. Though I am sympathetic to this phrase: "our instinctual desire to have our lives run by an alpha-ape." Not to say I necessarily think that's what Marxism is all about, as Goldberg claims, but rather that I do think we've got that instinct, and in fact I think it explains why we're so quick to get on board with charismatic leaders, almost regardless of what they say or do (and certainly regardless of political system). In fact, that really explains Trump...I mean, he does have big hands or whatever. And did you hear he's rich!?

Anyway, on the main point of the article, the most startling thing to me wasn't that Goldberg is anti-Trump. That's not unusual. It's his assumptions as to the Fields situation. Unless he's being funny and I'm missing it, his assumption of her "7-step plan" is awfully light on, you know, any actual substance. I mean, my assumption of him writing that column is that Trump paid him to badmouth Trump, because everyone knows the more people talk bad about The Donald, the more his followers get all riled up and double down. So it's a show of support to Trump. And Goldberg is no doubt being paid under the table, or being promised a guest-host spot on the next reality show Trump hosts, or whatever. That's my opinion.

The sheep instinct - evidently a lot of people do have it. I unfortunately have the opposite instinct, which has caused me to openly argue at some point with almost every boss or teacher I've had  Sad  I am instinctively suspicious of "leader" types.
I'm pretty confident the 7-step plan was sarcasm on Goldberg's part directed at people who are suggesting that Fields had some sort of underhanded motive for the complaint. Trump has right-wingers using sarcasm to defend a woman saying that a Republican campaign manager behaved violently toward her. It's bizarre.
Regarding Goldberg's motives, I just assumed that he's like all the other conservatives lining up against Trump - Trump isn't following the script and is leading their base off on some tangents. But I don't follow right-wing personalities like Glenn Beck or Goldberg closely enough to make any nuanced guesses as to their motivations.

My main point of posting was that I was really surprised to find myself reading a Goldberg piece in the National Review and not bubbling over with outrage or shaking my head with disgust.

ps - Trump is known for small hands. The excellent former publication, Spy Magazine, always called him "the short-fingered vulgarian."
Logged
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #637 on: April 02, 2016, 04:31:34 PM »

I'm trying to read more conservative opinions, personally, because I don't like hearing conservatives define (and assess motives to) progressives. So I figure I owe them the same courtesy. Well, and because I don't like to think I'll ossify behind anyone, ever, if I can help it. I want to remain curious.

Point being, I try to take him at his word about why he doesn't like Trump. I remain skeptical because I think a healthy skepticism is--ready!?--healthy. Critical may be the better word. But I'm skeptical and critical of everyone across the 3-dimensional political spectrum.

Glad to hear you think the 7-step thing was a joke. I really did take it as "hey, the Trump response might be terrible, but yeah, this chick totally planned it." Another reading makes me think you're probably right. Hopefully right.

Re authority ... yeah. I've been in that boat, myself. I like to think institutions deserve our respect, and yet somehow every time I'm faced with their representatives, I just can't quite see it. I find myself often thinking back to a comment Chomsky made about charisma being the worst part of American politics, because people fall for it. (I know I've referenced that before, but, well, I said I find myself OFTEN thinking about it!) As soon as people begin trusting or believing in something someone said because of who it was who said it, well, I think that's a dangerous road.
Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #638 on: April 10, 2016, 03:00:43 PM »

Interesting but creepy little piece on Trump.
http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/trumps-convention-strategy-the-fix-is-in?mbid=gnep&intcid=gnep&google_editors_picks=true
I wonder if he's seen A Face in the Crowd:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0050371/
Logged
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #639 on: April 10, 2016, 03:09:09 PM »

Predictable, though. Similar kind of paranoia we see on other topics: they're coming for your guns; they will discriminate against you because of your Christianity; they sneak into the country to steal your jobs (and assorted benefits); the liberal media is actively opposing us; scientists are conspiring against us; the education system is intentionally and systematically destroying our values and lying to our kids; and so on, forever. (All of this without the REALLY batshit ideas.) When in doubt, no matter the actual situation, play the victim game. They're cheating, we know they're cheating, it's NOT FAIR.
Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #640 on: April 10, 2016, 03:17:12 PM »

Predictable, though. Similar kind of paranoia we see on other topics: they're coming for your guns; they will discriminate against you because of your Christianity; they sneak into the country to steal your jobs (and assorted benefits); the liberal media is actively opposing us; scientists are conspiring against us; the education system is intentionally and systematically destroying our values and lying to our kids; and so on, forever. (All of this without the REALLY batshit ideas.) When in doubt, no matter the actual situation, play the victim game. They're cheating, we know they're cheating, it's NOT FAIR.
This paragraph is what stood out to me:
"It’s easy to mock Trump for his thin-skinned fixation on the size of his audiences, but that misses a deeper point: you can’t have a riot without a mob. Even before he was a candidate, Trump displayed a rare gift for cultivating the dark power of a crowd. In his role as the primary advocate of the “birther” fiction, he proved himself to be a maestro of the mob mentality, capable of conducting his fans through crescendos of rage and self-pity and suspicion. Speaking to the Times editorial board, in January, he said, “You know, if it gets a little boring, if I see people starting to sort of, maybe, thinking about leaving, I can sort of tell the audience, I just say, ‘We will build the wall!,’ and they go nuts.”'
Logged
SMiLE Brian
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 8432



View Profile
« Reply #641 on: April 10, 2016, 03:17:51 PM »

The convention talk is scary!
Logged

And production aside, I’d so much rather hear a 14 year old David Marks shred some guitar on Chug-a-lug than hear a 51 year old Mike Love sing about bangin some chick in a swimming pool.-rab2591
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #642 on: April 10, 2016, 03:47:45 PM »

The convention talk is scary!
I agree. I think Trump is being incredibly irresponsible.
Logged
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #643 on: April 10, 2016, 03:55:34 PM »

The convention talk is scary!
I agree. I think Trump is being incredibly irresponsible.

That's the least surprising clause I've read all day!
Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
bluesno1fann
Guest
« Reply #644 on: April 10, 2016, 07:47:20 PM »

So Bernie's won the last seven out of eight states, and is well on his way to catching up in New York.

Clearly his chances aren't completely dead yet
Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #645 on: April 10, 2016, 09:41:53 PM »

So Bernie's won the last seven out of eight states, and is well on his way to catching up in New York.

Clearly his chances aren't completely dead yet
It's true, but he'd need to win almost 68% of the remaining delegates to win without getting unpledged delegates who are currently slated for Hillary to move over. Over those last eight states, he's won a bit more than 61%. So he'd have to improve on this streak and keep it up for the rest of the primaries. New York is next week with 247 delegates. He's polling behind by double digits, but gaining. Let's say he gains to 55%, which is probably over-optimistic. Then for the rest of the primaries, he'd need to win close to 70% of the remaining delegates. The week after NY, we have Pennsylvania, Maryland, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Delaware. Pennsylvania and Maryland together have 73% of the delegates from those states, and Clinton is currently leading both in double-digits. There don't seem to be reliable polling data for the other three, it looks like CT (55) leans toward Clinton; RI (24) leans Sanders; Delaware - no idea. But let's say, again, that Sanders keeps his momentum and overcomes Clinton's double-digit leads in the bigger states and wins an unlikely 58% that day. Then, he needs to win 73% of what remains.... and this is the best-case scenario.
It isn't impossible, but it's super unlikely. He'd need to have some massive wins and no significant losses; the only remaining big state would be California, where he's still behind, but gaining and it's fairly close; the only remaining medium state is New Jersey where he's behind by 25%.
And, unlike with the Republicans, the party bosses support the lead candidate, so they won't be pushing for a brokered convention or supporting a movement of superdelegates.

We'll know in a week. If he doesn't have a victory by a pretty big margin in NY, it's become quite close to impossible, barring an enormous upset that wipes out Clinton's support.
Logged
zachrwolfe
Guest
« Reply #646 on: April 10, 2016, 11:50:07 PM »

« Last Edit: December 20, 2018, 07:25:30 PM by zatch » Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #647 on: April 11, 2016, 01:26:53 AM »

Normally agree with you Emily, but I just wanted to mention that as soon as Obama started to lead Clinton in pledged delegates in 2008, the super-delegates trickled over as well, and I would expect the same thing to happen should Bernie come out ahead this election (if only because of the massive uproar the dem. establishment would have to face if they stole the win from Bernie). Based on that assumption, Bernie actually only needs to grab approx. 57-58% of the remaining states in order to win the popular vote, which, as you've pointed out, is less than the average of his margins from the last eight won contests. It's still absolutely Hillary's race to lose, but all Bernie needs to do to take the nomination is keep doing exactly what he's been doing, not win over 68%. Smiley

But yes, losing or tieing NY would be a yuge blow to his campaign.
You're absolutely right. If he really seems to be gaining serious momentum and has a significant victory in NY, the superdelegates might start moving.
Logged
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2871


View Profile
« Reply #648 on: April 11, 2016, 04:54:27 AM »

Normally agree with you Emily, but I just wanted to mention that as soon as Obama started to lead Clinton in pledged delegates in 2008, the super-delegates trickled over as well, and I would expect the same thing to happen should Bernie come out ahead this election

The difference, to me, is that Obama had the support of corporate America in 2008 and therefore spoke more to the interests of the Democratic party than Bernie Sanders does now. Personally I would be surprised if Bernie had much super delegate support.
Logged
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #649 on: April 11, 2016, 05:39:27 AM »

Normally agree with you Emily, but I just wanted to mention that as soon as Obama started to lead Clinton in pledged delegates in 2008, the super-delegates trickled over as well, and I would expect the same thing to happen should Bernie come out ahead this election

The difference, to me, is that Obama had the support of corporate America in 2008 and therefore spoke more to the interests of the Democratic party than Bernie Sanders does now. Personally I would be surprised if Bernie had much super delegate support.

Agreed, and that's a huge difference.
Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
Pages: 1 ... 21 22 23 24 25 [26] 27 28 29 30 31 ... 81   Go Up
Print
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
Page created in 0.361 seconds with 22 queries.