-->
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
March 29, 2024, 11:48:56 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
| | |-+  Politics: 2016 Lame Duck and 2017 New Administration
Pages: 1 ... 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 19 20 ... 32   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: Politics: 2016 Lame Duck and 2017 New Administration  (Read 252819 times)
0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #350 on: January 21, 2017, 05:15:10 PM »

You're allowed to admit that I predicted the outcome of the election Emily, I think that'd look pretty spiffy on that resume you made for me.

Now as for the polls, Clinton was leading pretty strong for ages, right? And then the wheels kinda came off at the end, yeah? Kinda reminds me of the tortoise and the hare, I think I might have mentioned that earlier as well.

No, she wasn't "leading pretty strong" for ages. There were always 8 or so states that were right on the margins and the national polls swung around pretty radically a few times.
Logged
HeyJude
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 10030



View Profile WWW
« Reply #351 on: January 21, 2017, 08:18:52 PM »


Now as for the polls, Clinton was leading pretty strong for ages, right? And then the wheels kinda came off at the end, yeah? Kinda reminds me of the tortoise and the hare, I think I might have mentioned that earlier as well.


Nope, the polls didn't show anything like this characterization. Again, read the 538 website.

To be clear, if the polls themselves have gotten too much blame, then misinterpretation and misreporting of the polls is a major part of the story. Throughout the campaign, the polls had hallmarks of high uncertainty, indicating a volatile election with large numbers of undecided voters.
Logged

THE BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE IS ON FACEBOOK!!! http://www.facebook.com/beachboysopinion - Check out the original "BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE" Blog - http://beachboysopinion.blogspot.com/
SinisterSmile
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 105


View Profile
« Reply #352 on: January 21, 2017, 08:19:49 PM »

You're allowed to admit that I predicted the outcome of the election Emily, I think that'd look pretty spiffy on that resume you made for me.

Now as for the polls, Clinton was leading pretty strong for ages, right? And then the wheels kinda came off at the end, yeah? Kinda reminds me of the tortoise and the hare, I think I might have mentioned that earlier as well.

No, she wasn't "leading pretty strong" for ages. There were always 8 or so states that were right on the margins and the national polls swung around pretty radically a few times.


https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo

Clinton looks like a real strong chance here, right?

Also, remember the 42 percent?
« Last Edit: January 21, 2017, 08:20:31 PM by SinisterSmile » Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #353 on: January 21, 2017, 08:45:03 PM »

Good grief. First, that's not a poll, it's a forecast. Second, it's a single moment, not "ages". Third, Trump's support went up and down but centered around 42% over time. It's gone down now, though.
Logged
SinisterSmile
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 105


View Profile
« Reply #354 on: January 21, 2017, 09:03:11 PM »

Good grief. First, that's not a poll, it's a forecast. Second, it's a single moment, not "ages". Third, Trump's support went up and down but centered around 42% over time. It's gone down now, though.

Good grief, plenty of polls to look at in there. Second, 538 supports my tortoise and hare analogy (which I love). Third, the 42% which you clung to doesn't matter, I told you he would be president aaaaaand he did.
Logged
alf wiedersehen
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2178


View Profile
« Reply #355 on: January 22, 2017, 01:10:11 AM »

congrats, man
Logged
SinisterSmile
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 105


View Profile
« Reply #356 on: January 22, 2017, 01:21:20 AM »

Thanks man.

Anyway, I feel like me and some users are kinda on some different wavelengths. Feels maybe we're just shooting off 'Gotchas!' that are flying past each other. I honestly respect opposing viewpoints, political leanings and everything else that goes along with it. I also respect the passion behid a lot of these posts and it's a good thing to see.

I'll bow out of these political threads. For me, the internet isn't my strongest method of conversing. If it was in person, we could probably find a good middleground for the other persons point of view.

Anyway, let's hope for a good future. No more gotchas from me, I hope that the country can come together regardless of who's in power and we can understand one another.
« Last Edit: January 22, 2017, 02:21:23 AM by SinisterSmile » Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #357 on: January 22, 2017, 06:26:22 AM »

Your only "gotcha" is yes, he won. How and why he won, no.
The tortoise and the hare: I don't remember that story being about a close race, with the the tortoise having surprising bursts that pulls him ahead, then jags where he falls way behind, but with him usually close behind, while his friends and others continually try to create roadblocks for the hare, and in the last moments, someone succeeds in tripping the hare, and the hare still crosses the finish line first but, due to a technicality, the tortoise is declared the winner. I thought the moral was "slow and steady wins the race" not "bluster, disinformation, and appeals to the worst in people wins the race." But I haven't read it since I was a child, so maybe I'm not remembering it right.

Regarding your link above, there are polls in there, but they don't support your point.

Bubs - I owe you a communication and it's been eating at me that I haven't done it. I hope everything is glorious. Very good to "see" you.
Logged
SurfRiderHawaii
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2569


Add Some Music to your day!


View Profile
« Reply #358 on: January 22, 2017, 05:01:46 PM »

Thanks man.

Anyway, I feel like me and some users are kinda on some different wavelengths. Feels maybe we're just shooting off 'Gotchas!' that are flying past each other. I honestly respect opposing viewpoints, political leanings and everything else that goes along with it. I also respect the passion behid a lot of these posts and it's a good thing to see.

I'll bow out of these political threads. For me, the internet isn't my strongest method of conversing. If it was in person, we could probably find a good middleground for the other persons point of view.

Anyway, let's hope for a good future. No more gotchas from me, I hope that the country can come together regardless of who's in power and we can understand one another.

Broken promises by Fuher CONALD already. Asks Congress for $50 billion to build his wall and he is not releasing his taxes. Not drain the swamp but stocking it full of the Goldman Saks flunkies he acused Hillary of being in bed with.

This will be like watching a train wreck in super slow motion. It will end badly!
Logged

"Brian is The Beach Boys. He is the band. We're his f***ing messengers. He is all of it. Period. We're nothing. He's everything" - Dennis Wilson
Debbie KL
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 817


View Profile
« Reply #359 on: January 22, 2017, 05:40:39 PM »

Thanks man.

Anyway, I feel like me and some users are kinda on some different wavelengths. Feels maybe we're just shooting off 'Gotchas!' that are flying past each other. I honestly respect opposing viewpoints, political leanings and everything else that goes along with it. I also respect the passion behid a lot of these posts and it's a good thing to see.

I'll bow out of these political threads. For me, the internet isn't my strongest method of conversing. If it was in person, we could probably find a good middleground for the other persons point of view.

Anyway, let's hope for a good future. No more gotchas from me, I hope that the country can come together regardless of who's in power and we can understand one another.


Broken promises by Fuher CONALD already. Asks Congress for $50 billion to build his wall and he is not releasing his taxes. Not drain the swamp but stocking it full of the Goldman Saks flunkies he acused Hillary of being in bed with.

This will be like watching a train wreck in super slow motion. It will end badly!

Sadly, we won't just be watching it.  We'll be living it.  We're certainly discovering the flaws in our system...
Logged
alf wiedersehen
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2178


View Profile
« Reply #360 on: January 22, 2017, 05:57:39 PM »

I have to respect the way Donald is cutting out the middleman by just putting corporate leaders into powerful, government positions.
« Last Edit: January 22, 2017, 05:59:00 PM by Bubs » Logged
SinisterSmile
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 105


View Profile
« Reply #361 on: January 23, 2017, 09:02:25 AM »

Your only "gotcha" is yes, he won. How and why he won, no.
The tortoise and the hare: I don't remember that story being about a close race, with the the tortoise having surprising bursts that pulls him ahead, then jags where he falls way behind, but with him usually close behind, while his friends and others continually try to create roadblocks for the hare, and in the last moments, someone succeeds in tripping the hare, and the hare still crosses the finish line first but, due to a technicality, the tortoise is declared the winner. I thought the moral was "slow and steady wins the race" not "bluster, disinformation, and appeals to the worst in people wins the race." But I haven't read it since I was a child, so maybe I'm not remembering it right.

Regarding your link above, there are polls in there, but they don't support your point.

Bubs - I owe you a communication and it's been eating at me that I haven't done it. I hope everything is glorious. Very good to "see" you.


You believe that Clinton lost due to misogyny, I believe that Trump won due to having a much better campaign.
When I said that it was a good thing Trump was having numerous rallies, you said it gave you heebie jeebies or something along those lines.
I said that Trump did well in the debates, you said I was wrong and pointed me at statistics.
And now it seems that you think Trump won due to a technicality?
I'm not challenging you with this, I'm just pointing out that we have very different ideas and opinions.
I haven't once linked you to RT News or Brietbart, but you insist that I'm an avid reader. That's totally just in your head.

Like I said before, different wavelengths. It feels like you have to be doom and gloom to talk politics around here. There should be room for light hearted banter and without a 'Oh, so you think X?'. My hope is that everyone can understand each other and that becomes a reality.
Logged
HeyJude
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 10030



View Profile WWW
« Reply #362 on: January 23, 2017, 09:57:29 AM »

You're allowed to admit that I predicted the outcome of the election Emily, I think that'd look pretty spiffy on that resume you made for me.

Now as for the polls, Clinton was leading pretty strong for ages, right? And then the wheels kinda came off at the end, yeah? Kinda reminds me of the tortoise and the hare, I think I might have mentioned that earlier as well.

No, she wasn't "leading pretty strong" for ages. There were always 8 or so states that were right on the margins and the national polls swung around pretty radically a few times.


https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo

Clinton looks like a real strong chance here, right?

Also, remember the 42 percent?

"Real strong chance" is far different from a "sure thing." Some outlets gave Clinton a 1.5% chance of losing. 538 gave her almost a 30% chance of losing. So 538 said Clinton was TWENTY TIMES more likely to lose than some other outlets.

Not understanding how a 30% chance of winning means it's VERY POSSIBLE to win and a win would therefore *not* be a jaw-dropping stunner is part of the reason the media reported and characterized the election so poorly, and part of the reason the public's perception of the election (and therefore ability to learn why and how it went down) is so severely compromised.
Logged

THE BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE IS ON FACEBOOK!!! http://www.facebook.com/beachboysopinion - Check out the original "BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE" Blog - http://beachboysopinion.blogspot.com/
HeyJude
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 10030



View Profile WWW
« Reply #363 on: January 23, 2017, 10:00:36 AM »

Second, 538 supports my tortoise and hare analogy (which I love).

If you think the graph found on the very page you linked (the "how the forecast has changed" graph) proves a "tortoise and the hare" analogy, then you must be looking at something else. It clearly shows an up and down, back and forth, *volatile* election with a high level of uncertainty.
Logged

THE BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE IS ON FACEBOOK!!! http://www.facebook.com/beachboysopinion - Check out the original "BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE" Blog - http://beachboysopinion.blogspot.com/
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #364 on: January 23, 2017, 02:34:01 PM »

Your only "gotcha" is yes, he won. How and why he won, no.
The tortoise and the hare: I don't remember that story being about a close race, with the the tortoise having surprising bursts that pulls him ahead, then jags where he falls way behind, but with him usually close behind, while his friends and others continually try to create roadblocks for the hare, and in the last moments, someone succeeds in tripping the hare, and the hare still crosses the finish line first but, due to a technicality, the tortoise is declared the winner. I thought the moral was "slow and steady wins the race" not "bluster, disinformation, and appeals to the worst in people wins the race." But I haven't read it since I was a child, so maybe I'm not remembering it right.

Regarding your link above, there are polls in there, but they don't support your point.

Bubs - I owe you a communication and it's been eating at me that I haven't done it. I hope everything is glorious. Very good to "see" you.


You believe that Clinton lost due to misogyny, I believe that Trump won due to having a much better campaign.
When I said that it was a good thing Trump was having numerous rallies, you said it gave you heebie jeebies or something along those lines.
I said that Trump did well in the debates, you said I was wrong and pointed me at statistics.
And now it seems that you think Trump won due to a technicality?
I'm not challenging you with this, I'm just pointing out that we have very different ideas and opinions.
I haven't once linked you to RT News or Brietbart, but you insist that I'm an avid reader. That's totally just in your head.

Like I said before, different wavelengths. It feels like you have to be doom and gloom to talk politics around here. There should be room for light hearted banter and without a 'Oh, so you think X?'. My hope is that everyone can understand each other and that becomes a reality.

He did, technically, win due to a technicality. But he wouldn't have won due to a technicality were it not for misogyny. He also wouldn't have won due to a technicality were it not for right-wing lies.
I haven't said you read Breitbart or RT, I think, but many of your ideas are sourced there.
Frankly the "everyone understand each other" goal is pretty hard when you support a candidate whose campaign was based on appealing to prejudice, bigotry, fear and resentment.
And it's pretty hard for most people, left and right, to understand supporting a candidate without regard to the policies he supports simply because you think he's persuasive.
Logged
Debbie KL
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 817


View Profile
« Reply #365 on: January 23, 2017, 05:15:29 PM »

Your only "gotcha" is yes, he won. How and why he won, no.
The tortoise and the hare: I don't remember that story being about a close race, with the the tortoise having surprising bursts that pulls him ahead, then jags where he falls way behind, but with him usually close behind, while his friends and others continually try to create roadblocks for the hare, and in the last moments, someone succeeds in tripping the hare, and the hare still crosses the finish line first but, due to a technicality, the tortoise is declared the winner. I thought the moral was "slow and steady wins the race" not "bluster, disinformation, and appeals to the worst in people wins the race." But I haven't read it since I was a child, so maybe I'm not remembering it right.

Regarding your link above, there are polls in there, but they don't support your point.

Bubs - I owe you a communication and it's been eating at me that I haven't done it. I hope everything is glorious. Very good to "see" you.


You believe that Clinton lost due to misogyny, I believe that Trump won due to having a much better campaign.
When I said that it was a good thing Trump was having numerous rallies, you said it gave you heebie jeebies or something along those lines.
I said that Trump did well in the debates, you said I was wrong and pointed me at statistics.
And now it seems that you think Trump won due to a technicality?
I'm not challenging you with this, I'm just pointing out that we have very different ideas and opinions.
I haven't once linked you to RT News or Brietbart, but you insist that I'm an avid reader. That's totally just in your head.

Like I said before, different wavelengths. It feels like you have to be doom and gloom to talk politics around here. There should be room for light hearted banter and without a 'Oh, so you think X?'. My hope is that everyone can understand each other and that becomes a reality.

He did, technically, win due to a technicality. But he wouldn't have won due to a technicality were it not for misogyny. He also wouldn't have won due to a technicality were it not for right-wing lies.
I haven't said you read Breitbart or RT, I think, but many of your ideas are sourced there.
Frankly the "everyone understand each other" goal is pretty hard when you support a candidate whose campaign was based on appealing to prejudice, bigotry, fear and resentment.
And it's pretty hard for most people, left and right, to understand supporting a candidate without regard to the policies he supports simply because you think he's persuasive.

I fear this whole exchange will seem nostalgic and quaint when we have to deal with the reality of this man, his VP and his cabinet nominees.  I don't think I need to repeat the details of what happened and how many of us are questioning the legitimacy of this election, no matter how entertaining it has been. I realize that this is an entertainment MB, but it's not really amusing anymore.
Logged
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2871


View Profile
« Reply #366 on: January 23, 2017, 05:53:55 PM »

And it's pretty hard for most people, left and right, to understand supporting a candidate without regard to the policies he supports simply because you think he's persuasive.

I'm curious about this point too.

Question to Sinister Smile:

Let's take Trump out of the equation a moment and suppose we have a bird's-eye view of a candidate running for election who has genuinely nefarious plans that will purposefully harm a great deal of people only to empower himself more. Despite all of this, this candidate is very good at convincing a lot of people that he is the right person for the job largely through manipulative rhetorical techniques. Do you believe on the basis of that alone that this candidate should win the election or do you think the policies that we, from our bird's-eye view, know about are enough to suggest opposition to the candidate despite his persuasive strengths?
Logged
alf wiedersehen
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2178


View Profile
« Reply #367 on: January 23, 2017, 10:54:05 PM »

Who knows if this will be a daily thing. It might be. It might be more frequent. The man delivers.

I have a lot of catching up to do, so let's start off with Trump's decision to go on vacation. The man who ridiculed Barack Obama for playing too much golf has decided to take off his first two days as the newly-inaugurated president.

Donald goes back on building the wall! Well, sort of. Now he's going to make you pay for it. Yay, taxes?

After promising to release his tax returns after the IRS audit was completed, he has now stated that he's never going to release his tax returns.

At a particularly heinous speech at the CIA headquarters, Donald whined about his low inauguration numbers in a room created to remember fallen CIA agents who gave their life for the United States. Furthermore, it's likely people were planted in the audience to cheer and laugh at his remarks, as actual CIA members understand the solemn nature of the room. One person remarked it "was like yelling 'Boo-yeah!' at a funeral."

On the subject of the inauguration, one of Donald's first actions as president was to lie to the American public for the sole purpose of protecting his pride.

More people attended protests than attended his inauguration.

Donald ordered a mass shutdown of government-run Twitter accounts after a tweet was made in reference to the number of people who attended his swearing in ceremony. They were told to find other means of alerting people to newly-developing emergencies. That's right: Donald's pride is more important than your life.

The cabinet position appointments are an absolute dumpster fire.

The Holman Rule has been brought back. This ominous little policy allows government officials to cut salaries down to $1. It has been used in the past to purge left-leaning individuals from all bodies of government.

Donald's presidency opens with the lowest approval ratings in the last 70 years. It was 45%.

The White House's phone number to leave comments has been shut down.

Republicans propose new bills to criminalize peaceful protest, which would violate the first amendment. This is a fun tidbit: "a North Dakota bill [...] would allow motorists to hit and kill protesters obstructing the highway 'as long as [the] driver does so accidentally.'"

Donald signs bill into law that restricts US funding for women's health programs. Groups are no longer allowed to broach the subject of abortion at the risk of losing assistance from the United States.

Donald's business, now run by his daughter, is receiving payments from a group that promotes tourism to Abu Dhabi.

And here's a fun, little video of all of Donald's lies since becoming president.


I'm sure I've missed something, but I'm also sure I'll have ample opportunity to catch up. I'll see you all again soon.
Logged
alf wiedersehen
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2178


View Profile
« Reply #368 on: January 23, 2017, 11:00:53 PM »

Donald also ordered a hiring freeze for government positions. This new action is having immediate effect on our very own SMiLE-Brian.
« Last Edit: January 24, 2017, 02:28:30 PM by Bubs » Logged
undercover-m
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 516



View Profile
« Reply #369 on: January 23, 2017, 11:42:47 PM »

He's put climate change deniers in charge of the EPA.

He also said this:

"I’m a very big person when it comes to the environment. I have received awards on the environment. But some of that stuff makes it impossible to get anything built.”

He never explains what those mystery environment awards are.

Logged

"We are pushed to the wall as the heap fills the room to its limits. The window breaks. The house bursts. A heartbreakingly fine Scotch plaid passes before our eyes. Pinstripes carry us into Manhasset Bay."
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #370 on: January 24, 2017, 04:59:43 AM »

He reinstated the Mexico City rule. He used time at his first meeting with congressional leadership to whine out his lies about "millions of illegal voters" costing him the popular vote. He brought his own staff to *cheer* at his first press conference in months, as he did at the CIA gig, as referenced above by Bubs. While he goes on, Banelike, about 'the people', he appoints billionaires who have devoted their lives to personal and corporate profit at the expense of the health and prosperity of everyone else.
Bannon.
Logged
SMiLE Brian
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 8432



View Profile
« Reply #371 on: January 24, 2017, 05:08:50 AM »

Donald also ordered a hiring freeze for government positions. This new action is having immediate effect our very own SMiLE-Brian.
Sad Yeah.....
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 #372 on: January 24, 2017, 05:14:17 AM »

The thing is, that they'll back fill all that work with contractors, driving up the cost. This is an expensive symbolic move that will remove benefits from many employees.
« Last Edit: January 24, 2017, 05:33:18 AM by Emily » Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #373 on: January 24, 2017, 05:15:57 AM »

CSM, I've been waiting for a calm moment to gather my thoughts and discuss media with you. I hope you're still around in the future when I'm gathered!
Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #374 on: January 24, 2017, 05:30:57 AM »

I'm thinking the reinstatement of the Holman rule is related to Trump's team asking the agencies for names of individuals who worked on programs they don't like (climate science, women's rights...).
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 19 20 ... 32   Go Up
Print
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
Page created in 0.744 seconds with 22 queries.