2016 US Presidential Election Thread IX - Page 8 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 05-23-2016, 10:37 PM   #141
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: DC
Posts: 68,143
Local Time: 10:10 AM
I liked Sanders until I saw what his tax plan would do to my family's financial situation... and then I didn't.
__________________

Headache in a Suitcase is online now  
Old 05-23-2016, 10:38 PM   #142
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: DC
Posts: 68,143
Local Time: 10:10 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigMacPhisto View Post
You're stating things you have no evidence for as facts.
Ha!
__________________

Headache in a Suitcase is online now  
Old 05-23-2016, 10:40 PM   #143
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
BigMacPhisto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 6,313
Local Time: 10:10 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
Take a look at your minimum salary theory; it got ripped to shreds within minutes. The math didn't work and the theory as to where the money came from you had to backtrack on within the first post.
I talked about minimum income and threw out a random number ($1,000) and people started acting like it was some policy proposal. Posters were considering guesses from my part as me actually saying it would work with those numbers and then used their own opinions to "rip it to shreds"...unsurprisingly the loudest voices being the same people that support Clinton and her lower minimum wage.
BigMacPhisto is offline  
Old 05-23-2016, 10:44 PM   #144
Blue Crack Addict
 
Vlad n U 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 28,370
Local Time: 01:40 AM
Glad to see we're back to the 'one Bernie fan vs. the Hillary diehards' shitfight. Diemen's call for peace has ceased prematurely.
Vlad n U 2 is offline  
Old 05-23-2016, 10:45 PM   #145
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,232
Local Time: 10:10 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigMacPhisto View Post
You're stating things you have no evidence for as facts. You can't say something will happen that won't happen in the first place because Sanders isn't the nominee. That's the same condescending tone from Clinton supporters that has been so annoying for the past few months, making an assumption for something we can never know the outcome of...basically, your equation happens to be...

Sanders + Socialist label = Crushing defeat!!

With all of the other scientific data saying the exact opposite.
I can apply logic based on past events.



As far as your "scientific data"; I can make a poll that says American Muslims sympathize with jihad, climate change is a hoax, black people are inferior, or Sanders supporters have an IQ less than the average American. All of which have been done in recent years. It all depends on how you ask the question, who you ask the question of, and by which means.

Do you really want to keep calling this 'science'? Even Bernie would be embarrassed.
BVS is offline  
Old 05-23-2016, 10:45 PM   #146
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: DC
Posts: 68,143
Local Time: 10:10 AM
I'm hardly a Hillary die hard. She wouldn't be my first choice for President. She's simply the only person I could ever vote for amongst the presented candidates.
Headache in a Suitcase is online now  
Old 05-23-2016, 10:46 PM   #147
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
BigMacPhisto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 6,313
Local Time: 10:10 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Headache in a Suitcase View Post
I liked Sanders until I saw what his tax plan would do to my family's financial situation... and then I didn't.
Because you don't support progressive taxation and therefore aren't really a liberal and I doubt you would classify yourself as one either.

I honestly don't have much beef with people whose ideas align with Clinton's policy proposals. Fair enough.



Just wanting to elect a woman for tokenism so you can tell your kids you elected a black guy and a woman president, voting for Clinton merely because she "has a better chance of winning" despite all the evidence to the contrary and voting for her because she's "Obama's third-term" and/or due to name recognition, well, that's the sort of stuff that truly annoys me. Unfortunately, there's a hell of a lot of Clinton supporters that fall under these areas particularly the last section that I bolded.
BigMacPhisto is offline  
Old 05-23-2016, 10:47 PM   #148
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,461
Local Time: 11:10 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigMacPhisto View Post
I talked about minimum income and through out a random number ($1,000) and people started acting like it was some policy proposal. Those ripping it to shreds were taken guesses from my part as me actually saying it would work with those numbers and then used their own opinions to "rip it to shreds"...with unsurprisingly the loudest voices being the same people that support Clinton and her lower minimum wage.


Kind of like Bernie.
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 05-23-2016, 10:49 PM   #149
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
BigMacPhisto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 6,313
Local Time: 10:10 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
It all depends on how you ask the question, who you ask the question of, and by which means.

Do you really want to keep calling this 'science'? Even Bernie would be embarrassed.
1) Polling is a science.

2) They ask if you would rather vote for Sanders or Trump. They also ask if you would rather vote for Clinton or Trump. Sorry, but there's basically nothing about that where the outcome can change much based on how the question was worded, hence why Sanders consistently does better in every single poll that I've seen. It's like asking if you'd rather have beef or steak and then asking if you'd rather have pork or steak. Simple.
BigMacPhisto is offline  
Old 05-23-2016, 10:50 PM   #150
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,461
Local Time: 11:10 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vlad n U 2 View Post
Glad to see we're back to the 'one Bernie fan vs. the Hillary diehards' shitfight. Diemen's call for peace has ceased prematurely.


Diehards? Please.

Everyone EVERYONE has reservations and concerns about Hillary. But simply because one looks at information and concludes that one candidate is better than the other does not a diehard make.
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 05-23-2016, 10:52 PM   #151
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
BigMacPhisto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 6,313
Local Time: 10:10 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
Kind of like Bernie.
Except a lot of Bernie's plans aren't even new and just ripped off things that have already been implemented over in Europe and worked out just fine. It's the Clinton nuts that just say "it can't work" over and over in order to justify the fact that she never goes as far.

You can't just say universal college and health care and the like would never work when they're in existence all over the rest of the first world. It's a ludicrous way to argue. Like saying that there could never be blue fish in the ocean.


Saying his plans can't work even though they've been implemented elsewhere just fine? Check.

Saying he can't win the election because he's a Socialist despite all the evidence to the contrary? Check.

Saying that his supporters know nothing of politics and the issues despite people continually being more and more educated with each passing decade? Check.


This is the sort of condescension that Sanders supporters have been referring to for months and what's been irritating all of us. Arguing against the facts time and again simply because they don't line up nicely for Clinton. It's an endless patronizing tone without anything to back it up.
BigMacPhisto is offline  
Old 05-23-2016, 10:54 PM   #152
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,232
Local Time: 10:10 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigMacPhisto View Post
I talked about minimum income and through out a random number ($1,000) and people started acting like it was some policy proposal. Those ripping it to shreds were taken guesses from my part as me actually saying it would work with those numbers and then used their own opinions to "rip it to shreds"...with unsurprisingly the loudest voices being the same people that support Clinton and her lower minimum wage.
But if you went any higher, the math would be even further off as to what the country could afford. It had nothing to do with the randomness of the amount.

It had nothing to do with "Clinton supporters"(which you still haven't even figured out); some of the folks that took apart your theory are some of the more left leaning individuals in this forum, they just understand economics better than you. If the left is destroying you this quickly, how do you think you'll survive the right?
BVS is offline  
Old 05-23-2016, 10:54 PM   #153
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,461
Local Time: 11:10 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigMacPhisto View Post
Except a lot of Bernie's plans aren't even new and just ripped off things that have already been implemented over in Europe and worked out just fine. It's the Clinton nuts that just say "it can't work" over and over in order to justify the fact that she never goes as far.


Because she doesn't make promises and campaign on Denmark b-sides?
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 05-23-2016, 10:56 PM   #154
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,461
Local Time: 11:10 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Headache in a Suitcase View Post
I liked Sanders until I saw what his tax plan would do to my family's financial situation... and then I didn't.


Clearly you're not a true progressive.

Why don't you buy an SUV and forcibly divorce a gay couple while you're at it.
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 05-23-2016, 10:58 PM   #155
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: DC
Posts: 68,143
Local Time: 10:10 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
Clearly you're not a true progressive.

Why don't you buy an SUV and forcibly divorce a gay couple while you're at it.
My bad.

Does this mean I have to go buy a couple of guns and listen to country music?
Headache in a Suitcase is online now  
Old 05-23-2016, 11:03 PM   #156
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
BigMacPhisto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 6,313
Local Time: 10:10 AM
It doesn't need to be an argument or a shouting match over who gets to be adorned with the label. A progressive wouldn't support Clinton's platform because it's not actually a progressive platform. There's nothing wrong with you thinking it's better for the country or what will actually work, etc.

But you can't really call yourself a liberal if you aren't for more of what Sanders is supporting as these are merely the same classic positions of the far left for decades. And I'm not trying to say it's a badge of honor that people in here can't have. I'm just saying that to call yourself a liberal or a progressive when about 45% of the people in your own party are considerably to your left doesn't really make any sense.

Clinton's own opinions on free trade, fracking and the military are considerably to the right of her own party's average congressional member and more Republicans than Democrats support a lot of those positions. That's not to mention other stances she has taken that switched sides well after the rest of the left (gay marriage) or the many stances she hasn't taken that the far left has had no problem already embracing. She is not a liberal/progressive/socialist/leftist whatever you want to call it. Not sure when anybody would ever equate those terms with someone doing half million dollar speeches for Goldman Sachs, nor did Clinton herself ever try to wrap herself up in these labels until she suddenly faced a strong primary challenger from the far left.
BigMacPhisto is offline  
Old 05-23-2016, 11:05 PM   #157
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,232
Local Time: 10:10 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigMacPhisto View Post
1) Polling is a science.

2) They ask if you would rather vote for Sanders or Trump. They also ask if you would rather vote for Clinton or Trump. Sorry, but there's basically nothing about that where the outcome can change much based on how the question was worded, hence why Sanders consistently does better in every single poll that I've seen. It's like asking if you'd rather have beef or steak and then asking if you'd rather have pork or steak. Simple.
I call a handful of people on a landline(how many people under 50 do you know that still has one) and poll them about cats and dogs; do you consider that 'science'?

I hold an internet poll on Fox News website where you can vote multiple times, do you consider that 'science'?

Simple, right?
BVS is offline  
Old 05-23-2016, 11:10 PM   #158
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,461
Local Time: 11:10 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Headache in a Suitcase View Post
My bad.

Does this mean I have to go buy a couple of guns and listen to country music?


I'm sure a 1%er like you already has lots of guns.
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 05-23-2016, 11:13 PM   #159
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
BigMacPhisto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 6,313
Local Time: 10:10 AM
Nate Silver and the like would disagree with your assessments, especially when they argue correctly that polling has only become more and more exact over recent decades.

Meanwhile, he made the argument recently that the general election polls this far out from the election that you're declaring meaningless as being far more relevant to how the Electoral College plays out in November than individual state polls.

And the pollsters adjust for the landline issues and call people with cellphones and the like. These are mathematicians and statistics nerds running these things, even if some of them have their own house effects or problems. Otherwise, if they truly were only calling landlines, Clinton would be winning the nationwide primary about 95 to 5% at this point.

Also, variances in polling such as Rasmussen or Fox News leaning one way and some leaning the other is entirely because of having to estimate the individual turnout from each side come November. They're getting better and better at it, but it's still not the easiest thing in the world to do and polling tends to be way off whenever turnout is super low (mid-term and offseason elections, etc.)

Funny enough, I think it's actually pretty easy to predict Republican turnout in a Presidential year and it's exactly why Sanders and Clinton would both beat this guy with ease (and perhaps why they were so deadly accurate with Romney vs. Obama). The share of the white vote has dropped by the same amount (it's like 2.5% of the entire voting body) with every single recent Presidential election. The expected share for 2012 was right on the money and now it's only going to be even worse for Trump. That means an extra 2.5% of the vote total is going to be made up of the same Latinos, Blacks and Asians that he has offended.

People also tend to forget that Republicans merely vote in higher numbers. In other words, they are maxed out whereas there's tons of people who don't generally vote that need to be dragged to the polls and most of them skew liberal. A poll of likely non-voters in 2012 (that make up roughly 40% of the adult population) had Obama at 70%, Romney at 13% and the rest undecided (I remember it because it's hilarious). In other words, this country would already be significantly shifted over to the left if everybody voted. Meanwhile, those whose politics identify as "conservative" actually only make up about 1/4 of the electorate with Libertarians, Democrats and those on the far left making up the rest in 20-30% margins. But when only 60% of the country votes (and that's a high turnout year) and practically every member of that 25% Republican constituency bothers to show up, that really makes things seem a lot closer.
BigMacPhisto is offline  
Old 05-23-2016, 11:13 PM   #160
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,232
Local Time: 10:10 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigMacPhisto View Post

But you can't really call yourself a liberal if you aren't for more of what Sanders is supporting as these are merely the same classic positions of the far left for decades.
Don't be that guy who is still in high school and telling everyone they aren't goth enough, jock enough, or gay enough. Be an adult.

Maybe you should answer a scientific poll to show how progressive you are?
__________________

BVS is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:10 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com
×