U.S. Elections: Orange is the New Wack

[Inigima]

Remember that AZ paper that endorsed Clinton and got all kinds of nasty death threats? The publisher is currently on MSNBC talking about how some of the kids going door to door selling subscriptions are getting guns waved at them because of the endorsement.

[IheartIheartTesla]

45 minutes ago, Altherion said:

 In fact, the industries based on fossil fuels are currently fighting the transition as hard as they can and since they're much bigger than the renewable crowd and are likely to remain comparable for the next few decades, they're pretty successful at it so most governments (and certainly the US one) are not likely to be of much use.

I believe this is only partly true. The company I work for uses fossil fuels heavily (both natural gas as well as oil, in fact there is money involved in which you use as your feedstock, as you might imagine....but I digress). However, it is also committed to carbon mitigation, and the way we do this is by using alternative sources for energy. In fact, I'd say a lot of chemical companies have sustainability goals for the near future that will either involve lower energy solutions or ones with alternative energy sources like biomass.

Exxon Mobil however is one company that might reliably be counted to do the wrong thing, although they have grudgingly accepted global warming. The thing is, even the companies that use fossil fuels understand the science as well as we do and want to hedge their bets not only about the coming fossil fuel shortage but also about carbon dioxide. One of these companies funded $500 million for algae based biofuels.....and it was Exxon (ok, maybe they arent as evil)

[Maester Drew]

11 minutes ago, Inigima said:

Remember that AZ paper that endorsed Clinton and got all kinds of nasty death threats? The publisher is currently on MSNBC talking about how some of the kids going door to door selling subscriptions are getting guns waved at them because of the endorsement.

Kids? Well, there goes the "We're the party that cares about the children" line the GOP loves using.

[Shryke]

1 hour ago, kairparavel said:

This is my problem with third/alternate party candidates running for president. I really didn't know shit about Jill Stein until she started popping up as the compromise vote for hardcore Berners months and months ago. But when I see her only government experience is Member of the Lexington Town Meeting from the 2nd district I have to ask what makes her qualified to run the most powerful country in the world? I get that she started life a a doctor who then turned activist who decided to give this politics thing a go, but when I look at her resume, all her lower-aim runs for governmental office didn't pan out. President? This is why alternate parties will never succeed. Are they building bases at the municipal level then growing up from there? Sure the idea of a political outsider sounds romantic but really, no.

I'm sure this has been discussed multiple times over but I'm an interloper and it still just baffles me. 

You got it dead right. It's the entire problem with 3rd parties in the US. They don't want to actually be parties, they just want to take some quixotic run at the big chair, act as if they don't need a party infrastructure all the way down to the bottom, lack basic competence and basically attract people who don't understand why all those things are important and instead view voting as some sort of act of personal moral validation.

Last I read (though it was a month ago), Jill Stein wasn't even on the ballot in all 50 states. Like ... what are you even doing Green Party?

[Shryke]

Paul Ryan, dumb as always, makes a great case for why left-wing voters, especially Bernie fans, should support Clinton. While he was trying to make like the opposite point:

https://www.thenation.com/article/paul-ryan-inadvertently-makes-the-best-case-for-a-democratic-senate-budget-chair-bernie-sanders/

Quote

 

 “If we keep control of the Senate in the Republican hands…a nice guy named Mike Enzi from Wyoming is the Senate budget chair and he helps us get these budgets to the president’s desk, gets these tax bills through,” he said.

On the other hand, Ryan warned, “If we lose the Senate, do you know who becomes chair of the Senate Budget Committee? A guy named Bernie Sanders. You ever heard of him?”

 

This is his "Taco Truck on Every Corner" moment I guess.

[Fez]

2 hours ago, Castel said:

I can't believe there's any chance of the House picking McMullin.

That said..this would make an interesting premise for a TV show...maybe as a competitor to Designated Survivor, which is kinda eh.

I could see it. If Democrats retook the Senate (and therefore can elect Kaine as VP), I could see them cutting a deal with McMullin to make him President over Trump (since no Republicans would vote for Clinton and there's no way Democrats end up with 26 House delegations but Clinton isn't elected) with the understanding that the status quo will be king at least until the midterms.

But its extremely unlikely that we'll ever be in this scenario at all. Clinton's way too far ahead right now, and if her support did have an unprecedented collapse, there's still basically only one plausible map where Trump didn't then end up with 270+. Far more likely that Trump would just win. But that's very remote too. All signs point to a significant Clinton win.

[James Arryn]

15 hours ago, Daniel Plainview said:

Hahaha no, there is a huge difference between calling white people deplorable for siding with a disgusting bigot like Trump and generalizing an entire marginalized demographic, people of color / immigrants through racism. Building a wall that would cost millions / billions of dollars that is based around the debunked idea the majority of the immigrants are Hispanic petty? no. Nuclear brinkmaship petty? Torture? Yea, they are totally petty and could not lead to people being physically harmed. False equivalency. That is what your entire first part of your post is. 

No, it is not subjective. It is not the end of the world, it only hurts little white feelings mostly since they are usually the extremely hypersensitive babies that can't deal with being told their are bigots and supporting bigotry. 

Since her detractors constantly whined about transparency, it's a safe bet that her getting sick and not telling anyone right away what it was is what gave a huge dip in the numbers, especially since the media was so focused on that as well which would help drive that narrative of her not being transparent enough home. 

The majority of the criticism recently has been from those posters. 
 

Yup, I agree.

You missed the point of my post, and most notably you missed the sentence that anticipated your response;

"If you're now going to argue that those are different because of content,mi'd say that's kinda proving the point about selectivity. "

Maybe the typo confused you. My point was not that torture is petty...for the love of God...but that you are disproving your point. Which was that a criticism (of Clinton, but if logical of anyone) is petty BECAUSE it did not lead to the end of the world. Which has nothing to do with the substance of the criticism. Which means that all the criticisms of Trump fuck-ups BEFORE his world ended would, ACCORDING TO YOUR RATIONALE, be petty. Meaning you, not I, are saying the the torture criticisms were petty, as they did not lead to the end of the (his) world.

In case it's still not clear, my point is that your hypothesis is wrong, and that a criticism's validity is not dependant on whether or not the fuck-up ended the world.

[TheKitttenGuard]

7 minutes ago, Fez said:

I could see it. If Democrats retook the Senate (and therefore can elect Kaine as VP), I could see them cutting a deal with McMullin to make him President over Trump (since no Republicans would vote for Clinton and there's no way Democrats end up with 26 House delegations but Clinton isn't elected) with the understanding that the status quo will be king at least until the midterms.

But its extremely unlikely that we'll ever be in this scenario at all. Clinton's way too far ahead right now, and if her support did have an unprecedented collapse, there's still basically only one plausible map where Trump didn't then end up with 270+. Far more likely that Trump would just win. But that's very remote too. All signs point to a significant Clinton win.

I think it is mighty hard for Democrats to accept twice in less than 20 years that the Presidental Candidate with (hypothetically) the most popular votes to not win.  Add to that  (hypothetically) having the most E.C will be greatly intolerable for someone who will most likely have only a few million votes to become the President.  Those Senate Democrats will be viewed as traitors up and down.  

I understand it is a very highly unlikely scenarios but it will be viewed as far, far, far worst than what happen in 2016.

 

 

[Castel]

So...Assange was actually cut off by Ecuador, which they didn't just say cause they wanted to stir up shit and get donations up until now.

 

Oh, and he was possible shut off for grooming a young child...

Can this get better/worse? 

[James Arryn]

3 minutes ago, Castel said:

So...Assange was actually cut off by Ecuador, which they didn't just say cause they wanted to stir up shit and get donations up until now.

 

Oh, and he was possible shut off for grooming a young child...

Can this get better/worse? 

ETA on movie about him?

[Castel]

1 minute ago, James Arryn said:

ETA on movie about him?

You mean a sequel? We already got one with Benedict Swafflepatch

 

I think we need a comedy in the style of The Thick of It about the long-suffering embassy people dealing with him instead.

[Jace, Extat]

8 hours ago, Fez said:

I think it means you're an NFL RB. Hopefully more LeSean McCoy and less Trent Richardson.

ETA: Seriously. I've only heard that describe running backs and only by college announcers actually.

That's what I thought, just didn't make much sense.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

 

 

[The Marquis de Leech]

CBS poll has Hillary +9 with some interesting crosstabs...

• Trump +2 with men, Hillary +19 with women
• Trump +6 with whites and +15 with white men, Hillary +2 with white women (the discrepancy is that white men like Gary Johnson).
• Hillary +8 with college-educated whites, Trump +19 with non-college educated whites.

 

[James Arryn]

1 hour ago, Castel said:

You mean a sequel? We already got one with Benedict Swafflepatch

 

I think we need a comedy in the style of The Thick of It about the long-suffering embassy people dealing with him instead.

I did not know about the first. Mind, I'm pretty much constantly travelling these days, so I miss a lot. But yeah, or like a Christopher Guest mockumentary about the distracting decor of nowhere lives.

[mormont]

8 hours ago, Commodore said:

pathetic emails like this from Politico "journalist" Glenn Thrush to Hillary campaign chair Podesta reenforce Trump's "rigged" talk

 

Who the hell is Glenn Thrush? And what does this email actually refer to? A Politico writer sending an article to the Clinton campaign for fact checking? That's... not earth-shaking stuff. Do you know how many people read Politico?

[DanteGabriel]

9 hours ago, Inigima said:

Remember that AZ paper that endorsed Clinton and got all kinds of nasty death threats? The publisher is currently on MSNBC talking about how some of the kids going door to door selling subscriptions are getting guns waved at them because of the endorsement.

The solution is to send Brock Turner and that affluenza kid to Arizona to sell these newspaper subscriptions.

In all seriousness, the newspaper's response to the predictable reaction from the knuckle-draggers in their readership is great:
 

http://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/2016/10/16/publisher-response-to-threats-after-republic-endorsement-clinton-trump/92058964/

[Inigima]

Well, here's the funniest thing I've seen this morning  

http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/trailguide/la-na-trailguide-updates-uh-oh-media-figures-and-officials-got-1476753299-htmlstory.html

[Larry of the Lawn]

13 minutes ago, Inigima said:

Well, here's the funniest thing I've seen this morning  

http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/trailguide/la-na-trailguide-updates-uh-oh-media-figures-and-officials-got-1476753299-htmlstory.html

Love the one that Photoshopped the postal regs.  I have coffee up my nose.

[DanteGabriel]

23 minutes ago, Inigima said:

Well, here's the funniest thing I've seen this morning  

http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/trailguide/la-na-trailguide-updates-uh-oh-media-figures-and-officials-got-1476753299-htmlstory.html

It's laughable and mock-worthy, but I can't help but think that now some astonishing plurality of Trump voters thinks that a postal worker really did brag about tearing up Trump votes.

Gateway Pundit is aptly named. He seems to be the credulous and pathetic vector for so many dumb and discredited things to get circulated into the right wing arglebarglesphere.