U.S. Politics: "Trump Is Dumber Than A Bag Of Hair"

[ding-fries-are-done]

Come kid those are rookie numbers. You got to pump them up.  

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.businessinsider.com/andrew-spieles-virginia-voter-registration-2017-6

I'm guessing this is how the Dems are getting those number increases.  

[Fez]

51 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

My apologies @Fez, I should have been more clear. When I referenced 2016 I was specifically talking about Clinton and Trump. I've seen a few different surveys and polls that indicate that Democratic primary voters who didn't support Clinton were less likely to vote for the nominee in the General than Republican primary voters who didn't support Trump. 

I wonder how many of those voters would've been gettable by any Democratic nominee. There were plenty of Democratic primary voters, especially in Appalachia, that really are DINOs and only voted in the primary so that they could vote against Clinton twice. I'm sure there were some Sanders supporters who were legit Sanders supporters who ended up not voting or at least not voting for Clinton, but was it actually a relevant number?

And at the same time, there were quite a few people who voted for Clinton who probably voted for Rubio, Jeb!, or Kasich in the Republican primaries. It's what led to Clinton having such a good showing in affluent, white suburbs and causing people early on on election night to think she was headed for a landslide.

 

 

On a separate note, it really bugs me when people say Democrats went 0-4 in the House special elections so far this year. They didn't got 0-4, they went 1-5; its funny how folks skip over the data points that disagree with them. Its true that the win was a California seat they already held, but, like 3 of the 4 other House seats (and a large majority of the state special elections), the Democratic candidate did significantly better than Clinton had done last year.

[Week]

10 minutes ago, ding-fries-are-done said:

Come kid those are rookie numbers. You got to pump them up.  

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.businessinsider.com/andrew-spieles-virginia-voter-registration-2017-6

I'm guessing this is how the Dems are getting those number increases.  

The increase noted in the Vox article (and others) reflect votes cast not registered voters. Try again. Or better yet -- don't.

[denstorebog]

17 minutes ago, ding-fries-are-done said:

Come kid those are rookie numbers. You got to pump them up.  

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.businessinsider.com/andrew-spieles-virginia-voter-registration-2017-6

I'm guessing this is how the Dems are getting those number increases.  

Let me understand this right - this link is your response to my pretty reasonable explanation of current voting trends? A case involving 18 fake votes (which I guess pretty much evens out the number of combined extra votes that members of the Trump and Cruz dynasties got from voting in two places last year)?

I was wondering whether you really did not understand the basics of district-based voting and the mathematical reality behind the 5-0 situation, but this Breitbart-level of deflection answers my curiosity 100%.

Welcome to the board, by the way. You'll find your claims challenged and scrutinized a lot harder around here than you're used to around your usual stomping grounds.

[ding-fries-are-done]

5 minutes ago, Week said:

The increase noted in the Vox article (and others) reflect votes cast not registered voters. Try again. Or better yet -- don't.

Since Vox has the same basis as CNN, MSNBC Salon, The Huffing Post and Fox News, I don't take their reporting or statistics seriously.  

Try again or better yet, use an unbiased source.  

[Week]

1 minute ago, ding-fries-are-done said:

Since Vox as the same basis as CNN, MSNBC Salon, The Huffing Post and Fox News, I don't take their reporting or statistics seriously.  

Try again or better yet, use an unbiased source.  

Data from US House of Representatives and the New York Times.* per the article (if you had bothered to open it without damaging your tender, tender sensibilities)

It seems that reality is a biased source to some snowflakes.

[ding-fries-are-done]

13 minutes ago, Week said:

Data from US House of Representatives and the New York Times.* per the article (if you had bothered to open it without damaging your tender, tender sensibilities)

It seems that reality is a biased source to some snowflakes.

New York Times.  Hahaha.  I should have included reliable and reputable source.  Hahaha

[denstorebog]

4 minutes ago, ding-fries-are-done said:

New York Times.  Hahaha.  I should have included reliable and reputable source.  Hahaha

Haha, hahaha.

Ehh.

Shit, son. I'm not even sure what you're saying here? Are you saying that the vote tallies in the districts for this year's special elections were wrong? Or are you saying that the vote tallies for previous House elections in the same districts are wrong? Because that's all you need to know which party is overperforming and by how much.

I'm betting a club sandwich here and now that you can't tell me which exact number that goes into the calculation you think is 'fake', and that it's just a standard phrase you're throwing out there because it's what you do over at Breitbart. Come on. Prove me wrong. Tell us where the unreliability lies, exactly.

[ding-fries-are-done]

Just now, denstorebog said:

Haha, hahaha.

Ehh.

Shit, son. I'm not even sure what you're saying here? Are you saying that the vote tallies in the districts for this year's special elections were wrong? Or are you saying that the vote tallies for previous House elections in the same districts are wrong? Because that's all you need to know which party is overperforming and by how much.

I'm betting a club sandwich here and now that you can't tell me which exact number that goes into the calculation you think is 'fake', and that it's just a standard phrase you're throwing out there because it's what you do over at Breitbart. Come on. Prove me wrong. Tell us where the unreliability lies, exactly.

Well shit kid, I never said nor denied that the Dems numbers are improving but that they still lost.  

And a loss is a loss no matter how close the contest.  But I guess by saying the numbers have increased will give you a moral victory.  

And I would like my club sandwich with mayo and bacon because I don't post at Breitbart.  Nice try kid.  

[denstorebog]

11 minutes ago, ding-fries-are-done said:

And a loss is a loss no matter how close the contest.  But I guess by saying the numbers have increased will give you a moral victory.  

See, son, this is the part I don't understand. If you truly understood what is going on here - and again, it's basic application of numbers that any 5th-grader could do - you would understand why this is the exact opposite of a moral victory.

I guess it can be boiled down to a simple question which you can't answer without putting a spin on it:

What will happen next November if you apply the same Democratic overperformance seen this year to all races on average?

(Bonus question: What will happen if you apply half that overperformance?)

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

11 minutes ago, ding-fries-are-done said:

And I would like my club sandwich with mayo and bacon because I don't post at Breitbart.  Nice try kid.  

Eh, sorry. No Free Lunch when you're Conservative, right? 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

51 minutes ago, ding-fries-are-done said:

Since Vox has the same basis as CNN, MSNBC Salon, The Huffing Post and Fox News, I don't take their reporting or statistics seriously.  

Try again or better yet, use an unbiased source.  

What?

Anyways, stop feeding the troll people! 

[Week]

Anyways, in "it could be worse [than Trump]" news:

https://www.vox.com/world/2017/7/6/15930694/rodrigo-duterte-isis-militants-eat-liver

Quote

Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte just threatened to eat ISIS militants.

“I will eat your liver if you want me to,” he ranted. “Give me salt and vinegar and I will eat it in front of you.”

According to the South China Morning Post, on Wednesday night Duterte directed the threat at Abu Sayyaf, an ISIS-affiliated group with a stronghold in the southern island of Mindanao, after the group beheaded two Vietnamese sailors. The sailors’ bodies were recovered on the island on Wednesday.

Duterte was on the island when that news broke, and he proceeded to give an impassioned speech before local officials. “I eat everything. I am not picky. I eat even what cannot be swallowed,” he said.

Although, it may not be that much more unhinged than the "pigs' blood bullets" story "retold" by Trump on the campaign trail -- that may be somewhere that Trump has ... moderated (?) ... his language at least.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 hour ago, The Wedge said:

Oh, that's been outlawed in Illinois for well over a decade. It's a joy to not smell like an ashtray after having a meal. 

Wedge,

My first visit to Chicago was right before that law passed.  My Dad took my wife and I to a restaurant in town.  We asked to be seated in the "non-smoking section".  That turned out to be 4 tables wedge between the "Smoking Section", the Bar (which allowed smoking), and a private party where everyone was smoking.  

We were not happy. 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

OUR LONG NATIONAL NIGHTMARE IS FINALLY OVER!

 

/Well that settles it 

[Red Tiger]

1 hour ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

OUR LONG NATIONAL NIGHTMARE IS FINALLY OVER!

 

/Well that settles it 

Reminds me of Oberyn during Tyrion's trial in the books.

“Tyrion, did you kill King Joffrey?” He would not waste a heartbeat. “No." “Well, that's a relief,” said Oberyn Martell dryly

[Ormond]

21 hours ago, dmc515 said:

Yes the GOP has successfully made liberal a bad word to much of the general populace, they've always been much better at branding (pro-life, death tax, etc.)  This describes why, concurrently, far more people identify as conservative than liberal and (slightly less) more people identify as Democrats than Republicans.  One might think it's a distinction without a difference, but there's a reason left-leaning activists prefer the term progressive, and it's because it's a far less hated word.

I don't really care - and am skeptical that the difference has much actual electoral (or otherwise) impact - but conceptually progressive makes more sense to me.  Historically, conservatives are the ideology that is reticent to change, or wanting to conserve society as it is.  Conversely, progressives want to enact change in order to improve the status quo, or make societal progress.

You are correct on the conservative vs. liberal, but your own link directly contradicts you on Democrats and Republicans, proclaiming that now 38% of Americans identify as Republican and 45% as Democrats, with the seven point gap in favor of the Democrats the largest one since April 2015. 

Actually, now that I reread that maybe you did understand the second link, but the "(slightly less) more" was an extremely confusing way to phrase that. 

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

52 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

OUR LONG NATIONAL NIGHTMARE IS FINALLY OVER!

 

/Well that settles it 

Here's a bit more context:

Quote

Hamburg, Germany (CNN)President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin met for over two hours Friday afternoon, discussing interference in US elections and ending with an agreement on curbing violence in Syria.

 

But a diplomatic dust-up immediately broke out after the session when Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said Trump accepted Putin's assurances there was no Russian involvement in the 2016 American election.

 

The dispute only underscores the challenges that remain in the fraught relationship between the United States and Russia, whose 2016 election meddling has hung over the Trump White House for months as multiple investigations proceed in Washington.

 

Trump opened the session by "raising the concerns of the American people regarding Russian interference in the 2016 election," US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said in an off-camera briefing after the meeting. Russia asked for "proof and evidence" it was involved, which the US did not produce in the meeting.

 

"They had a very robust and lengthy exchange on the subject," Tillerson said. "The President pressed President Putin on more than one occasion regarding Russian involvement. President Putin denied such involvement, as I think he has in the past."

 

Lavrov, speaking on camera in a separate briefing, said that Trump was OK with Putin's version of events.

"President Trump said he's heard Putin's very clear statements that this is not true and that the Russian government didn't interfere in the elections and that he accepts these statements. That's all," Lavrov said, according to a CNN translation.

 

Both Tillerson and Lavrov were in the room with Trump and Putin for the bilateral talks.

 

A senior Trump administration official immediately denied that Trump accepted Putin's claim of non-interference.

Trump pressed Putin on election meddling and then moved on, Tillerson said.

 

"I think what the two presidents, I think rightly, focused on is how do we move forward," he said. "How do we move forward from here?"

 

Despite broaching the topic with Putin, Trump's concern over the matter remains, given the President's repeated questioning -- as recently as Thursday in Poland -- whether Russia was involved in the 2016 meddling.

 

"I think it very well could be Russia, but I think it could very well have been other countries," Trump said during a news conference with Polish President Andrzej Duda.

 

US intelligence agencies concluded in a report released earlier this year that Russia ordered an "influence campaign" to harm Hillary Clinton's chances of winning the election.

 

Talks Friday focused on how the two countries "secure a commitment that the Russian government has no intention" of interfering in future elections, Tillerson added. "How do we have a framework where we have capability to judge what is happening in the cyberworld."

 

Tillerson described the meeting as "very constructive" and said the two leaders "connected very quickly."

 

"There was a very clear positive chemistry," Tillerson 

 

Sad day when the Russian official is probably more believable and the President's comments than the Secretary of State.

Good to see the two love birds hit it off though......

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

2 hours ago, Fez said:

I wonder how many of those voters would've been gettable by any Democratic nominee. There were plenty of Democratic primary voters, especially in Appalachia, that really are DINOs and only voted in the primary so that they could vote against Clinton twice. I'm sure there were some Sanders supporters who were legit Sanders supporters who ended up not voting or at least not voting for Clinton, but was it actually a relevant number?

I think a generic Democratic nominee could have gotten some of the voters Clinton lost, and if the hypothetical nominee was fairly moderate, the moderate Republicans would have still voted for the individual. As to the Sanders voters, given how close the margins were in WI, MI and PA, I think it could have been a relevant number. The youth vote was down, and that may have played a large role in Clinton's defeat. Not that it matters now anyways. 

[Kalbear]

3 hours ago, denstorebog said:

Let me understand this right - this link is your response to my pretty reasonable explanation of current voting trends? A case involving 18 fake votes (which I guess pretty much evens out the number of combined extra votes that members of the Trump and Cruz dynasties got from voting in two places last year)?

It's not 18 fake votes. It's 18 fake voting registrations. Those people did not vote or register at all.

It's really not even the same thing whatsoever.