Jump to content
Fragile Bird

US Politics: Ready, Set, Announce! Bookering the Odds

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Kalbear said:

But ultimately it doesn't matter why. It only matters that he's doing it, and that his goal is to get dem votes more than Trump votes. By that logic, he is a threat. He may be ultimately an entirely weak and ineffective threat - and given his public speeches so far, I'd say that's the most likely thing - but even if his appeal should be to Republicans, he's going after Dem votes. 

Totally agree, as we've discussed, this is entirely moot anyway because he's very likely to crap out (well, if crapping out even qualifies since he hasn't really "crapped in" yet) and not be any kind of factor.  Buy, say he does become a factor - you betcha he'll start targeting reluctant Trump voters along with "moderate" Dems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, DMC said:

Totally agree, as we've discussed, this is entirely moot anyway because he's very likely to crap out (well, if crapping out even qualifies since he hasn't really "crapped in" yet) and not be any kind of factor.  Buy, say he does become a factor - you betcha he'll start targeting reluctant Trump voters along with "moderate" Dems.

This seems relevant - a map that shows by state the percentage of actual voters who didn't vote for Trump or Clinton. It largely tracks well with the Dems fall in love, Repubs fall in line bullshit. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Kalbear said:

This seems relevant - a map that shows by state the percentage of actual voters who didn't vote for Trump or Clinton. It largely tracks well with the Dems fall in love, Repubs fall in line bullshit. 

Sure that is useful for targeting purposes.  But again, if he's actually going to be a factor he's gonna be going after much more than the 5.7 percent that voted 3rd party.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, DMC said:

Sure that is useful for targeting purposes.  But again, if he's actually going to be a factor he's gonna be going after much more than the 5.7 percent that voted 3rd party.

It's less about targeting - it was just an observation that for the most part, the people who aren't loyal to a party are the people who vote Dem (or don't). 

Alternately, you can give a reasonable map of 'most to least racist states' and 'most to least voting for a POTUS' and see the South was all in on the racist train. Not surprising, but ugly nonetheless. 

One surprise to me is Idaho. I guess they went Libertarian? Ah, I see, they also had some bleed from Evan McMullin, which makes some sense given their proximity to Utah. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

It's less about targeting - it was just an observation that for the most part, the people who aren't loyal to a party are the people who vote Dem (or don't). 

I'd say the heightened 3rd party vote in 2016 had much more to do with the two most unpopular candidates ever as the two nominees - and the reason it hurt Clinton more than Trump is the former represented the incumbent party.

3 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Alternately, you can give a reasonable map of 'most to least racist states' and 'most to least voting for a POTUS' and see the South was all in on the racist train. Not surprising, but ugly nonetheless. 

It may be the case that the South had the least 3rd party votes, but the West also clearly had the most - and a few of the highest states lean heavily GOP.  Whether you consider those also as racist as the South is up to you.

5 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

One surprise to me is Idaho. I guess they went Libertarian? Ah, I see, they also had some bleed from Evan McMullin, which makes some sense given their proximity to Utah. 

Yeah, the Mormon hatred of Trump has a lot to do with to do with the above.  But that's also an intriguing opportunity for a hypothetical 3rd party candidate - in Utah.  Wouldn't waste my time on Idaho or Wyoming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, DMC said:

Meh, making $300-500 a week when you're in high school

300-500$ a week in high school? Sorry man, but we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I've seen kids go bad in high school because of weed, first as a student and then as a teacher. It'd definitely be disqualifying for a politician in my eyes if they were unrepetant about their role in that.
I'm usually not one for a holier-than-thou attitudes when it comes to drugs and addictions, but as I said I do want to hold politicians to higher standards than most. If lines have to be drawn somewhere, selling drugs to kids is at least as bad as racism or sexism. No offense intended.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Sorry man, but we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

Indeed.

ETA:  @Rippounet - Sorry can't help but respond to this one -

Quote

If lines have to be drawn somewhere, selling drugs to kids is at least as bad as racism or sexism.

I feel much less guilt about selling higher quality weed to fellow high schoolers that were gonna buy shitty beasters anyway than I ever would about any racist or sexist behavior.  So, in general no offense in general, but kinda offense on that one.

Edited by DMC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m amazed there are multiple people in this thread, some who have worked on political campaigns, who admit to being drug dealers in high school and think it’s no big deal. Most voters see very little gradation on selling drugs, particularly to high schoolers. And if it broke that a candidate was employing former high school drug dealers on their campaign it would be a national scandal and hugely damaging to the candidate (who would have no choice but to fire the staffer).

 

It’s crazy how efficiently intelligent people can rationalize away any action as “nothing” when it involves oneself. The human brain never ceases to amaze.

Edited by lokisnow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, lokisnow said:

Most voters see very little gradation on selling drugs, particularly to high schoolers. And if it broke that a candidate was employing former high school drug dealers on their campaign it would be a national scandal and hugely damaging to the candidate (who would have choice but to fire the staffer).

First, I've never been a paid staffer on a campaign.  Second, sounds like you've been partaking with the paranoia.  Could someone figure out my identity if they really wanted to on here?  Sure.  Actually really easily if you closely followed my posts.  But I'd like to think there's some inherent trust with the regulars here that'd be able to do that.  And even if they did "publicize" it, I'd just deny it and say I was lying.  It's a handle on a fantasy series message board.  This isn't social media with a picture of me as an avatar.  Third, I frankly don't think I'll ever be important enough in any way that anyone would either go through such effort, or on the other end care if they did irt prospective employers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So just reminded Stacey Abrams is doing the SotU response tonight.  The response is often given to up and coming politicians.  And more often than not, it hurts those up and comers.  Even when it doesn't, can't think of an example in the past twenty years where it helped anybody.  It's a horrible spot to be put in.  I understand the (kind of supposed) need for it as the opposition party, but you should just have someone like..Dick Durbin do it every year.  Wish Abrams turned them down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

to be clear, I was just generalizing about the group think that selling drugs isn’t bad because oneself did it, which sort of blew me away to see it elucidated so clearly.  It really is the same attitude we see when politicians try to justify past actions. Our built in ability to rationalize ones behvaior as okay because one has done it is amazing. I didn’t want to make anyone paranoid or feel threatened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, lokisnow said:

I was just generalizing about the group think that selling drugs isn’t bad because oneself did it, which sort of blew me away to see it elucidated so clearly.

I don't think selling weed to one's contemporaries is bad, no.  Selling other drugs, yeah.  Selling weed to high schoolers when you're an adult, yeah.  But no, I don't feel guilt about that -- and I feel a whole ton a guilt about a whole ton of things.  While you may think it's rationalization, it's a personal opinion, even value, I've held for a very long time - hence the mention of NORML earlier.  Like Ripp said, agree to disagree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, lokisnow said:

to be clear, I was just generalizing about the group think that selling drugs isn’t bad because oneself did it, which sort of blew me away to see it elucidated so clearly.  It really is the same attitude we see when politicians try to justify past actions. Our built in ability to rationalize ones behvaior as okay because one has done it is amazing. I didn’t want to make anyone paranoid or feel threatened.

I think you picked the wrong rationalization though.

I do by no means to speak for DMC (which I'll do now anyway), but the rationalization isn't I was a drug dealer and worked on campaign, so what?

But it's probably something along the line as in, it was just weed, I wasn't pushing heroine or crack of something. 

At least that's the one I'd pick when somebody asks me about my stoner days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Rippounet said:

Yeah, that's not being the "school drug dealer," that's just getting stuff for friends. Most people who smoke weed will have done that at some point or the other in their lives. But being an actual dealer making real money from various kinds of drugs is an entirely different story in my book.
Funnily enough, my earlier point was precisely that the two are very different, and I didn't even realize that might be controversial.

I wanted to let the derail end, but this is worth addressing. No worries about coming on too strong, but you're viewing this way too much in black and white. It exists along a long spectrum, and while what you stereotyped (correctly) as bad is indeed awful, there exists a vast amount of grey area between that and what you described as doing with your friends. Most people who engage in this behavior in HS or college make a lot more than you think while also not harming anyone in the process (relatively speaking). And at some point it's on the individual to recognize their addictions. What happened to your friend sounds awful, I truly mean that, but in my experience that tends to be the exception, not the rule. Now, we come from different places, so maybe that experience is more common in France, but what DMC are talking about is upper middle class kids in the burbs. I've seen people's lives get destroyed because they got hooked on hard drugs, but never on some herb, and frankly, I've always said the reason you need to legalize and regulate it is because if you ask kids in high school if it's easier to get that or alcohol, I believe most kids would say the former is easier to find. 

As to how it should affect people's ability to run for office, well, I guess it's a case by case situation for each voter, but I personally wouldn't bat an eye if someone admitted that they slung some grass when they were young. Nor am I in a rush to punish someone in their fifties for something dumb they did in college, so long as they've shown some type of growth. And really we can expand this to a ton of situations. A recent phenomenon here is people crawling through young athletes' Twitter handles to find dumb/racist stuff they said when they were teenagers. Should we really be crushing these kids if they've shown some level of growth an contrition? Is Liam Neeson's career over now because he admitted to having a racist impulse 40 years ago? There are so many examples to choose from, and I for one don't feel comfortable quickly jumping on the internet rage mob trying to destroy people's lives over the indiscretions of their youth, especially if they can demonstrate that they learned from their mistakes. 

@lokisnow, that's funny, I would have assumed our resident cynic would have expected bad behavior from our elected officials and their staff. Honestly, you should be more worried about the alcoholism. It's not as bad as yesteryear, but ti's still a problem in a lot of offices (though thankfully not in the ones I've worked in). 

@DMC, I could figure out who you are in under five minutes assuming I get my hands on one piece of data. You've spilled the beans too many times. Muhahahaha! :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

@DMC, I could figure out who you are in under five minutes assuming I get my hands on one piece of data. You've spilled the beans too many times. Muhahahaha! :P

I mean yeah, that was my point.  But, didn't I also basically just tell you who I was a long while back in a PM? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, DMC said:

I mean yeah, that was my point.  But, didn't I also basically just tell you who I was a long while back in a PM? 

I don't recall if you did directly, but you've said enough to make it easy. Anyways, rest assured, I find blackmail to be unethical. That's a road I won't travel down (unless you're @Jace, Basilissa). 

Be warned PQJ!, the pony kingdom can crumble quite quickly!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would totally blackmail Jace if I could.  My price?  MORE INSANITY ALL THE TIME!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I wanted to let the derail end, but this is worth addressing. No worries about coming on too strong, but you're viewing this way too much in black and white.

I don't think so. This conversation was always about politicians running for office, not random individuals, and not about you. There have been numerous calls on this thread to be unsympathetic toward unrepentant politicians when it came to cases of racism or sexism. I'm simply saying it's only logical to extend this stance to other types of morally reprehensible behaviors.

8 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Most people who engage in this behavior in HS or college make a lot more than you think while also not harming anyone in the process (relatively speaking). And at some point it's on the individual to recognize their addictions.
[...]
I for one don't feel comfortable quickly jumping on the internet rage mob trying to destroy people's lives over the indiscretions of their youth, especially if they can demonstrate that they learned from their mistakes.

Exactly. It's not their actions that would disqualify a high school weed dealer for getting my vote, it's their unrepentance. Of course, starting to adopt the conservative "personal responsibility" line would make it far far worse, since I would never trust them to be on the same side of the political spectrum as I am after that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, S John said:

That seems like a good way to perpetuate the same shitty state of affairs for eternity.  I think when someone has obviously already changed their views and behavior, it’s usually counter productive to run them down over it.  Don’t get me wrong, I think Northam handled all of this terribly and probably deserves his fate because of that.  But I think to some extent it is also important to have examples of people who have reformed their attitudes about things through time, experience, and maturity - and to show that it is possible to overcome improper and offensive attitudes towards race, homosexuality, etc.  If there’s no coming back, to me that sends the message to a lot of people that there really isn’t any point in examination and reform, you’re gonna be crucified either way.

I mean doesn’t  the left already have that? Byrd was given by the end of his life for his racist past. And I find rightfully so given his voting record after his change.  Hillary and Bernie weren’t always pioneers for the LGBTQ. Sanders saw gay marriage as something individual states should decide on, and Clinton wasn’t in favor of it all together. They’ve evolved their positions in recent years. Now Sanders is extremely popular in the Democratic Party and Hillary(sadly imo), was nominated the last presidential election. Do you really not count these examples as forgiveness? 

Edited by Varysblackfyre321

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Fragile Bird said:

What I found interesting about his press conference was he said he never ordered the yearbook and had no idea that picture was on his page (the day after live press conference, after the initial apology).I really don't know if that is a picture of him or not, if his denial is genuine. You would think a yearbook check would be on the checklist of things to do. But at this point he does need to resign. I genuinely think he did not know there was anything offensive in a yearbook, but that might be because those kinds of pictures were not considered offensive back them so he had no memory of any such thing.

Dude it was 1984. Not 1954. Dressing up in black face and the Klan was generally determined to be racist. Even in Virginia this sort of stuff would be looked as at least slightly racist. In the end I don’t think it really matters if the yearbook photo has him in it. Even if he wasn’t  he likely  did something(s) just as racist else he wouldn’t be so quick to have come out and apologize initially.

 

5 hours ago, Fragile Bird said:

Just wanted to mention something I don't recall anyone else mentioning in the previous thread.

There was a lot of speculation about who Trump Jr. called after the infamous meeting at Trump Tower with the Russians "to talk about adoption". The call was to a blocked number and the Republicans on the committee looking into the meeting refused to subpoena the phone records to find out who the call was made to. It turns out the call was not made to Trump.

Don Jr. had refused to say who he called. I wonder if he was just trolling the Democrats or if the 'associate' of his who he did call was a significant figure.

I would bet on the latter. I’m guessing someone high up in the campaign. 

It’s funny see see how brazen the collusion is and see people on the right pretend it was a hoax. If Obama did half of the stuff Trump did in his campaign every crackpot conspiracy theorist on the right would be screaming their lungs out every day on this issue, and how it’s proof Obama is a dirty commie. 

Edited by Varysblackfyre321

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×