The board's server will undergo upgrade maintenance tonight, Nov 5, 2014, beginning approximately around 10 PM ET. Prepare for some possible down time during this process.
Joined: Tue September 24, 2013 5:56 pm Posts: 47135 Location: In the oatmeal aisle wearing a Shellac shirt
McParadigm wrote:
Highly recommend everybody here consider the decision to sell Trump hotel in DC, when fretting about Trump’s potential to pull off a magic victory.
They’ve been swimming in high profile clients for three years, as countries and organizations seek to win the president’s favor. There’s no gain in selling now, if you think you’ll still be in a position to pull this grift in 2020-24. On the other hand, if you think you’re going to lose the election, then the time to sell is before the big spenders start to realize the same and disappear.
I think this is a good read on the situation. I'd only add that there's a decent probability that it's not necessarily the result of poll numbers telling him it's time to cut bait while the getting is good; it's more likely the act of a serial grifter, who has daily briefings that tell him the real estate market is going to crash, and given the multitude of court challenges facing his conflicts of interest, it's more a self-centered decision to simply pivot to the next scheme.
It’s possible. It could also just be another “prearrange for a Russian oligarch to buy a $40 million property for $100 million” kind of thing. But none of these effectively addresses the fact that the property’s current value is determined by the worth of its presidency-fueled clientele. You, as owner of the property, either anticipate that financial powerhouse clientele still being around in two years...or you don’t.
An enigma of a man shaped hole in the wall between reality and the soul of the devil.
Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 5:13 pm Posts: 39820 Location: 6000 feet beyond man and time.
Green Habit wrote:
BurtReynolds wrote:
At this point I wouldn't be surprised if she siphoned off more Trump votes then dem ones.
I would. The hardcore Trumpists aren't going to go away from their man, and mainstream Republicans have determined they're going to sink or swim with him. So I don't there's anywhere else to siphon votes than from the left side of the spectrum.
BurtReynolds wrote:
Her positions besides her Syria stance aren't different from the mainstream democrat platform, so there is little reason for a democrat to vote for her as a third party...
It wouldn't take that many otherwise Democratic votes to peel off to wreak havoc. The margin of victory in MI, WI, and PA was all under 1% and under 50,000 votes. Democrats need every vote they can get if you want Trump defeated.
BurtReynolds wrote:
...but she might make for an attractive candidate for never-trumpers. Conservatives who are rethinking universal healthcare or who are very anti- interventionist might even view her as a tolerable choice.
If she ran against a dem Sanders, that would not only be suicide, but she'd definitely be a Republican plant at that point. Otherwise, no.
The Never Trumpers, by definition, didn't vote for Trump the first time around, going to either Johnson or McMullin. And guess what, Trump ended up winning. Their strategy was flat out stupid if they thought voting that way was going to ensure a Trump defeat.
Look, here's the cold hard truth: if you want to see Trump defeated, you have no choice but to vote for whoever the Democrats nominate, no matter how disappointed you may be in that candidate. I know that I felt sick voting for Hillary Clinton in 2016, but that's the grim reality of how the US form of government is set up. If you're tired of being presented with giant douchebags and turd sandwiches, you need to advocate for the end of the Electoral College and the implementation of some form of ranked choice voting, not to just vainly vote for a third party. Of course, the former requires much more hard work to do than the latter, so here we are.
I'm not talking so much about strategy as being able to stomach who you are voting for, and I think a lot of nevertrump voters will think in those terms. I also think Democrats are extremely motivated by defeating Trump at all costs, so this worry about a third party candidate siphoning off a lot of votes is unfounded. And the idea that a third party is necessarily a plant is pure conspiracy theory nonsense until some proof comes up.
I can't understand the insanity of thinking we can stop douchebags and turd sandwiches (or any truly big problem) by voting for douchebags and turd sandwiches--or even by voting at all--but it's an old argument that no one has time for anymore. Obviously, I'm a bit of an outlier here since I don't view defeating Trump as the be-all-end-all of of our current political goals, but most will view this election as only about Trump, and if defeating him is your goal you should certainly vote for whoever has the best chance of beating him.
Joined: Sun September 15, 2013 5:50 am Posts: 22371
4/5 wrote:
Green Habit wrote:
But I will say this: I do believe that Romney really wants to be president, and he is positioning himself right now in a way that if Trump were to get tossed, he'd be right there to take advantage of it.
This. He doesn't have the courage to step out and openly lead Republican impeachment support, but he's waiting in the wings for a chance to emerge from the rubble if Republicans do ever turn against him.
he is non-christian
he has a DL twitter account titled 'Pierre Delecto' from which he criticizes Donald Trump
he was governor of massachusetts (the gayest state in the nation)
he was a proponent of the pre-Obama Obamacare
he should just run as a Democractic candidate
_________________ All posts by this account, even those referencing real things, are entirely fictional and are for entertainment purposes only; i.e. very low-quality entertainment. These may contain coarse language and due to their content should not be viewed by anyone
Joined: Wed December 12, 2012 10:33 pm Posts: 6932
BurtReynolds wrote:
I'm not talking so much about strategy as being able to stomach who you are voting for, and I think a lot of nevertrump voters will think in those terms.
Fair, though I think it betrays the cause of "Never Trump", which I would interpret as "defeating Trump at all costs".
BurtReynolds wrote:
I also think Democrats are extremely motivated by defeating Trump at all costs, so this worry about a third party candidate siphoning off a lot of votes is unfounded.
I think most will as well, but their margin of loss was so small in 2016 that I can totally understand why they'd be very sensitive about any third party candidate siphoning off even the smallest of votes.
BurtReynolds wrote:
And the idea that a third party is necessarily a plant is pure conspiracy theory nonsense until some proof comes up.
Agreed.
BurtReynolds wrote:
I can't understand the insanity of thinking we can stop douchebags and turd sandwiches (or any truly big problem) by voting for douchebags and turd sandwiches--or even by voting at all--but it's an old argument that no one has time for anymore.
I agree that the problem of the two party system won't be solved by mere voting, but a lot of people think it will, when they need to realize that the problem is much more fundamental with how the government is structured.
BurtReynolds wrote:
Obviously, I'm a bit of an outlier here since I don't view defeating Trump as the be-all-end-all of of our current political goals, but most will view this election as only about Trump, and if defeating him is your goal you should certainly vote for whoever has the best chance of beating him.
Yeah, obviously if defeating Trump is not one's priority, then a lot of what I'm saying doesn't apply.
Is 20+ in a range of 13-27 statistically significant?
For any given 2 year period, 20 is a rare number to reach. But to put the impact of it happening 3 elections in a row into perspective, let’s assume that 6 more retirements are announced in the coming months:
* 1992 happened to be a year with 50+ retirements total, and then a lot of swing state Rs retired in the face of Clinton scandal backlash. Those retirement numbers helped end Newt’s career.
We’re at 22 now, which puts the 2016-2020 total at 68.
Joined: Tue September 24, 2013 5:56 pm Posts: 47135 Location: In the oatmeal aisle wearing a Shellac shirt
That’s a garbage poll
Quote:
The telephone poll of 1,000 registered voters nationwide, taken Oct. 23-26, has a margin of error of plus or minus three percentage points. The sample of 399 likely Democratic voters has an error margin of 4.9 points; the sample of 323 likely Republican voters has an error margin of 5.5 points.
Is 20+ in a range of 13-27 statistically significant?
For any given 2 year period, 20 is a rare number to reach. But to put the impact of it happening 3 elections in a row into perspective, let’s assume that 6 more retirements are announced in the coming months:
* 1992 happened to be a year with 50+ retirements total, and then a lot of swing state Rs retired in the face of Clinton scandal backlash. Those retirement numbers helped end Newt’s career.
We’re at 22 now, which puts the 2016-2020 total at 68.
To be fair, Republicans are old as fuck. There were bound to be retirements.
Joined: Wed January 02, 2013 12:35 am Posts: 35480
Not sure where to post this so here
Why don’t we just cut Russia off from the internet altogether? It could be done. It would have been automatically in the Cold War and were in a weirder more serious threat level from them right now I don’t get it
Joined: Wed January 02, 2013 12:35 am Posts: 35480
tragabigzanda wrote:
dimejinky99 wrote:
Why don’t we just cut Russia off from the internet altogether? It could be done.
Because it would be barbaric to punish their citizens for the crimes of the oligarchs.
They have thousands of people in troll farm factories in St. Petersburg employed to do exactly this shit everyday. Attacking western discourse is bad enough but far more serious threats with attacking banks and digitel companies etc. and seemingly have endless resources to continue.
We’re all under attack from them constantly. Obviously why they’re ramping up their own defense
Joined: Tue September 24, 2013 5:56 pm Posts: 47135 Location: In the oatmeal aisle wearing a Shellac shirt
dimejinky99 wrote:
tragabigzanda wrote:
dimejinky99 wrote:
Why don’t we just cut Russia off from the internet altogether? It could be done.
Because it would be barbaric to punish their citizens for the crimes of the oligarchs.
They have thousands of people in troll farm factories in St. Petersburg employed to do exactly this shit everyday. Attacking western discourse is bad enough but far more serious threats with attacking banks and digitel companies etc. and seemingly have endless resources to continue.
We’re all under attack from them constantly. Obviously why they’re ramping up their own defense
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 32 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum
I think this is a good read on the situation. I'd only add that there's a decent probability that it's not necessarily the result of poll numbers telling him it's time to cut bait while the getting is good; it's more likely the act of a serial grifter, who has daily briefings that tell him the real estate market is going to crash, and given the multitude of court challenges facing his conflicts of interest, it's more a self-centered decision to simply pivot to the next scheme.
The formatted clipping ruins the joke, but it gets funnier when expanded