Election 2016

User avatar
Joxam
Imperisaurus Rex
Posts: 744
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 11:23 pm

Re: Election 2016

Postby Joxam » Sun Nov 13, 2016 7:20 pm

Thats kinda not true, you would need both chambers of the state governments and while they have a close number in one chamber, they dont in both, also they would need a super majority in the national congress.
Image

User avatar
Mongrel
Posts: 8839
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 6:28 pm
Location: Canadumb

Re: Election 2016

Postby Mongrel » Sun Nov 13, 2016 9:14 pm



Pretty good series of tweets here (20 long).
Image

User avatar
Mongrel
Posts: 8839
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 6:28 pm
Location: Canadumb

Re: Election 2016

Postby Mongrel » Sun Nov 13, 2016 9:19 pm

Image

User avatar
Mongrel
Posts: 8839
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 6:28 pm
Location: Canadumb

Re: Election 2016

Postby Mongrel » Mon Nov 14, 2016 1:48 pm

Daily Beast: Most of you are somewhat familiar with Steve Bannon at this point, that he's racist as fuck, etc. but you may not be aware that he's a self-described Leninist Accelerationist
Image

User avatar
Hardly Ideal
Posts: 555
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2016 4:12 pm

Re: Election 2016

Postby Hardly Ideal » Mon Nov 14, 2016 2:51 pm

But remember, kids: It's Obama who's the scary gay communist who wants to destroy America, because he hates having a stable and developed nation to live in. What the fuck?

And call me crazy, but I'm somehow reminded of how a lot of people in the Birther camp were also calling to Amend for Arnold when California elected Schwarzenegger.
Image: Mention something from KPCC or Rachel Maddow
Image: Go on about Homeworld for X posts

User avatar
Mongrel
Posts: 8839
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 6:28 pm
Location: Canadumb

Re: Election 2016

Postby Mongrel » Mon Nov 14, 2016 8:37 pm



I, uh, er, um.... uh... hoo boy
Image

User avatar
Mothra
Woah Dangsaurus
Posts: 3161
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 7:12 pm
Location: Boston, MA
Contact:

Re: Election 2016

Postby Mothra » Mon Nov 14, 2016 11:05 pm

Image

User avatar
Mongrel
Posts: 8839
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 6:28 pm
Location: Canadumb

Re: Election 2016

Postby Mongrel » Tue Nov 15, 2016 3:01 pm

"Shoulda run Bernie" will be a story which will ring for a long time one I'm not sure is correct at all - it might've been possible, or it might've been much much worse and we could be talking about "Should run Hillary."

In any case, Newsweek is attempting to put that story to bed.

So what would have happened when Sanders hit a real opponent, someone who did not care about alienating the young college voters in his base? I have seen the opposition book assembled by Republicans for Sanders, and it was brutal. The Republicans would have torn him apart. And while Sanders supporters might delude themselves into believing that they could have defended him against all of this, there is a name for politicians who play defense all the time: losers.

Here are a few tastes of what was in store for Sanders, straight out of the Republican playbook: He thinks rape is A-OK. In 1972, when he was 31, Sanders wrote a fictitious essay in which he described a woman enjoying being raped by three men. Yes, there is an explanation for it—a long, complicated one, just like the one that would make clear why the Clinton emails story was nonsense. And we all know how well that worked out.

Then there’s the fact that Sanders was on unemployment until his mid-30s, and that he stole electricity from a neighbor after failing to pay his bills, and that he co-sponsored a bill to ship Vermont’s nuclear waste to a poor Hispanic community in Texas, where it could be dumped. You can just see the words “environmental racist” on Republican billboards. And if you can’t, I already did. They were in the Republican opposition research book as a proposal on how to frame the nuclear waste issue.

Also on the list: Sanders violated campaign finance laws, criticized Clinton for supporting the 1994 crime bill that he voted for, and he voted against the Amber Alert system. His pitch for universal health care would have been used against him too, since it was tried in his home state of Vermont and collapsed due to excessive costs. Worst of all, the Republicans also had video of Sanders at a 1985 rally thrown by the leftist Sandinista government in Nicaragua where half a million people chanted, “Here, there, everywhere/the Yankee will die,’’ while President Daniel Ortega condemned “state terrorism” by America. Sanders said, on camera, supporting the Sandinistas was “patriotic.”

The Republicans had at least four other damning Sanders videos (I don’t know what they showed), and the opposition research folder was almost 2-feet thick. (The section calling him a communist with connections to Castro alone would have cost him Florida.) In other words, the belief that Sanders would have walked into the White House based on polls taken before anyone really attacked him is a delusion built on a scaffolding of political ignorance.


Now, I'm not actually certain that any of that is insurmountable - because Trump actually weathered far worse criticism by virtue of pretending it just didn't matter. Brassing it out is a thing and was a thing long before Trump ever showed up.

Whether Bernie could have brassed it out, staying on message and turning the table back on Trump is a good question to ask though. Bernie was pretty good about his message, but in the one big example we did see, he had some trouble responding to BLM and his record there (I don't think his response was all bad or a failure, but it wasn't a ringing success either).

As far as the individual criticisms go, the rape thing is questionable, but the Sandinista thing and unemployed-until-30 are far more fatal (assuming the latter wasn't just because "I was in school"). I figure it doesn't really matter though, because the Republicans would have just started throwing everything and ran with whatever was sticking best, so all they needed was one of the four or five to carp on the way they did EMAILS EMAILS.
Image

User avatar
Mongrel
Posts: 8839
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 6:28 pm
Location: Canadumb

Re: Election 2016

Postby Mongrel » Tue Nov 15, 2016 3:10 pm



More Bannon.

Hoo boy.
Image

User avatar
Mongrel
Posts: 8839
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 6:28 pm
Location: Canadumb

Re: Election 2016

Postby Mongrel » Tue Nov 15, 2016 4:02 pm

QZ: New Balance, long opposed to the TPP, has been embraced by white supremacists as "the official shoes of white people"

Interesting to see how they dance. So far they've celebrated Trump, but fairly unambiguously rejected racism.

Lord, this is only going to get more ridiculous.
Image

User avatar
TA
Posts: 1547
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 8:58 pm

Re: Election 2016

Postby TA » Tue Nov 15, 2016 4:58 pm

Mongrel wrote:So far they've celebrated Trump, but fairly unambiguously rejected racism.


That sounds like fairly unambiguously embracing racism to me.
のほも is such a good word?? the concept is kind of hard to fully get across in translation, but basically it means a feeling of pure, deep, platonic affection, and i think thats beautiful

User avatar
Mongrel
Posts: 8839
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 6:28 pm
Location: Canadumb

Re: Election 2016

Postby Mongrel » Tue Nov 15, 2016 5:51 pm

Well, it was specifically as a reference to the TPP.

Which, don't get me wrong, was still incredibly stupid.
Image

User avatar
Mothra
Woah Dangsaurus
Posts: 3161
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 7:12 pm
Location: Boston, MA
Contact:

Re: Election 2016

Postby Mothra » Thu Nov 17, 2016 11:18 am


User avatar
Friday
Posts: 2018
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 7:40 pm

Re: Election 2016

Postby Friday » Thu Nov 17, 2016 1:27 pm

"So the four riders are Death, Famine, War, and Pestilence?"

"No, no, I said Trump, Pence, Bannon, and Gingri --"

"Oh, right, Conquest, not Pestilence. My bad." *scribbles*

"Are you even fucking liste -- Uh yeah could you put in there that I didn't actually turn that woman to salt, in retrospect that was kind of a dick move"
Image

User avatar
Esperath
Posts: 1012
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 6:42 pm

Re: Election 2016

Postby Esperath » Thu Nov 17, 2016 3:11 pm

Friday wrote:Bannon


> Health

Bannon-banned
pisa katto

ImageImageImage

pisa katto

User avatar
Mongrel
Posts: 8839
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 6:28 pm
Location: Canadumb

Re: Election 2016

Postby Mongrel » Thu Nov 17, 2016 8:08 pm



Er, yikes.

This is one of those cases where you really hope it's bad scientists massaging data to make a political statement.

But uh, infant mortality stats are somewhat unambiguous and well-documented, IIRC?
Image

User avatar
Joxam
Imperisaurus Rex
Posts: 744
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 11:23 pm

Re: Election 2016

Postby Joxam » Thu Nov 17, 2016 8:40 pm

Obama isn't killing anyone's kids, mongrel.
Image

User avatar
Joxam
Imperisaurus Rex
Posts: 744
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 11:23 pm

Re: Election 2016

Postby Joxam » Thu Nov 17, 2016 8:41 pm

Could you remind me again that great saying about correlation and causation?
Image

User avatar
Brentai
Woah Dangsaurus
Posts: 2087
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 2:40 pm

Re: Election 2016

Postby Brentai » Thu Nov 17, 2016 8:45 pm

You're reading it upside down, although I agree that this is probably a spurious correlation, even if you can rationalize it.

User avatar
Mongrel
Posts: 8839
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 6:28 pm
Location: Canadumb

Re: Election 2016

Postby Mongrel » Thu Nov 17, 2016 9:29 pm

Yeah the democrats have lower mortality on this chart, not higher.

I think people will make hay over this, so I am pretty interested in seeing what stats nerd do in terms of tearing apart the numbers, looking at other causes.

But this isn't just one data point being correlated, it's clearly multiple over a sustained period, and also you see that the lag in rate changes dating from administration changes means this isn't like a light switch being flipped on an off. It's right to consider what other factors might change in lockstep with presidential administrations that could serve as an alternate cause, but uh, I'm not really sure what those might be.
Image

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests