I'm also kinda hoping Trump wins to see what kind of meltdown we get out of you. No offense.
No offense taken. When the bedwetter in chief calls you out its a badge of honor. Especially when he says something as banal as "I kind of hope Trump wins, just to see what you will do." I really hate to disappoint, but there won't be any meltdown. Nothing that Americans do surprises me any more. If they vote for Trump, that falls inline with the level of stupidity that I firmly believe the vast majority of this nation embraces. A Trump victory wouldn't surprise me - they voted Bush twice. I don't think it will happen, and polling data does not support it, but it could happen. I stopped getting pissed off about the stupid things my fellow Americans do a long time ago. I fear their reactions to things more than get upset about how they think, simply because most of them don't.
No offense taken. When the bedwetter in chief calls you out its a badge of honor. Especially when he says something as banal as "I kind of hope Trump wins, just to see what you will do." I really hate to disappoint, but there won't be any meltdown. Nothing that Americans do surprises me any more. If they vote for Trump, that falls inline with the level of stupidity that I firmly believe the vast majority of this nation embraces. A Trump victory wouldn't surprise me - they voted Bush twice. I don't think it will happen, and polling data does not support it, but it could happen. I stopped getting pissed off about the stupid things my fellow Americans do a long time ago. I fear their reactions to things more than get upset about how they think, simply because most of them don't.
I think the most impressive part of this election is you managed to be more annoying than either Buster or peter12. Well done. And I actually expect a big meltdown from you, you've been staunchly pro-Hillary and have often gone after anyone who questions her. I doubt you'll just let it slide if she loses to Trump.
__________________
"Think I'm gonna be the scapegoat for the whole damn machine? Sheeee......."
Last edited by Senator Clay Davis; 11-07-2016 at 10:21 AM.
A Trump victory wouldn't surprise me - they voted Bush twice.
Frankly the fact that you think these things are even remotely comparable demonstrates part of the reason a Trump victory is actually possible.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
A Trump victory wouldn't surprise me - they voted Bush twice.
Well... once really (if you consider the popular vote). Bush, at least, had folksy charisma while Trump is just rambling rage, vitriol, and wingnut conspiracies.
If nothing else election 2016 is going to be a treasure trove for campaign and political studies.
Frankly the fact that you think these things are even remotely comparable demonstrates part of the reason a Trump victory is actually possible.
That's true, but it misses the point of what I think he's trying to say which is: when faced with two options and one is clearly superior in almost every way, American voters have, in the very recent past, chosen wrong.
That's true, but it misses the point of what I think he's trying to say which is: when faced with two options and one is clearly superior in almost every way
How do you not see the bias inherent in this statement? If I'd had the opportunity, I would have voted for Gore and Kerry, but Bush was certainly a reasonable choice in 2000, depending on your politics. In 2004, the Swift Boat thing complicates matters as does the fact that Kerry was a pretty bad candidate, but a Bush vote was at least defensible. Especially if you were ideologically conservative - if you aligned with the usual GOP platform, he was basically the clear choice. Not to mention that a lot of people just won't vote against an incumbent in war time.
There's no comparison between these things. The closest comparable to the staggering incompetence and lack of qualification and just pure horror that the Trump candidacy represents is Sarah Palin, and she was a governor and a former mayor, at least. I'm pretty confident that Sarah Palin would have been ten times the president Trump would (and still might) be. And yet the mere prospect of having her an aging John McCain heartbeat from the oval office was enough to disqualify McCain's candidacy for many people - which wasn't an unreasonable basis for voting against him. Exhibit A:
There's really no precedent for this if it happens. Even Brexit doesn't remotely compare.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
Last edited by CorsiHockeyLeague; 11-07-2016 at 10:49 AM.
That's true, but it misses the point of what I think he's trying to say which is: when faced with two options and one is clearly superior in almost every way, American voters have, in the very recent past, chosen wrong.
Bush wasn't even that bad. He was a very solid GOP candidate that resonates with the GOP. He did GOP things that he said he would do.
Trump is doing things because he believes in aliens and conspiracies, and his whole bid is a publicity stunt. Half of the things he says are based on vengeance, and the other half is nonsensical.
They're not even close to comparable.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Regorium For This Useful Post:
Frankly the fact that you think these things are even remotely comparable demonstrates part of the reason a Trump victory is actually possible.
They aren't remotely close in the context of the two candidates. They are pretty damn comparable when viewed through the context of voting for bad candidates. Americans will routinely look past the obvious shortcomings so long as their candidate is a guy that appears to say things they believe are important, regardless of the evidence to point to the counter.
The Following User Says Thank You to Lanny_McDonald For This Useful Post:
I think the most impressive part of this election is you managed to be more annoying than either Buster or peter12. Well done. And I actually expect a big meltdown from you, you've been staunchly pro-Hillary and have often gone after anyone who questions her. I doubt you'll just let it slide if she loses to Trump.
Shows how little you've been paying attention. I'm a Bernie supporter. Don't like Clinton, never have. But given a choice between the Great Pumpkin and Shillary, I'll go with the one who is actually qualified for public office. I'm more anti-Trump than pro-Hillary.
Bush wasn't even that bad. He was a very solid GOP candidate that resonates with the GOP. He did GOP things that he said he would do.
Trump is doing things because he believes in aliens and conspiracies, and his whole bid is a publicity stunt. Half of the things he says are based on vengeance, and the other half is nonsensical.
They're not even close to comparable.
I agree that there's no comparison of Trump vs. Bush.
In my opinion the hyper-partisanship in US politics really took off in the 90's after Clinton defeated Bush Sr. and the neo-cons started to exert control of the GOP, led by Gingrich. Prior to that, any candidate that had a history of draft dodging, drunk driving, cocaine use and was generally ill-prepared for the job wouldn't have made it past the primaries. But Bush had a lot of money behind him and eventually the whole GOP machine. There was certainly partisanship prior to that but it wasn't the team sport team mentality it became in the 90's. It could be argued that the new hyper-partisanship resulted in Bush winning in 2000 with the whole Florida fiasco.
Don't get me wrong. If my choice was W. or Trump I'd vote Bush every time. But I think the point that was being made is that many voters base their votes on either little information, no information or misinformation. W. was used as an example of that. I think there's something to that.
The Following User Says Thank You to Red Slinger For This Useful Post:
Here's a quick projection of the chance of victory by each candidate based on polling data.
NYT : Clinton 84%, Trump 16%
538: Clinton 67%, Trump 33%
Predictwise: Clinton 89%, Trump 11%
Daily Kos: Clinton 87%, Trump 13%
Lott & Stossel: Clinton 82%, Trump 17%
Betfair: Clinton 83%, Trump 17%
HuffPo: Clinton 98%, Trump 2%
Outliers here are 538 and HuffPo. Looks like the concesus is Clinton at 80-85% chance of victory.
Betting sites across Europe have it pretty much unanimously at 80/20, breaking in Clinton's favor.
Here's a quick projection of the chance of victory by each candidate based on polling data.
NYT : Clinton 84%, Trump 16%
538: Clinton 67%, Trump 33%
Predictwise: Clinton 89%, Trump 11%
Daily Kos: Clinton 87%, Trump 13%
Lott & Stossel: Clinton 82%, Trump 17%
Betfair: Clinton 83%, Trump 17%
HuffPo: Clinton 98%, Trump 2%
Outliers here are 538 and HuffPo. Looks like the concesus is Clinton at 80-85% chance of victory.
Betting sites across Europe have it pretty much unanimously at 80/20, breaking in Clinton's favor.
Now are betting sites an accurate predictor or are they a reflection of conventional wisdom? And essentially just another aggregator of already available polling data.
Charles GasparinoVerified account
@CGasparino
#BreakingPoll @realDonaldTrump camp internal polls have him down 2 in Fla; plus 1 in NV; up 2 in NH more now @FoxBusiness
