US politics general thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
rietrot said:
Yes you do because of how the American system works. Please stop with this BS popular vote nonsense. .
Click to expand...
It's relevant in the context of him representing the will of the majority of Americans which is at Nick was arguing, and do you think his support has improved since then? If you want to argue that Trump represents most Americans then remove year old polling results and look at his current approval ratings.
 
Cray said:
So because a highly populace state represents attitudes you don't like you are going to reinvent what the word average means?
Click to expand...
I'm not reinventing anything, take it up with America, that is the exact reason the system was designed in the first place.

I seem to recall reading that in the history of the electoral system it has only happened on few occasions where the winner does not have the popular vote, it is debated each time and they stick with what they have. It has gone both dem and repub in the past.
 
cerebus said:
Do polls mean anything to you? I will guess not but here they are:

Most recent weekly average 38 Sep 10-16, 2018
Term average to date 39 Jan 20, 2017-present

That is really dismally bad. By comparison:

Other elected presidents in September of second year

Barack Obama 45 Sep 2010
George W. Bush 67 Sep 2002

The idea that he's making inroads into the Democratic base is laughable.

Trump was polling below Clinton in 2016, and in fact he did lose the popular vote by a significant margin.

I'd make a tentative prediction that he has a good chance at winning the popular vote for his second term.
Click to expand...

He lost the popular vote by 3 million in 2016. His chances of winning the popular vote in 2020 are nil. There is a chance of him winning the electoral college again, but bearing in mind that the margin in 2016 was around 80,000 votes, he has no breathing room at all.
Click to expand...

Lmfao. Did they mean anything last elections?

The joke is you know they didn't. Why would you think they mean anything now?

Edit: ag, you know what? You guys were completely wrong last time and you argued your completely wrong arguments into the ground right up until the last moment. I'm not going to spend the next year trying to convince you that you are wrong again.

We know that polls and the MSM can be very, very wrong and that's all you have.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
cerebus said:
Do polls mean anything to you? I will guess not but here they are:

Most recent weekly average 38 Sep 10-16, 2018
Term average to date 39 Jan 20, 2017-present

That is really dismally bad. By comparison:

Other elected presidents in September of second year

Barack Obama 45 Sep 2010
George W. Bush 67 Sep 2002

The idea that he's making inroads into the Democratic base is laughable.

Trump was polling below Clinton in 2016, and in fact he did lose the popular vote by a significant margin.



He lost the popular vote by 3 million in 2016. His chances of winning the popular vote in 2020 are nil. There is a chance of him winning the electoral college again, but bearing in mind that the margin in 2016 was around 80,000 votes, he has no breathing room at all.
Click to expand...
The methodology of the polls is wrong or more correctly it doesn't measures what you think it does. It doesn't measure if people will vote for Trump or not.
 
Lmfao. Did they mean anything last elections?

The joke is you know they didn't. Why would you think they mean anything now?
Click to expand...

The polling was quite accurate in the last elections. It gave Trump a very slim (~20%) chance of winning, and he did indeed win by the slimmest of possible margins. But fair enough, all we can do is wait for that red wave. It's coming guys.
 
NarrowBandFtw said:
I'm not reinventing anything, take it up with America, that is the exact reason the system was designed in the first place.

I seem to recall reading that in the history of the electoral system it has only happened on few occasions where the winner does not have the popular vote, it is debated each time and they stick with what they have. It has gone both dem and repub in the past.
Click to expand...
Not saying it's a bad system, just that in certain years (Bush, Trump) it doesn't accurately represent the will of the majority of people so using the election result as a confirmation that most people wanted him for president is false.
 
cerebus said:
The polling was quite accurate in the last elections. It gave Trump a very slim (~20%) chance of winning, and he did indeed win by the slimmest of possible margins. But fair enough, all we can do is wait for that red wave. It's coming guys.
Click to expand...
Lol lefties making the same mistakes.
 
NarrowBandFtw said:
I'm not reinventing anything, take it up with America, that is the exact reason the system was designed in the first place.

I seem to recall reading that in the history of the electoral system it has only happened on few occasions where the winner does not have the popular vote, it is debated each time and they stick with what they have. It has gone both dem and repub in the past.
Click to expand...

So basically 70k odd people were the difference in this case. Not really a resounding endorsement by any reckoning. Considering how many people voted.

Another fault of the electoral college is that some states are "winner takes all" Vs others that are more representative of their electorate. So your vote in certain states is not counted at all despite having 48% of the vote
 
Cray said:
It's relevant in the context of him representing the will of the majority of Americans which is at Nick was arguing, and do you think his support has improved since then? If you want to argue that Trump represents most Americans then remove year old polling results and look at his current approval ratings.
Click to expand...
The approval ratings can be very superficial in this case, because Trump doesn't act presidential or even professional.


The Gallup Organization has been tracking presidential job approval for more than 60 years. We ask a straightforward question -- " Do you approve or disapprove of the way [president’s name] is handling his job as president?"
Click to expand...
https://news.gallup.com/poll/4723/examining-presidential-job-approval.aspx

I can answer disapprove on most days.
 
Last edited:
OrbitalDawn said:
What are you on about? I was referring to the clear double standard you're using for AOC, not Kavanaugh.

But anyway, Feinstein referred it to the FBI, she's not the one trying to put on a sham hearing. And I understand the accuser's reluctance to commit to anything with these scumbags because the GOP committee staff already said they're unfazed and will confirm him regardless, as did GOP Sen. Heller. They also refuse to talk to anyone besides Kavanaugh and Blasey-Ford, despite multiple people being important, including Mark Judge. Of course there are things to investigate.

Mitch McConnell also warned Trump before the nomination that Kavanaugh might be the hardest to confirm from the list they outsourced to a conservative judicial activist group, likely because he knew about this, and also because of the mountain of documentation out there that needs to be vetted.

The only people acting despicably here are the GOP who are trying to ram this confirmation (for a life time position) through, with very little vetting, for no reason other than stacking the Supreme Court with conservative activist judges that will rubber stamp their policies. They've released barely 4% of the relevant documentation, and even that has revealed some disturbing information, which of course, they refuse to investigate further.
Click to expand...

Oh. My bad. You want to put me into a box because I don't support Hillary Clinton either? I admit, I only read that piece of writing on Vox now. You believe I am not being impartial as I am judging Ocasio-Cortez too harshly because she is a woman?

I just want to point out the following on Kavanaugh vs Ford:
  1. Feinstein sat on the letter since July and it came out right before his confirmation. Feinstein and all the other Senators have had confidential meetings and discussions with Kavanaugh. Why was this not even mentioned then at the very least? There are three simple answers: (1) Feinstein thought that the accusations were not credible, (2) she thought that they were not relevant and/or (3) she wanted to use it to torpedo a man's career and allow the Democrats to try win back Senate majority, which would mean they would be able to reject Trump's next nominee.
  2. If the letter was released in July, it would have given the Republicans enough time to find another candidate.
  3. Ford's allegations were leaked to the press without Ford's consent. How is that for irony?
  4. Ford cannot provide any further evidence to corroborate her story. She self admitted that the detail around the alleged incident is very hazy. Ford cannot give the address or the date of the alleged incident, or any other details. What exactly is there to investigate? The FBI has already done 8 separate investigations into Kavanaugh. If they have not uncovered anything by now, what do you think this will achieve? Here is Mark Judge's response: https://www.vox.com/2018/9/18/17876...vanaugh-mark-judge-sexual-assault-allegations
  5. On top of that, Ford went for a lie detector test and had an attorney appointed in August. All before all of this came out. Not really the actions of a woman that wanted to remain anonymous. Who is paying for all this as well?
  6. Discussing the alleged incident with a third party is not proof that the incident occurred, and that her interpretation of what happened is completely correct.
  7. Kavanaugh has many, many women come forward supporting him (ex girlfriends and female colleagues). If this is a pattern of behaviour, more women would have come forward by now as demonstrated in the #MeToo movement.

This is a dirty political game - both sides do it, not disputing that. But, you will defend it because the means justify the ends, right? The Democrats are delaying to see if they win the Senate back so they can place their own nominee to "rubber stamp their policies". The Democrats hitched their ride to this issue, when they should be trying to get to the real bottom of Kavanaugh's lies to the Senate, and using that as a basis to impeach him.

This is not even about his confirmation anymore. Ford (and her trauma) is being used. It's a pretty serious indication of how the #MeToo movement has been used for other purposes, how we are elevating an accuser's word over the accused and the watering down the right for the accused to face his/her accuser. The burden of proof lies on Ford. Sadly, she chose to remain silent for 36 years, and now we have this mess which will never be completely proven or disproven. What we have is just a travesty of justice for both parties. Everyone else is losing too.
 
Emjay said:
I just want to point out the following on Kavanaugh vs Ford:
  1. Feinstein sat on the letter since July and it came out right before his confirmation. Feinstein and all the other Senators have had confidential meetings and discussions with Kavanaugh. Why was this not even mentioned then at the very least? There are three simple answers: (1) Feinstein thought that the accusations were not credible, (2) she thought that they were not relevant and/or (3) she wanted to use it to torpedo a man's career and allow the Democrats to try win back Senate majority, which would mean they would be able to reject Trump's next nominee.
Click to expand...
Nobody is letting Feinstein off the hook. Democrats have been very lax in their response to these allegations. Feinstein hasn't offered an ounce of serious opposition to Kavanugh's nomination despite having some very good reasons to do so.

  1. Ford cannot provide any further evidence to corroborate her story. She self admitted that the detail around the alleged incident is very hazy. Ford cannot give the address or the date of the alleged incident, or any other details. What exactly is there to investigate? The FBI has already done 8 separate investigations into Kavanaugh. If they have not uncovered anything by now, what do you think this will achieve? Here is Mark Judge's response: https://www.vox.com/2018/9/18/17876...vanaugh-mark-judge-sexual-assault-allegations
Click to expand...

The FBI hasn't investigated this matter, and it's quite possible that they could query people who know about the party and were there. After all at least one person came out and said that she heard rumors of it happening at the same time. If more than one person heard those rumors I'd think it corroborates her testimony substantially.

  1. On top of that, Ford went for a lie detector test and had an attorney appointed in August. All before all of this came out. Not really the actions of a woman that wanted to remain anonymous. Who is paying for all this as well?
Click to expand...

Now you're just throwing mud at her. Never mind that she passed those tests.

This is not even about his confirmation anymore. Ford (and her trauma) is being used.
Click to expand...

Can you just explain to me why you think there shouldn't be an FBI investigation? Everything about her testimony is consistent with sexual abuse victim responses, even including the haziness she has around the details and the length of time it took her to come public. She told her marriage counselor about it 6 years ago in private, and at that time she had no possible thought of 'torpedoing' Kavanaugh's career with the allegations. She passed a lie detector test and one person has come out to give at least a shred of supporting evidence.

There's no real excuse as to why the FBI shouldn't even investigate her story before she's forced to come forward and testify before Congress, and face exactly the same kind of drilling as you're submitting her to. At the moment she has nothing more than her word, and she's most likely to be bulldozed over and ignored.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/09/christine-blasey-ford-fbi-hearing-brett-kavanaugh.html
 
Last edited:
cerebus said:
Nobody is letting Feinstein off the hook. Democrats have been very lax in their response to these allegations. Feinstein hasn't offered an ounce of serious opposition to Kavanugh's nomination despite having some very good reasons to do so.


The FBI hasn't investigated this matter, and it's quite possible that they could query people who know about the party and were there. After all at least one person came out and said that she heard rumors of it happening at the same time. If more than one person heard those rumors I'd think it corroborates her testimony substantially.


Now you're just throwing mud at her. Never mind that she passed those tests.

Can you just explain to me why you think there shouldn't be an FBI investigation? Everything about her testimony is consistent with sexual abuse victim responses, even including the haziness she has around the details and the length of time it took her to come public. She told her marriage counselor about it 6 years ago in private, and at that time she had no possible thought of 'torpedoing' Kavanaugh's career with the allegations. She passed a lie detector test and one person has come out to give at least a shred of supporting evidence.

There's no real excuse as to why the FBI shouldn't even investigate her story before she's forced to come forward and testify before Congress, and face exactly the same kind of drilling as you're submitting her to. At the moment she has nothing more than her word, and she's most likely to be bulldozed over and ignored.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/09/christine-blasey-ford-fbi-hearing-brett-kavanaugh.html
Click to expand...

Rumors of an incident are hearsay. Ford's discussion with her therapist is also hearsay. Not to mention her recall of the incident may be completely off. She even says details are hazy. Lie detector tests are also not accurate, and therefore not admissible. And, if this incident really happened, and there were rumours, she clearly told people about it. Why did no one come forward then, or convince her to do so? Why did no one go to a Professor or someone more senior. That is not throwing mud. These points are not even up for consideration.

She can throw mud without any proof, but I cannot? Her actions are proof of something sinister going on here.

There should be an investigation, but it should be done with haste. Ford has made an explosive allegation, and she should therefore be subjected to testify immediately, and not at her leisure. I don't believe the FBI should do it. I believe that the Senate Committee should.

I have no doubt her pain is real. There however is no way to prove or disprove her claims. But she is completely wiling to torpedo a man's lifelong work with allegations that cannot be investigate without any clear closure of the case. The only justice that she will get is that he loses this life long post. There is no way to hold him to account in any other manner.

Why do you think Feinstein sat on the allegations?

How this unravels is going to be interesting to watch. I am willing to be that this is the end of Feinstein's career too.

I have been groped and harassed by men in my past (incidentally at parties). I chose to run away instead of confronting them. Can I now use this to torpedo their careers and their good names?
 
Emjay said:
I have been groped and harassed by men in my past (incidentally at parties). I chose to run away instead of confronting them. Can I now use this to torpedo their careers?
Click to expand...

That's a question only you can answer.
 
buka001 said:
They don't deserve those "good names".
Click to expand...

And by what standards are you judging them by? I was at packed parties, we were all drinking and young boys do stupid things. So do young women. I just hope that our daughters will be taught to come forward the moment something as serious as attempted rape happens. Better yet, teach them to confront their abusers.
 
buka001 said:
They don't deserve those "good names".
Click to expand...
Meh, easy to restore one's name to saint status these days:
- support countless war crimes
- sanction hundreds of thousands of unnecessary deaths
- abandon and betray your brothers-in-arms

...

- disagree publicly with Trump

Boom! Saint status achieved.
 
cerebus said:
Once again, do you honestly think Trump could answer any of those questions? How do they intend to 'pay' for the trillion dollar deficit they just blew into the budget as a result of the tax cuts that they introduced last year? How are they going to 'pay' for the space force? The border wall? Are they going to continue bailing out American workers who were hurt by the tariffs that they just created for no reason whatsoever?

Nobody sits down with Trump and forces him to answer the question of how he intends to pay for all these ludicrous, morally obscene, moronic ideas he comes up with - so why do you think he has more of a right to be a politician than Ocasio-Cortez?
Click to expand...
Tip. Who is paying for all the damage Democrats caused the USA enonomy and loss of jobs and companies that fled to the East?
Lets wait and see. Maybe WWIII will come to the rescue. So get a tinfoil hat in the meantime.
I am starting to like this anti Trumpets. They give me good laughs for fun.
 
Randhir said:
Moral ones? Societal ones?
Click to expand...

Yeah. Sure. When I was younger (which was not that long ago, I am in my 30s), trying to get a kiss or groping an ass was not really sexual harassment, and not career torpedoing worthy. Even catcalling (which has always been a bit low brow) is now seen as harassment.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X