What if...
- Thread starter MegaPoke
- Start date
I can't believe you slipped that turd into our punchbowl.
Yes... I my 90's football therapy drinking was costly. This memory revival is making me shake.
About me anointing the troll king? False, because that's a gross simplification. He's got a narrow path and a long way to go, but yes I think he's probably the right troll at the right time and I think the mass hysteria is absurd - and I'll continue to say so whether people want to pigeon hole me as a prototypical MAGA hat trump guy or not. I haven't changed.
Or about this not being a defeat of both parties? I guess you should ask Hillary and the 16 GOP candidate corpses back there in the rear view mirror. In particular, the favored establishment neocon knobs who got written out of the script.
That post was not JD's best work and he knows it. Just sayin
Exactly my take on it as well. Conservatives were very energized this election, dems were very...not. There's nothing inspiring about Hillary and when you couple that with the thought that she was a shoe in, many dems didnt vote. Many people voted for Trump that usually don't care enough about politics to vote. Same for Obama, he inspired many people who don't usually vote, to do so.
Trump, or Bannon, or Conway figured out the key to winning elections nowadays isn't to try to pull from the 5-10% (complete guess) of eligible voter bucket who will vote Republican one election and Dem the next. Its to pull from the 45% of eligible voter bucket that usually doesn't bother to vote. Its why he defied convention and INCREASED the spit and fire and acidic tone, rather than run to the middle like every other politician has after the primaries are over. The wishy washy, but active voter bucket is tiny compared to the opinionated but lazy voter bucket.
This is why I say R's may want to be careful what they wish for. They are loving the trolly troll troll nature of this admin, love that D's are really really pisssed and many are overreacting..... but thats exactly how Trump became President. For the last 8 years R's were the ones getting angrier and angrier and overacting to everything and they have ended up taking it out on the ballots over the last 4 years.
Any data on people voting for the first time versus people who voted for obama switching their allegiance?
That elderly people pass away more often than young people? Or that young people are more liberal?
This is the latest I could find
You don't know what I know.
You should really stop claiming to know what I know. It makes you look foolish.
The over-the-top "last best hope for America" to beat back the "European style globalism", deep state shadow government, and American hating media is just as hysterical as the "mass hysteria" you claim that is out there.
More hyperbole.
He narrowly beat a nominee of one party in a close election as the nominee of the other party, a party that took both the House and Senate and he has to work with to get anything done.
That talks about people of voting age. You stated those younger than voting age were more liberal. That's what I was asking if you have any data to support.
@MegaPoke You often claim not to be a staunch conservative, but the more you post, the more it seems that you are one. I guess that is what happens when there is so much animosity between both sides, and both sides are constantly showing evidence in support of their arguments.
Speaking for myself, I paid minimal attention to politics prior to this election. Didn't even vote in either of the elections that Obama won. Didn't watch the debates. Didn't follow the primaries or party conventions. Prior to 6 months ago, I would have classified myself as apolitical with liberal leanings. Along comes Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, and both stimulated different visceral reactions and sucked me in. Now, I have to be more honest with myself and realize that what I was is no longer what I am.
The "hysteria" and "rationalization" and "hyperbole" is rife on both sides, and social media/ease of access makes it spread like wildfire. I'm not convinced that the tidal wave of partisan "hysteria" is due to anything else other than how easy it is for an individual to get his/her opinion out there for everyone to see (which causes individuals from the opposite side of the aisle to find a way to prove that the first individual doesn't know what he/she is talking about).
Speaking for myself, I paid minimal attention to politics prior to this election. Didn't even vote in either of the elections that Obama won. Didn't watch the debates. Didn't follow the primaries or party conventions. Prior to 6 months ago, I would have classified myself as apolitical with liberal leanings. Along comes Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, and both stimulated different visceral reactions and sucked me in. Now, I have to be more honest with myself and realize that what I was is no longer what I am.
The "hysteria" and "rationalization" and "hyperbole" is rife on both sides, and social media/ease of access makes it spread like wildfire. I'm not convinced that the tidal wave of partisan "hysteria" is due to anything else other than how easy it is for an individual to get his/her opinion out there for everyone to see (which causes individuals from the opposite side of the aisle to find a way to prove that the first individual doesn't know what he/she is talking about).
On exactly which part? My opinion that I state that 70+ year old Trump won't run a second time but will strongly endorse a non-establishment candidate to continue his efforts? Hard to be full of shit on an opinion/prediction of the future. Or the fact that in 8 years of being President, the federal reserve lowered interest rates 4 full points to stabilize the economy and even with all that great growth that Obama generated, only once raised interest rates? DO you not agree that the Fed LOWERS rates when the economy isn't growing at acceptable rates and they raise it when its growing faster than they prefer? Would you like to read the CNBC articles talking about how Yellen (once a strong proponent of not moving too fast while Mr. O was president) is now recommending to Congress that it would be "unwise" to wait too long to raise rates.
Exactly which part of my position am I so full of shit on, Mr. Economics professor?
That assumes ones beliefs and votes don't change over time. Take a look at this breakdown.That elderly people pass away more often than young people? Or that young people are more liberal?
This is the latest I could find
https://ww2.kqed.org/lowdown/2016/11/14/how-millennials-voted/
I may not have clearly said what I meant. If Millenials tend to lean left, more and more Millenials will vote in future elections. Obviously more older voters will die/lose interest between now and then. This may help. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/02/the-liberal-millennial-revolution/470826/
Except that the data from the 2016 election doesn't support that prediction. Take a look at the link I posted above.
I'll throw these out there for comparison purposes.
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/07/08/upshot/why-teenagers-may-be-getting-more-conservative.html
http://www.latimes.com/science/scie...olitics-conservative-20160907-snap-story.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...TE-tattoos-Generation-Z-conservative-WW2.html
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/07/08/upshot/why-teenagers-may-be-getting-more-conservative.html
http://www.latimes.com/science/scie...olitics-conservative-20160907-snap-story.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...TE-tattoos-Generation-Z-conservative-WW2.html
The part where you think the correct way to measure a president's economic performance is the number of rate hikes.
I would say we don't really have fully reliable data one way or the other.
From the link you posted:
"(And yes, we acknowledge the irony of putting faith in any kind of polling data after the monumental failure of most pre-election polls in predicting the winner this year. More on that in a minute.)"
“No national official count of voters by age is immediately available after an election. Therefore, any statistic on youth voter turnout is an estimate based on survey data. Like any survey, the National Exit Poll uses methods that may introduce sampling bias. In past years, our estimates of youth turnout from the National Exit Poll (shown above) have produced a trend that very closely tracks the turnout trend in the Census Current Population Survey (CPS), which is the other major source for estimating youth turnout once it is released in the Spring. These estimates diverged slightly in 2012, although both showed a decrease.”
I have come to to state that polls are largely irrelevant to anything, because:
-Any poll that disagrees with (the general) your position is easily dismissed in favor of a poll that agrees with your position. The primary benefit and use of polls now is to feed confirmation bias.
-I don't really give a crap what the masses opinion is anyway. Not going be convinced something is right because more people agree with it than disagree with it.
Agree with JD.
I guess we might know more about what younger voters will do after the 2020 election. 2016 was the first election that allowed any Milennials to vote, and we all know how that one went.
I guess we might know more about what younger voters will do after the 2020 election. 2016 was the first election that allowed any Milennials to vote, and we all know how that one went.
Depending on how you define millennial, they have been voting since 1998 or 2002
I don't think its the only measure, but I do think its a valid measure. Do you not agree with the premise that real growth (beyond inflation levels) will lead interest rates to go up, and you must agree that the fed deliberately lowered interest rates to boost the economy. Heck even Yellen says that, so is she full of shit too? If this isn't a valid measure, then why did the Fed drop interest rates to nothing and call it STIMULUS? Why do they raise the interest rates to control growth?
In the end its you who are full of shit. You are so protective of Obama's legacy and his supposed recovery, that you can't admit that any dimwit could have done what he did in an era where the fed dropped rates by 4% and if he had generated one iota of real non-fed based economic activity, rates would have recovered upwards. To be fair...I shouldn't say he had no growth. He did preside over 1 .25% rate hike (2 if you credit him for the post-election exuberance of the market and overall consumer and business confidence ratings).
Correct. I posted several links to demonstrate several points of view.
I don't think the Dems are setting themselves up to have the needed success to defend their 23 (+2) Senate seats. 10 of those are in states that went Trump. Losing 8 seats gives the Republicans 60. I don't know about anyone else, but the Republicans having the majority in both houses doesn't appeal to me. If the Dems move down the path of Keith Ellison, they are going to get killed IMO.
What's sad is that if we had a real voter registration and tracking system, stats related to the turnout (not the position) could be had. You'd easily know the number of voters in each age bracket, their party affiliation, their gender, their ethniticity, etc. You would also be able to understand if youth votes are higher in urban areas, rural, etc. Its sad that this type of data isn't readily available.
No it is not. First it is entirely divorced from context. Second by that measure Jimmy Carter was an amazing president. Third "fiscal conservative's" main bitch about stimulus and deficits is that it will raise interest rates. Would you like to concede Keynesian economics is right?
Here is a perfect example of the divorced from context portion. Any ideas on why the economy would need boosting? Care to take a guess on what the Wickellsian interest rate was at the bottom of the recession?
Except every other first world country that is stuck with zero or negative interest rates. Again how much would the fed have dropped interest rates had the not been a lower bound at zero? I'll give you a hint, they dropped it it 5.5% when the dot-com bubble burst and unemployment soared to a 6.1%. Unemployment peaked at 9.9% for the great recession and as I am sure you love to point out that doesn't even include people who drop out of the labor force. This tack is just so damn intellectually dishonest I can't believe I have spent this time refuting such a transparently bullshit argument.
It is pretty dumb to give Trump credit for the upcoming March hike, but it might be the stupidest shit I have ever heard to give him credit for the December hike that Yellen has been hinting at since before the election.
That's because the only things being discussed are things that line up that way for me. I just booked a lesbian wedding - true story, just got off the phone with them - after their photographer bailed on them because of their conservative issues. How's that? Is that libertarian enough?
Kinda irritating that after this long, I'm having to justify my politics to you guys every other day. Call me what you want to, I guess.
I realize that's a pretty convenient anecdotal story on my part - but I'll be happy to show you the time stamped text conversation I had with my wife about booking this wedding - literally 15 minutes before the above post.
If you saw the political map thread that Thor posted, I was halfway down from the center to libertarian on the vertical axis and dead center on the left/right one. That's an accurate map of my political leanings.
If you saw the political map thread that Thor posted, I was halfway down from the center to libertarian on the vertical axis and dead center on the left/right one. That's an accurate map of my political leanings.
I have no reason to distrust you, or your story. I apologize if my post offended you.
Sorry. It's a bit of a cumulative thing at this point. Had a different client drop the ball on something this afternoon so chalk it up to me not taking the usual ribbing in stride today. My bad.
To be fair, you did specifically ask me to monitor your posts for cheerleading tendencies. I may have been paying special attention to your posts, which honestly have seemed to move towards the cheerleading side in evaluations and responses, because of that. I freely concede that it may just be a bit of fighting the fire of hysterical responses with a fire of completely contrarian posting. I'll stop if that is your desire.
I know I did. And it's completely fair that you call me out if you think that I'm being a cheerleader.
Just make sure you are ok with getting it back at you. Your skin seems a bit thin at times. Just sayin
Lol.
Sure thing, cheerleader.
That made me lol. For that, you get this gif of Jennifer Anniston grabbing Kate Hudson's ass.
That made me lol. For that, you get this gif of Jennifer Anniston grabbing Kate Hudson's ass.
In all honesty, I likely have been pretty thin skinned the last ten days or so. In that period of time:
1. My father-in law passed...it wasn't a surprise, but f$&? Alzheimer's still;
2. Made the decision to leave the Catholic Church for how it has been treating my (likely, but not certainly) Gay daughter and begun looking for a new Church Home;
3. Dealt with some major league political wranglings at work (successfully, but still draining).
Last edited:
I'm swinging fists freely, and will continue to do so (metaphorically of course).
Sincere thanks, still.
Condolences JD. That is a lot to handle and I can't imagine it all at once. I watched my father in law slowly suffocate over about two years. it's hard to lose someone but it's watching your kids lose their grandparent that was, at least to me, something I never prepared myself for.
I will make a short recommendation. The Methodist church is a very open place. I'm mostly agnostic but I take my kids for the traditions, background and parables. John Wesley has a lot of writings out there to study.
Sorry for your loss man. Lost my grandfather to that shit. It is a tough on the family for sure. I can imagine how tough #2 is and we can all relate to #3.
Hang in there. Methodist is a great suggestion.
Similar threads
