Trump and his cabinet/buffoonery- Get your bunkers ready!

[tshile]

PA election was close

 

Dem won - he's pro life and pro gun.

 

The fight over the Dem's national identity post-2018 elections leading into the 2020 campaigns will be fun to watch.

[mcsluggo]

1 minute ago, Renegade7 said:

 

Look, man, I don't believe in assigning false equivalencies anymore then you do.  I just believe she lost because less Dems liked her then the previous president in areas that cost her the election. 

 

She was the better candidate in 2016, but that doesn't mean she was a great one, we have to accept that, move on, and focus on nominating better candidates.  It's not Independents job to elected Democratic candidates, our focus should be on getting our own people to the polls first, appealing to a platform that doesn't agree with ours second. 

 

Some of the states she lost are so close that this won't require an insurmountable amount of effort, we just have to acknowledge the problem first.  The state of our non-major party candidates needs to be a different discussion, its not why we lost.

 

the WHY the democrats lost... (messages, Hillary as a very uninspiring candidate, poor targeting in the final run-up to the election, ****ing Comey... etc..... ) is a different discussion.   

 

and i fully concede that rubbing the faces of people that didn't like Hillary in the ground like a dog that just **** in your kitchen is at best unproductive tho THIS end  (winning the next election).   ... so clearly i am not trying to win the next election for the democrats right now  

 

 

[Renegade7]

15 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

  My point is that the issue wasn't (really) voter turn out.

I get your point, I just disagree with you.  There's way to many registered democrats that aren't voting.  Our "record turnout" is still low compared to other 1st world countries.  We need to do better.

[PeterMP]

5 minutes ago, Riggo-toni said:

As someone who voted for Gary Johnson, let me say a few words in my defense.

First, I live in GA - hardcore Trump territory. After Trump's victory, Dems spent record amounts on a special congressional election in the neighboring county...and still lost by a significant margin. A vote for Hillary would have made no difference whatsoever. Had I lived in FL, WI, or OH, I might very well have voted for Clinton.

 

Secondly, every last pollster picked Clinton to win handily. I don't consider Hillary to be evil, in fact I think she handled her tenure as SoS far more effectively than John Kerry. I was never horrified at the thought of her becoming President as I was of Trump or Sanders.

 

Third - So why not vote for her? My hope was that 2016 would provide a unique opportunity for the Libertarian Party to pass the 5% threshold that would qualify them for matching funds. Since the 92 convention, the GOP has been shoving its head further and further up the evangelical base's ass. A strong showing by the Libertarians combined with federal funds would force the GOP to pay more attention to fiscal conservatives - as happened in the aftermath of the Perot run. It failed. Gary Johnson was a lamentable candidate, and Bill Kristol propped up Evan McMullin in just enough states in order to siphon off potential Libertarian voters.

 

I also think most people make a distinction between the person that voted for somebody else thinking Hillary would win (easily) based on the polls.  What really stirred this conversation was PockerPacker who (essentially) said, he'd do it again even if he lived in a state that would matter.

[AsburySkinsFan]

2 hours ago, Renegade7 said:

Some of ya'll are starting to sound like straight butthurt ***holes right now.  Voting for Trump is nearly impossible to defend right now with a straight face, but not voting for Hillary does NOT equal voting for Trump.  Get a hold of yourselves.

 

Poker is right in this regard, ya'll should be better then this.

Oh I see, so you tell me what a vote fpr ANYONE other than Hillary did if not help Trump get elected.

[Cooked Crack]

6 minutes ago, tshile said:

PA election was close

 

Dem won - he's pro life and pro gun.

 

The fight over the Dem's national identity post-2018 elections leading into the 2020 campaigns will be fun to watch.

He's pro life in the way Tim Kaine is pro life though.

 

[mcsluggo]

10 minutes ago, Riggo-toni said:

As someone who voted for Gary Johnson, let me say a few words in my defense.

First, I live in GA - hardcore Trump territory. After Trump's victory, Dems spent record amounts on a special congressional election in the neighboring county...and still lost by a significant margin. A vote for Hillary would have made no difference whatsoever. Had I lived in FL, WI, or OH, I might very well have voted for Clinton.

 

Secondly, every last pollster picked Clinton to win handily. I don't consider Hillary to be evil, in fact I think she handled her tenure as SoS far more effectively than John Kerry. I was never horrified at the thought of her becoming President as I was of Trump or Sanders.

 

Third - So why not vote for her? My hope was that 2016 would provide a unique opportunity for the Libertarian Party to pass the 5% threshold that would qualify them for matching funds. Since the 92 convention, the GOP has been shoving its head further and further up the evangelical base's ass. A strong showing by the Libertarians combined with federal funds would force the GOP to pay more attention to fiscal conservatives - as happened in the aftermath of the Perot run. It failed. Gary Johnson was a lamentable candidate, and Bill Kristol propped up Evan McMullin in just enough states in order to siphon off potential Libertarian voters.

 

 

see now.. THIS is an argument i can live with 

 

but frankly...  many of the other arguments on Ex-Skins on this issue have been:

 

how dare you tell me who to vote for...you don't own me... how can you say that hillary was so ****ing awesome..... i don;t see no ring on your finger.. i'm gonna hold my breath until i turn blue....  

[tshile]

3 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

I get your point, I just disagree with you.  There's way to many registered democrats that aren't voting.  Our "record turnout" is still low compared to other 1st world countries.  We need to do better.

 

Turnout only matters when you're talking about specific states/counties. Higher turnout in CA is nice, but doesn't really matter until CA becomes a contested state.  High/low turnout in Wisconsin matters a lot, as it can very well be the determining factor for that state.

 

Until you start breaking it down that way the conversation is too superficial.

 

It doesn't really matter anyways because if you can't admit Clinton was a bad candidate, who performed so poorly she lost to a terrible candidate, then you're starting in the wrong place and you're never going to get where you need to go.

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

5 hours ago, tshile said:

Around here, yes you must. Else you get exactly what you just got. 

 

By the way, have you said they're both equally bad? Or that they're in any way equal? Just curious. I haven't seen it, maybe you did. That's their favorite tactic - claim you said they're both "equally bad" so they can go back to their botherism and whataboutism speeches.

 

5 hours ago, PokerPacker said:

I do not believe I have made such direct comparisons.  It matters not.  As long as you refuse to support their person, you are supporting Trump.

 

It matters not? If someone says you did something and you say that you didn't, it matters not whether you actually did or didn't? That's beautiful.

 

And yes, you did. McSluggo made a post saying that one candidate had problems and the other was an absolute disgrace, which is correct. The specific point of your response was that they were on the same level. The analogy you used was...

 

18 hours ago, PokerPacker said:

we were collectively given a choice between collectively getting a supply AIDS-infected sewage that people someone has spent a lot of time sculpting into the shape of a sandwich (oddly, someone was trying to make it look like a sandwich before you even set sail, much less got stranded), and a hastily prepared diarrhoea stew.

 

And who is "They"? Seeing as how I am the one who pointed out that was said... I'm not part of any "they" except for the Crusaders Against Stupidity.

 

Person 1: The sky is purple

Person 2: You said the sky was purple when it is clearly blue

Person 3: Their favorite tactic is to claim that you said the sky was purple.

Person 2: Holy ****! He just said the sky was purple!!!

 

It wouldn't be a "tactic" for me to point out the bull**** of people saying that they are equally bad if people would stop actually saying that they are equally bad. 

[Renegade7]

14 minutes ago, mcsluggo said:

On November 8, 2016, only two candidates had ANY statistical chance of winning.  Period.  

 

I should've have been more clear then.

 

In a first past the post system, with only two realistic electoral options, anything but support for one is tacit support for the other.

 

The first part is obvious, the second part is what I'm adamantly against saying is true.  I've brought up a couple times that I felt third party was a waste of time, so I don't know what you're responding to anymore.

 

This isn't personal for me be the way, this just concerns the hell out of me.  Dems need to look in the mirror and stop making excuses (which is what I'm doing).

[tshile]

1 minute ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

And yes, you did.

 

So to you aids infested sewage is the same as diarrhea stew?

 

false equivalency.

 

that's how this works, right?

[PeterMP]

7 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

I get your point, I just disagree with you.  There's way to many registered democrats that aren't voting.  Our "record turnout" is still low compared to other 1st world countries.  We need to do better.

 

Voter suppression is a real thing.

 

https://thinkprogress.org/2016-a-case-study-in-voter-suppression-258b5f90ddcd/

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/03/donald-trump-voter-suppression-campaign-north-carolina-florida

[Renegade7]

2 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

Turnout only matters when you're talking about specific states/counties. Higher turnout in CA is nice, but doesn't really matter until CA becomes a contested state.  High/low turnout in Wisconsin matters a lot, as it can very well be the determining factor for that state.

 

Until you start breaking it down that way the conversation is too superficial.

 

It doesn't really matter anyways because if you can't admit Clinton was a bad candidate, who performed so poorly she lost to a terrible candidate, then you're starting in the wrong place and you're never going to get where you need to go.

I know, I've tried to limit this to swing states in my examples.  This isn't getting anywhere though : /

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

4 minutes ago, tshile said:

So to you aids infested sewage is the same as diarrhea stew?

Well that could be it's own thread.

 

But you don't think that the point of that comparison is to say that they are both equally bad? Really? Come on now.

 

Which would you say is worse? I would have to think the AIDS infested sewage, right? Well in his analogy, that was Clinton so sure... you're right. What he actually said was that Clinton was worse than Trump.

[Renegade7]

7 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

Oh I see, so you tell me what a vote fpr ANYONE other than Hillary did if not help Trump get elected.

Jesus, no, I'm saying voting against Trump is not the same as voting for him.  I'm sticking to that, stop responding to me if that's what you're stuck on.

[tshile]

2 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

I know, I've tried to limit this to swing states in my examples.  This isn't getting anywhere though : /

 

Nope. Not a good audience for your argument.

 

Don't feel bad, it's been tried a lot over the last year and a half.

 

The results are the same every time.

3 minutes ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

Well that could be it's own thread.

 

So you don't think that the point of that comparison is to say that they are both equally bad? Which would you say is worse? I would have to think the AIDS infested sewage, right? Well in his analogy, that was Clinton so sure... you're right. What he actually said was that Clinton was worse than Trump.

No, that's not what he said.

At least, that's now how I read what he said.

 

This is why I said the analogies were stupid, everyone was stuck trying to be funny and witty and it did nothing but muddy the waters. We had a real situation to use that was perfectly fine and instead everyone wanted to try to use funny analogies about aids infested sewage.

 

The argument is not hard to follow. Some of you seem to have a hard time. I don't know what else to tell you.

[Larry]

3 hours ago, tshile said:

And yet she couldn't win.

 

Like I said - results speak for themselves.

 

Got it. 

 

You refuse to vote for candidates who don't win. 

 

Because any candidate who doesn't win is a bad candidate. 

[mcsluggo]

1 minute ago, tshile said:

 

Turnout only matters when you're talking about specific states/counties. Higher turnout in CA is nice, but doesn't really matter until CA becomes a contested state.  High/low turnout in Wisconsin matters a lot, as it can very well be the determining factor for that state.

 

Until you start breaking it down that way the conversation is too superficial.

 

It doesn't really matter anyways because if you can't admit Clinton was a bad candidate, who performed so poorly she lost to a terrible candidate, then you're starting in the wrong place and you're never going to get where you need to go.

 

see.. you say perfectly logical and great things for two paragraphs ... and my finger is hovering on the like button.. and then you lob a turd sausage on to the plate to finish the meal

 

 

NOBODY IS ****ING ARGUING ABOUT HOW GOOD OF A CANDIDATE HILARY WAS....... nobody (here at least... certainly at THIS point).      you have already conceded (about a million times) that she was less ****ing awful than Trump... which was (should have been) good enough, in this case.

 

 

 

 

(although i WILL say.. whether Hilary was awful or not... blaming this election monstrosity on her misses a different HUGE point... something really scary happened to the electorate in the last few years that allowed Trump to win.  His winning is a symbol of that greater shift (which is a really huge story), not just people being mad at Hilary.   It is a cop-out to blame it completely on Hilary... even if she is even WORSE of a candidate than you think.)

 

 

[88Comrade2000]

In a 2 party system, there's only going to be 2 candidates that realistically are going to win.  That doesn't mean you have to vote for one of those two.  I voted Libertarian in 2004, 2008, 2012 and 2016 knowing my candidate wasn't going to win.   If you are only going to vote for candidates who actually will win; then you should ban everything else.

 

It's up to the major candidate to get a majority of the votes, in the states needed for an Electoral College  Victory.   In 2016, the loser failed to do that; despite winning the popular vote.  In 2000, the loser failed to do that; despite winning the popular vote.  Florida aside, Al Gore just needed 4 more Electoral votes to win and he couldn't do that.   Bush won barely won reelection by winning Ohio in 2004.

 

The GOP at the Presidential level, can barely win.  That's a proven fact.  If the Democratic candidate can't muster enough turnout for them; that's on them.

Clinton won a 3 way race in 1992 and won an electoral landslide.  He won reelection in an electoral landslide.    Al Gore basically tied with Bush; when he should wiped the floor.  Obama won an electoral & popular vote landslide in 2008 and won reelection comfortably in 2012. Hillary Clinton couldn't repeat that.

 

 

If there's a benefit or two to come out of the Trump administration; it's the utter destruction of the corrupt party he represents and the change for other parties to take it's place.

[AsburySkinsFan]

7 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

Jesus, no, I'm saying voting against Trump is not the same as voting for him.  I'm sticking to that, stop responding to me if that's what you're stuck on.

If someone who lived in a state that Trump won, but they voted for ANYONE other than Clinton, then yes, they helped Trump get elected. It’s the Ross Perot effect. Just because you don’t like it, doesn’t make it wrong.

[tshile]

1 minute ago, mcsluggo said:

NOBODY IS ****ING ARGUING ABOUT HOW GOOD OF A CANDIDATE HILARY WAS....... nobody (here at least... certainly at THIS point).      you have already conceded (about a million times) that she was less ****ing awful than Trump... which was (should have been) good enough, in this case

 

I recall plenty of people over the last year-ish talking about how smart, good, awesome she was and how she'd at worse just be a continuation of Obama.

 

In fact, quite a few people seem still quite a bit bent out of shape that their candidate isn't considered so awesome by many.

 

The left ****ed up that election and it's costing all of us. They're dead set on pinning on it anyone but themselves. Excuse it away all you want. Doesn't change reality.

[88Comrade2000]

18 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

I also think most people make a distinction between the person that voted for somebody else thinking Hillary would win (easily) based on the polls.  What really stirred this conversation was PockerPacker who (essentially) said, he'd do it again even if he lived in a state that would matter.

I thought it was me, when I said I wouldn't have changed my 2016 vote for Gary Johnson.

[Renegade7]

10 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

Voter suppression is a real thing.

 

https://thinkprogress.org/2016-a-case-study-in-voter-suppression-258b5f90ddcd/

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/03/donald-trump-voter-suppression-campaign-north-carolina-florida

That is really bad and very real, but the number of people got kicked off in NC is minuscule compared the number of votes she lost by (like 4000 from what I'm finding online).  I'll look more into this and Florida later.  I get where you're coming from, and is a serious problem, but that's not why she lost.

[tshile]

6 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

Got it. 

 

You refuse to vote for candidates who don't win. 

 

Because any candidate who doesn't win is a bad candidate. 

 

Any candidate that can't win compared to a complete idiot with no experience is certainly a bad candidate.

 

Which is what happened. A supposed political powerhouse went up against an incompetent carnival barker (that was being undermined by his own ticket) and lost.

 

It's pretty pathetic.

[Renegade7]

3 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

If someone who lived in a state that Trump won, but they voted for ANYONE other than Clinton, then yes, they helped Trump get elected. It’s the Ross Perot effect. Just because you don’t like it, doesn’t make it wrong.

That's not the same as voting for Trump, so just stop already.