Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 118: China Don't Care

(+) Yeah! (+)

Peace___Frog posted...

Chris Wray confirmed for fbi director.

Those damn obstructionist Democrats are at it again
---

Corrik posted...

I am pretty convinced if 100% voting was compulsory and could be possible that republicans would never lose a presidential election ever.

I believe it would be the opposite.
---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W7KAAM1JohU
---

Compulsory voting would favor the candidate with better slogans. Most non-voters aren't tied to a party and many don't really care about politics.

Basically Obama would have won by more in 2008 while Trump would have won by more in 2016.
---

It would be quite the feat to win by more than -3,000,000.
---

Lincoln only got 39% of the popular vote. Trump's got a long way to go to beat the first Republican president at Electoral College success. And John Quincy Adams at 24% is probably forever safe.
---

Lincoln did that against 2 other major candidates in the general. That is essentially designed to never happen again without a 3rd party becoming a contender or in the alternate universe where Ross Perot didn't shit the bed.

Sorry, 3 other major candidates.
---

charmander6000 posted...

Maybe being Secretary of State became Clinton's undoing.

Lewis Black had the theory that for twenty-four years we never got a break from seeing Hillary's name in the news. Part of that's her commitment and part of that's her attackers so it's not exactly fair, but that still made some sense to me. She came in with invaluable experience as SoS, and yet I wonder in a way if her taking a break would have helped her more. It's not like the people who weren't crazy about her were very happy with her experience anyway.
---

Er....John Quincy Adams didn't actually win in the EC. He won in Congress. So I guess that leaves Lincoln as the record holder.
---

and there's a real chance we aren't done hearing about her yet.
current rumor going around is she's considering running for mayor of NYC.
---

Like, let's put aside everything negative about Hillary.

She is basically a career civil servant. The fact that she was handed one of the most humiliating defeats in political history by a walking-grope machine and she goes "but maybe I can be mayor of New York" is astounding.
---

Wanglicious posted...

and there's a real chance we aren't done hearing about her yet.
current rumor going around is she's considering running for mayor of NYC.

So then the old theory's possibly been reversed.

Instead of Hillary being President and Donald trying to have his own mini-Presidency from Trump Tower, Donald is President and Hillary may become the mayor for NYC. In case people didn't feel like 2015-2016 had enough pettiness and negativity, just imagine if she became the mayor for his home.

Goddamn, this world sometimes.....
---

it's too much for me to completely believe really.
but that is the current rumor. it's been going on for a couple months but as our mayoral race gets closer there's more of them springing up along with a fake ad (just one vid so far, random posters shouldn't count). at least i think it's fake. but her book is out next month so she'll be in the news for that nationally too. surely questions about running for mayor in NYC will come up along the way but she's refused to deny it ever.

she'd easily win if she wanted to run.
---

Hillary becoming mayor of NYC is the sort of pettiness and negativity I live for.
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Corrik posted...

I am pretty convinced if 100% voting was compulsory and could be possible that republicans would never lose a presidential election ever.

I believe it would be the opposite.

The majority of America who are not registeted nor vote I would feel confident are isolated, more rural families who generally vote more republican.
---

Corrik posted...

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Corrik posted...

I am pretty convinced if 100% voting was compulsory and could be possible that republicans would never lose a presidential election ever.

I believe it would be the opposite.

The majority of America who are not registeted nor vote I would feel confident are isolated, more rural families who generally vote more republican.

"They’re younger. Roughly a third (34%) of nonvoters are younger than 30 and most (70%) are under 50; among likely voters, just 10% are younger than 30 and only 39% are under 50.

They’re more racially and ethnically diverse. Fully 43% of those who are not likely to cast ballots Tuesday are Hispanic, African American or other racial and ethnic minorities, roughly double the percentage among likely voters (22%)."

While that was from 2014, those things suggest it'd weigh the other direction
---

StealThisSheen posted...

Corrik posted...

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Corrik posted...

I am pretty convinced if 100% voting was compulsory and could be possible that republicans would never lose a presidential election ever.

I believe it would be the opposite.

The majority of America who are not registeted nor vote I would feel confident are isolated, more rural families who generally vote more republican.

"They’re younger. Roughly a third (34%) of nonvoters are younger than 30 and most (70%) are under 50; among likely voters, just 10% are younger than 30 and only 39% are under 50.

They’re more racially and ethnically diverse. Fully 43% of those who are not likely to cast ballots Tuesday are Hispanic, African American or other racial and ethnic minorities, roughly double the percentage among likely voters (22%)."

While that was from 2014, those things suggest it'd weigh the other direction

I don't think that study likely aligns with the conditions I am stating.
---

I don't vote because I am lazy and believe in the near statistical certainty that my vote will not matter. I suspect I am not alone in that mindset.

Admittedly I'm not sure there's any political belief associated with that mindset, so that may not mean much.
---

pyresword posted...

I don't vote because I am lazy and believe in the near statistical certainty that my vote will not matter. I suspect I am not alone in that mindset.

Admittedly I'm not sure there's any political belief associated with that mindset, so that may not mean much.

jfc
---

Personally, I think people who don't care should not vote, and that is better for the country.
---

Corrik posted...

StealThisSheen posted...

Corrik posted...

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Corrik posted...

I am pretty convinced if 100% voting was compulsory and could be possible that republicans would never lose a presidential election ever.

I believe it would be the opposite.

The majority of America who are not registeted nor vote I would feel confident are isolated, more rural families who generally vote more republican.

"They’re younger. Roughly a third (34%) of nonvoters are younger than 30 and most (70%) are under 50; among likely voters, just 10% are younger than 30 and only 39% are under 50.

They’re more racially and ethnically diverse. Fully 43% of those who are not likely to cast ballots Tuesday are Hispanic, African American or other racial and ethnic minorities, roughly double the percentage among likely voters (22%)."

While that was from 2014, those things suggest it'd weigh the other direction

I don't think that study likely aligns with the conditions I am stating.

What are the conditions?
---

StealThisSheen posted...

Corrik posted...

StealThisSheen posted...

Corrik posted...

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Corrik posted...

I am pretty convinced if 100% voting was compulsory and could be possible that republicans would never lose a presidential election ever.

I believe it would be the opposite.

The majority of America who are not registeted nor vote I would feel confident are isolated, more rural families who generally vote more republican.

"They’re younger. Roughly a third (34%) of nonvoters are younger than 30 and most (70%) are under 50; among likely voters, just 10% are younger than 30 and only 39% are under 50.

They’re more racially and ethnically diverse. Fully 43% of those who are not likely to cast ballots Tuesday are Hispanic, African American or other racial and ethnic minorities, roughly double the percentage among likely voters (22%)."

While that was from 2014, those things suggest it'd weigh the other direction

I don't think that study likely aligns with the conditions I am stating.

What are the conditions?

Every last person 18 or over in america whether registered or not is voting.

That's not registered not likelies or likelies or whatever. That is everyone. I am fairly confident rural / isolated homes which regularly run Republican would make up a majority for Republicans almost every time.

I mean, I could be wrong, but I do not think that study likely is hitting on what I am saying.

Hell, Pennsylvania was maybe flipped in part due to the large bussing of amish to the polls.
---

Hillary is really popular in New York and should easily win if she ran.

It would be the most amazing thing ever.
---

StealThisSheen posted...

Corrik posted...

StealThisSheen posted...

Corrik posted...

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Corrik posted...

I am pretty convinced if 100% voting was compulsory and could be possible that republicans would never lose a presidential election ever.

I believe it would be the opposite.

The majority of America who are not registeted nor vote I would feel confident are isolated, more rural families who generally vote more republican.

"They’re younger. Roughly a third (34%) of nonvoters are younger than 30 and most (70%) are under 50; among likely voters, just 10% are younger than 30 and only 39% are under 50.

They’re more racially and ethnically diverse. Fully 43% of those who are not likely to cast ballots Tuesday are Hispanic, African American or other racial and ethnic minorities, roughly double the percentage among likely voters (22%)."

While that was from 2014, those things suggest it'd weigh the other direction

I don't think that study likely aligns with the conditions I am stating.

What are the conditions?

That they're rural and isolated who generally vote more republican.
---

pyresword posted...

I don't vote because I am lazy and believe in the near statistical certainty that my vote will not matter. I suspect I am not alone in that mindset.

Admittedly I'm not sure there's any political belief associated with that mindset, so that may not mean much.

This is the electoral college at work.

In a national popular vote everyone's vote by definition matters.

The electoral college is inherently, and by design I might add, anti-democratic (lower case d) .

It needs to be tossed in the shitter alongside political gerrymandering, Tuesday single day voting and interminable campaign seasons for the health of our republic.
---

Corrik posted...

Every last person 18 or over in america whether registered or not is voting.

And you really don't think that a significant number of this addition is young people and minorities?
---

Corrik posted...

Hell, Pennsylvania was maybe flipped in part due to the large bussing of amish to the polls.

There is something hysterically stupid to me about the Amish voting for Donald "I made my fortune on the vice industries" Trump en masse.
---

Tillerson wants to have talks with North Korea.

It is quite possible the United States is just weaker than we all possibly think.

I know the situation is complicated due to the consequences, but North Korea really has no reason to comply with us because we obviously have been backed into a corner by a much considered lesser country.
---

My initial thoughts on voting were that my vote was almost certainly not going to matter. I still think that's true. However, the fact that I voted does actually change things. It adds weight to the social pressure to vote of everyone around me.If everyone you know doesn't vote, you'll probably not think voting is a big deal. But if everyone around you does, it becomes socially unacceptable to abstain. In that sense, who you vote for is significantly less important than the fact that you voted at all.
---

StealThisSheen posted...

Corrik posted...

Every last person 18 or over in america whether registered or not is voting.

And you really don't think that a significant number of this addition is young people and minorities?

I don't think young people who are not voting are necessarily as democratic as you assume. I feel younger people who are voting are more likely democrats and younger people not voting are likely skewed way more republican you think, again due to ruralness and isolation.

Younger people are more democrat who vote. But, that doesn't mean if all younger people were accounted for that it would be even more democratically skewed.
---

Corrik posted...

Tillerson wants to have talks with North Korea.

It is quite possible the United States is just weaker than we all possibly think.

I know the situation is complicated due to the consequences, but North Korea really has no reason to comply with us because we obviously have been backed into a corner by a much considered lesser country.

This is almost entirely on the Trump administration too. Obama was playing a very finesse game of diplomacy with the North Koreans which Donald immediately ended and went for a programme of antagonizing North Korea. Only problem is we don't actually have anything North Korea wants and they want is to know that they will attack if they feel threatened and they CAN hit the United States. Whats more China doesnt want North Korea to fall with a chaotic united Korea on their border and thats exactly what would happen if they pulled support from North Korea so its a big mess and Trump completely misplayed his hand due to completely misunderstanding the North Korea/US/China dynamic

Its really remarkable how fast that all shifted.
---

Major cities in many areas are generally more democratic. Including the young vote centered around campuses.

However, the younger vote in cities and campuses are MORE likely to vote because they are targeted to vote. And are easy to connect to via social media, internet, tv, etc.

Is rural farmboys who usually vote Republicans or those without internet or so on as easy to connect to? Those generally are Republican votes historically.

That is my two cents. I'd love to see a study on it.

Anyone have a chart of percentage of votes to voter eligibles by state?
---

Corrik posted...

StealThisSheen posted...

Corrik posted...

Every last person 18 or over in america whether registered or not is voting.

And you really don't think that a significant number of this addition is young people and minorities?

I don't think young people who are not voting are necessarily as democratic as you assume. I feel younger people who are voting are more likely democrats and younger people not voting are likely skewed way more republican you think, again due to ruralness and isolation.

Younger people are more democrat who vote. But, that doesn't mean if all younger people were accounted for that it would be even more democratically skewed.

There is a lot of reason to believe younger people would lean democrat, from polls and the like.

There's almost no reason to believe they'd lean republican enough to actually argue it'd be a boost to the red.
---

Eddv posted...

Corrik posted...

Hell, Pennsylvania was maybe flipped in part due to the large bussing of amish to the polls.

There is something hysterically stupid to me about the Amish voting for Donald "I made my fortune on the vice industries" Trump en masse.

No disrespect meant to the Amish...

...but I find it hard to believe that they were well informed about any candidate.
---

Plus having been to rural parts of my state recently there are like a ton of hippies living out in the sticks too who also probably dont vote.
---

redrocket_pub posted...

Eddv posted...

Corrik posted...

Hell, Pennsylvania was maybe flipped in part due to the large bussing of amish to the polls.

There is something hysterically stupid to me about the Amish voting for Donald "I made my fortune on the vice industries" Trump en masse.

No disrespect meant to the Amish...

...but I find it hard to believe that they were well informed about any candidate.

Less government is Amish all the way. Democratic Amish would make little sense based on their ways of life tbqh.
---

Corrik posted...

Major cities in many areas are generally more democratic. Including the young vote centered around campuses.

However, the younger vote in cities and campuses are MORE likely to vote because they are targeted to vote. And are easy to connect to via social media, internet, tv, etc.

Is rural farmboys who usually vote Republicans or those without internet or so on as easy to connect to? Those generally are Republican votes historically.

That is my two cents. I'd love to see a study on it.

Anyone have a chart of percentage of votes to voter eligibles by state?

No idea about the credibility of the source, but a quick search turned this up.

http://www.electproject.org/2016g
---

Corrik posted...

Is rural farmboys who usually vote Republicans or those without internet or so on as easy to connect to? Those generally are Republican votes historically.

I think this is what you're getting stuck on. Which is right. But it also assumes that there are a vast majority of rural farmboys that don't vote over city people that don't vote. City people are more likely to vote, yeah, but there are also much more of them, meaning that even if their percentage of voters is higher than rural, there could still be more people still not voting.

By making everybody vote, you're not just getting a boost from rural areas... You're making sure that EVERYBODY in the cities vote.
---

redrocket_pub posted...

Eddv posted...

Corrik posted...

Hell, Pennsylvania was maybe flipped in part due to the large bussing of amish to the polls.

There is something hysterically stupid to me about the Amish voting for Donald "I made my fortune on the vice industries" Trump en masse.

No disrespect meant to the Amish...

...but I find it hard to believe that they were well informed about any candidate.

I get that which is why i didn't bring up his vulgarity or hia frankly strongly offensive comments about women or the like.

But i imagine even the Amish if theyve heard of trump over the last 40 years theyve probably heard of him in conjunction with Atlantic City which the amish dont really approve of
---

Corrik posted...

Major cities in many areas are generally more democratic. Including the young vote centered around campuses.

However, the younger vote in cities and campuses are MORE likely to vote because they are targeted to vote. And are easy to connect to via social media, internet, tv, etc.

Is rural farmboys who usually vote Republicans or those without internet or so on as easy to connect to? Those generally are Republican votes historically.

That is my two cents. I'd love to see a study on it.

Anyone have a chart of percentage of votes to voter eligibles by state?

I agree that rural people lean Republican, but there are way more people in cities than in the sticks, and the youth vote is literally the least likely voting block.
---

I find it kind of telling that Corrik is (rightfully, IMO) arguing that "isolated" people vote Republican.

The more you actually have to interact with a diverse group of people, the more liberal you become! Who knew!
---

JeffreyRaze posted...

Corrik posted...

Major cities in many areas are generally more democratic. Including the young vote centered around campuses.

However, the younger vote in cities and campuses are MORE likely to vote because they are targeted to vote. And are easy to connect to via social media, internet, tv, etc.

Is rural farmboys who usually vote Republicans or those without internet or so on as easy to connect to? Those generally are Republican votes historically.

That is my two cents. I'd love to see a study on it.

Anyone have a chart of percentage of votes to voter eligibles by state?

No idea about the credibility of the source, but a quick search turned this up.

http://www.electproject.org/2016g

If this is right, then it means states like Kentucky already have higher percentage of turnout than places like New York and California, so making everybody vote would definitely skew blue
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Corrik posted...

Major cities in many areas are generally more democratic. Including the young vote centered around campuses.

However, the younger vote in cities and campuses are MORE likely to vote because they are targeted to vote. And are easy to connect to via social media, internet, tv, etc.

Is rural farmboys who usually vote Republicans or those without internet or so on as easy to connect to? Those generally are Republican votes historically.

That is my two cents. I'd love to see a study on it.

Anyone have a chart of percentage of votes to voter eligibles by state?

I agree that rural people lean Republican, but there are way more people in cities than in the sticks, and the youth vote is literally the least likely voting block.

To build on this a little...

Say you've got a blue leaning city with a population of 100,000. And a red leaning rural area of 3,000.

Let's say 90% of possible voters already vote in the city, and only 50% of possible voters vote in the rural area.

If you make everybody vote, the city just gained 10,000 voters, whereas the rural area only gains 1,500, even though the city already had a much higher voter percentage to begin with.

You may very well be right, and there may be more areas of Republicans that don't vote. But if those areas are mostly rural like you're suggesting, they get drowned out quickly by making even just a few of the biggest blue cities vote to 100%.
---

Tillerson said, "We certainly don't blame the Chinese for the situation in North Korea."

That's not how Trump makes it sound
---

I mean in this election wasn't it if only millenials voted, Hillary would have had 80% of the vote or something.

It's pretty easy to assume most 18 year olds will vote Democrat.
---

JeffreyRaze posted...

Corrik posted...

Major cities in many areas are generally more democratic. Including the young vote centered around campuses.

However, the younger vote in cities and campuses are MORE likely to vote because they are targeted to vote. And are easy to connect to via social media, internet, tv, etc.

Is rural farmboys who usually vote Republicans or those without internet or so on as easy to connect to? Those generally are Republican votes historically.

That is my two cents. I'd love to see a study on it.

Anyone have a chart of percentage of votes to voter eligibles by state?

No idea about the credibility of the source, but a quick search turned this up.

http://www.electproject.org/2016g

Quick glance i think supports republican states with lower %s
---

---

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-lawyer-exclusive-idUSKBN1AH5F9

Mueller's investigation grows

Most recently a white-collar criminal defense lawyer with New York law firm Davis Polk & Wardwell, Andres, 50, served at the Justice Department from 2010 to 2012. He was deputy assistant attorney general in the criminal division, where he oversaw the fraud unit and managed the program that targeted illegal foreign bribery.

...

Before that, Andres was a federal prosecutor in Brooklyn for over a decade, eventually serving as chief of the criminal division in the U.S. attorney's office there. He prosecuted several members of the Bonanno organized crime family, one of whom was accused of plotting to have Andres killed.

I see he has expertise in the right areas
---

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2017/08/01/president-trumps-responses-russia-investigation-draw-scrutiny-heres-timeline/529040001/

JULY 16, 2017
On NBC's Meet the Press, Trump's lawyer Jay Sekulow denied Trump was involved in writing the statement in response to the Trump Jr. meeting.
"I do want to be clear, the president was not involved in the drafting of the statement and did not issue the statement," Sekulow said. "It came from Donald Trump Jr."

Well that didn't hold up very long.

I almost feel bad for trumps lawyers.
---

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/01/trump-wall-street-journal-interview-full-transcript-241214

This is very long but fascinating full transcript of a WSJ interview with Trump

Some choice excerpts for this topic to discuss:

TRUMP: The truth is the people I care most about are the middle-income people in this country who have gotten screwed. And this upward revision, it’s going to be on high-income people.

You know, I was with Bob Kraft the other night. He came to have dinner with me. He’s a friend of mine. And as he left, he said, Donald, don’t worry about the rich people. Tax the rich people. You got to take care of the people in the country. It was a very interesting statement. I feel the same way.

Let's hold him to this!

WSJ: You mentioned the Iran deal, but it’s been certified as in compliance twice now. It comes up again in September. Would you – is there going to come a point where you just –

TRUMP: Well, we’re doing major studies. Oh, I would be very surprised if they will be – look, we’ve been extremely nice to them. We’ve been extremely nice to them in saying they were compliant, OK? We’ve given them the benefit of every doubt. But we’re doing very detailed studies. And personally, I have great respect for my people. If it was up to me, I would have had them noncompliant 180 days ago.

WSJ: Do you expect them to be declared noncompliant the next time?

TRUMP: Personally, I do. I do.

WSJ: In September?

TRUMP: I think they’ll be noncompliant. I think they’re taking advantage of this country. They’ve taken advantage of a president, named Barack Obama, who didn’t know what the hell he was doing. And I do not expect that they will be compliant.

WSJ: Will you overrule your staff on that, if they come back with a recommendation –

TRUMP: Oh, sure. Sure. Look, I have a lot of respect for Rex and his people, good relationship. It’s easier to say they comply. It’s a lot easier. But it’s the wrong thing. They don’t comply. And so we’ll see what happens. I mean, we’ll talk about this subject in 90 days. But, yeah, I would be – I would be surprised if they were in compliance.

Emphasis mine

What
the
fuck

WSJ: So Sessions has recused himself, but is Bob Mueller’s job safe? There is speculation –

TRUMP: No, we’re going to see. I mean, I have no comment yet, because it’s too early. But we’ll see. We’re going to see. Here’s the good news: I was never involved with Russia. There was nobody in the campaign. I’ve got 200 people that will say that they’ve never seen anybody on the campaign. Here’s another – he was involved early. There’s nobody on the campaign that saw anybody from Russia. We had nothing to do with Russia. They lost an election and they came up with this as an excuse. And the only ones that are laughing are the Democrats and the Russians. They’re the only ones that are laughing. And if Jeff Sessions didn’t recuse himself, we wouldn’t even be talking about this subject.

LOLLLL

BAKER: You going to veto the Russian sanctions legislation?

TRUMP: Well, I haven’t seen them yet. I haven’t seen them in final form. I will say this, Congress, if they’re going to negotiate, they make the worst deals I’ve ever seen. They made NAFTA. They made – you know, they allowed the Iran deal to go through.

Oh jeez
---