Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 201: A Caravan Down By the River

(+) Yeah! (+)

With resetera's rise and their group think that to be a conservative or to even vote for one makes you a rapist sympathizer, racist, nazi-enabler that should be harrassed, punched, or even assassinated.

It is not too far to think that yes a confirmed child molester would be better than a Republican in their eyes.

You have liberals who outright argue that if you voted for Trump you are a racist by association and deserve to be treated like a racist.

I mean, I don't know where confirmed child molestation ranks versus supposedly confirmed racist on the hierarchy of lesser evils, but I suspect Para's statement could be an accurate one. The only context surrounding it to determine what he meant in the statement is "to put it bluntly". So, I do not have much to go by to otherwise dismiss it outright as a joke like you can in the Trump comments that happen at times.

And, if it was a joke, I think we can all agree it wasn't the best joke.
---

It's not a joke, it's making a point about the Republican party. It's not hard.
---

Shaduln posted...

It's not a joke, it's making a point about the Republican party. It's not hard.

So, you agree it was serious that the Republican party is supposedly so evil that you would vote for a confirmed child molester over them. I mean, I think the only point that is not hard to grasp there is that thinking a R next to a name makes you worse than that by default expresses the extreme nature of your views.

I mean, I know you have to defend your irl friends comments but what exactly are you even defending at that point then. It is exactly as stated and there are no lines to read between. It is explicitly stated.
---

is it weird that i think the president shouldn't constantly speak in "hyperbole" and "jokes" when he's often being misunderstood? i think having a bare minimum of communication skills should be a requirement for this job.
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

is it weird that i think the president shouldn't constantly speak in "hyperbole" and "jokes" when he's often being misunderstood? i think having a bare minimum of communication skills should be a requirement for this job.

His communication skills do lack pretty badly. You shouldn't have to interpret his intent as much as you do. Especially in serious situations, like the stuff he said about the hurricane in Puerto Rico last year.
---

Going to sleep. Good night.
---

Yeah i'm done here. Taking everything para said at face value and saying to not take trump at face value in two posts. Why did I bother?
---

welcome to corrik

I've only seen the quoted post by inviso but from the sounds of it any following posts went exactly as I'd expect
---

I love this dire warning about giving Democrats power from my latest Trump campaign email

They would have full power to launch any investigation they want against anyone they want

Oh no!!!
---

imagine if the FBI was allowed to talk to anyone they wanted during the kavanaugh investigation! the horror!!
---

That anti-LGBT stuff from Tulsi Gabbard's past is a pretty damn disappointing revelation. On the other hand, it also shows how far mainstream society has come on those issues in general.

And as someone else pointed out, she ended up publicly endorsing gay marriage before Clinton or Obama. What with her closeness with her father who tried to enact all that anti-LGBT legislation, sounds like she was raised that way but came to her senses as she got older.
---

Shaduln posted...

Yeah i'm done here. Taking everything para said at face value and saying to not take trump at face value in two posts. Why did I bother?

You can ignore context all you want. When context exists, you have to account for it. You are basically saying "I want this to not be an accurate standpoint so I am going to say it isn't" with zero reason to have that viewpoint.

You will notice a lot of times when you guys post things Truml says and ask what I think that I say "Let me see the clip first". I don't just defend what is said. I look at context to see if what is said is valid or not.
---

https://twitter.com/jordanfabian/status/1054444655088226306?s=21

Beautiful Ted
---

I could actually buy that as 4D chess trolling Cruz

Its gonna provoke so many Ted Cruz is the ugliest person alive takes
---

Plus I mean, come on, "Lion" Ted is right there for you.
---

StartTheMachine posted...

That anti-LGBT stuff from Tulsi Gabbard's past is a pretty damn disappointing revelation. On the other hand, it also shows how far mainstream society has come on those issues in general.

And as someone else pointed out, she ended up publicly endorsing gay marriage before Clinton or Obama. What with her closeness with her father who tried to enact all that anti-LGBT legislation, sounds like she was raised that way but came to her senses as she got older.

That's the thing though. I think as recently as 2015 (it might have been more recent, cba to look it up but that was the earliest it was for sure) she stated her personal views on the matter hadn't changed, just that she feels it isn't the government's place to enforce those views.

Which is concerning, but at least a step in the right direction.
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

https://twitter.com/jordanfabian/status/1054444655088226306?s=21

Beautiful Ted

https://thetruthsoldier.files.wordpress.com/2016/03/ted-cruz-sexy-eyes.jpg
---

pxlated posted...

she stated her personal views on the matter hadn't changed, just that she feels it isn't the government's place to enforce those views.

wait, so what's her stance on gay marriage now? "it should be legal" or "get the government out of it because it's not their place to decide about this"? i'm confused now.
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

pxlated posted...

she stated her personal views on the matter hadn't changed, just that she feels it isn't the government's place to enforce those views.

wait, so what's her stance on gay marriage now? "it should be legal" or "get the government out of it because it's not their place to decide about this"? i'm confused now.

She currently supports it.

The timeline of her views/comments on it as laid out by the article go: She strongly opposed it and voted that way -> She still personally disagreed but now felt it wasn't the government's role to enforce those personal views (That is: voting in favor of it/not getting in the way despite personally disagreeing) -> saying "gay marriage should be celebrated"
---

oh ok. that's cool then.
---

Democrats are like 3 toss-up seats being flipped to likely Dem from being outside of the 90% confidence interval of taking the house. Once that happens it would take a truly once-in-a-lifetime polling error to not win it.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2018-midterm-election-forecast/house/?ex_cid=midterms-header
---

Crossfiyah posted...

Democrats are like 3 toss-up seats being flipped to likely Dem from being outside of the 90% confidence interval of taking the house. Once that happens it would take a truly once-in-a-lifetime polling error to not win it.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2018-midterm-election-forecast/house/?ex_cid=midterms-header

Book marked for November 6th

Think 538's 86.3% is the highest odds for the House it's been.

heck if you give the dems just the seats they have rated as Solid/Likely/Lean D that puts you exactly at 218.
---

Crossfiyah posted...

Democrats are like 3 toss-up seats being flipped to likely Dem from being outside of the 90% confidence interval of taking the house. Once that happens it would take a truly once-in-a-lifetime polling error to not win it.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2018-midterm-election-forecast/house/?ex_cid=midterms-header

Some things to note:

1) This is the first time 538 is doing a house forecast model so I would not be too surprised to see them be totally off since there is usually a lot less polling to go on.
2) If you look at some individual races, I do not always agree with where they have something as a "lean dem" instead of a toss up. Here are some examples:

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2018-midterm-election-forecast/house/california/39/

One poll this month has the dem up 2, while two last month had him up 1 or down 8.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2018-midterm-election-forecast/house/iowa/3/

There are four polls in this race. Two are from democratic strategy groups, one is an e-poll (lol) and the only decent one had the dem up 1.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2018-midterm-election-forecast/house/new-jersey/7/

Only two polls (a month ago) had dem up 1 or down 5.

These aren't "toss ups" to 538. They're lean dem. Based on other factors like fundraising or national polling or this or that, which might be good to put into the mix. But at the same time this is the first time 538 is doing this and actual polls of the race tend to not be as rosy.

I do expect the Dems to take control of the house, but I think it will be by a slim margin and I wouldn't be totally surprised if they failed. Hopefully I'm wrong!
---

Suprak the Stud posted...

These aren't "toss ups" to 538. They're lean dem. Based on other factors like fundraising or national polling or this or that, which might be good to put into the mix. But at the same time this is the first time 538 is doing this and actual polls of the race tend to not be as rosy.

You can factor most of that (fundraising, etc.) out by switching to the Lite model if that doesn't sit well with you.

Lite model has 79.1% chance of Democrats taking the House. CA-39, IA-3, and NJ-7 - to use your examples- are all rated Toss-Up in the Lite Model.

Average House gain in Lite is 37 seats (Classic is 40.) And the Solid/Likely/Lean D add-up I mentioned becomes 211 with 23 Toss Ups still on the board.

Update: I think Lite Model only uses District Polling but 538 is a bit unclear. The description on the sidebar that lets you toggle between Lite/Classic/Deluxe says it uses national polling too but looking at the breakdowns of what factors into it (and how much) generic ballot is listed in the "fundamentals" which aren't used in the Lite Model so they should be excluded. Similar thing with 538's CANTOR model.
---

Like, if I was going to be as pessimistic as possible, look at the Florida 26th.

If you go to Wikipedia and rank all their house districts by their Cook Partisan Voting Index, you can actually organize the table from most liberal to conservative districts:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cook_Partisan_Voting_Index

Go through and then find the most democratic districts currently represented by a republican. The first three are all PA, and those three are 100% democratic pickups. These districts were redrawn after a court ordered them to because they were originally gerrymandered for political reasons. The first on the list that isn't completely changed from 2016 is FL-26.

It is D +6 and represented by Carlos Curbelo. Curbelo is the sort of "great concern over this rhetoric kind of Republican", but he's voted with Trump 82% of the time so he isn't really a liberal Republican. And, if you were imaging a democratic wave kind of year, this should be one of the first casualties since he is in the most democratic district to be represented by a republican in the entire country.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2018-midterm-election-forecast/house/florida/26/

The two polls of the race this month both have him up 1.

Now, there are reasons for that and, sure, just because he wins it wouldn't mean that every republican in a more conservative district is necessarily safe. But it probably isn't a good time to put on your rose colored glasses just yet. Go out and vote. Make sure your friends vote. Don't be complacent. And don't be too surprised if things don't go the way you're expecting.
---

xp1337 posted...

Suprak the Stud posted...

These aren't "toss ups" to 538. They're lean dem. Based on other factors like fundraising or national polling or this or that, which might be good to put into the mix. But at the same time this is the first time 538 is doing this and actual polls of the race tend to not be as rosy.

You can factor most of that (fundraising, etc.) out by switching to the Lite model if that doesn't sit well with you.

Lite model has 79.1% chance of Democrats taking the House. CA-39, IA-3, and NJ-7 - to use your examples- are all rated Toss-Up in the Lite Model.

Average House gain in Lite is 37 seats (Classic is 40.) And the Solid/Likely/Lean D add-up I mentioned becomes 211 with 23 Toss Ups still on the board.

Update: I think Lite Model only uses District Polling but 538 is a bit unclear. The description on the sidebar that lets you toggle between Lite/Classic/Deluxe says it uses national polling too but looking at the breakdowns of what factors into it (and how much) generic ballot is listed in the "fundamentals" which aren't used in the Lite Model so they should be excluded. Similar thing with 538's CANTOR model.

Here's one 538 lists as lean dem even with lite:

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2018-midterm-election-forecast/house/kentucky/6/#lite

A lot of those polls are partisan polls, which I tend to ignore entirely. The two non partisan polls of the race (both a month old now) have it tied or the republican up 1.

Again, there are other examples where this isn't the case. Polling is really sparse though for a lot of these races, so 538's model can rely on very sparse polling (which can make accurate prediction tough) But I think this will be closer than some people anticipate and nobody should feel complacent, I guess is the point I'm trying to get across.
---

I'm with you about not getting complacent, but I do think there's reason to feel pretty good about the Democrats' chances. I don't expect most (any?) of you to follow me to the land of OPTIMISM of 50+ House Seats but I also don't believe gloom and doom forecasts are warranted.

Everyone needs to get out and vote and get as many friends and family to vote as they can, of course (and not just this election, for all elections), but I do think there's cause for some optimism here.
---

xp1337 posted...

I'm with you about not getting complacent, but I do think there's reason to feel pretty good about the Democrats' chances. I don't expect most (any?) of you to follow me to the land of OPTIMISM of 50+ House Seats but I also don't believe gloom and doom forecasts are warranted.

Everyone needs to get out and vote and get as many friends and family to vote as they can, of course (and not just this election, for all elections), but I do think there's cause for some optimism here.

Vote early, vote often, right Libs?

I mean I'm only half-joking about voting a child molester over a republican

my politics are anti-GOP first, everything else second

you'd have to be one hell of a scumbag for me to not vote for you over a republican

Paratroopa1 posted...

I mean I'm only half-joking about voting a child molester over a republican

my politics are anti-GOP first, everything else second

you'd have to be one hell of a scumbag for me to not vote for you over a republican

to add on to this: I would never, under any circumstances whatsoever, vote republican right now

at worst I would just abstain or waste my vote on some unelectable third party

Paratroopa1 posted...

Paratroopa1 posted...

I mean I'm only half-joking about voting a child molester over a republican

my politics are anti-GOP first, everything else second

you'd have to be one hell of a scumbag for me to not vote for you over a republican

to add on to this: I would never, under any circumstances whatsoever, vote republican right now

at worst I would just abstain or waste my vote on some unelectable third party

The. ENTIRE leadership of your party falls squarely under one hell of a scumbag

Para, I think MWC believes you're a Republican.
---

Inviso posted...

Para, I think MWC believes you're a Republican.

No. Backing a child molestor would only ever be ONE party.

Its very clear with that hes a Lib

Inviso posted...

Para, I think MWC believes you're a Republican.

republicans also vote party line so I can see how he would get the two confused

A,so, do the rules of GFs prevent me from screenshotting something and posting it on other forums?

I may regret this, but which party was it that made Hastert Speaker of the House?
---

LetsGoMewtwo150 posted...

Inviso posted...

Para, I think MWC believes you're a Republican.

No. Backing a child molestor would only ever be ONE party.

Its very clear with that hes a Lib

Roy Moore says sup
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

LetsGoMewtwo150 posted...

Inviso posted...

Para, I think MWC believes you're a Republican.

No. Backing a child molestor would only ever be ONE party.

Its very clear with that hes a Lib

Roy Moore says sup

Yeah. And he lost.

Mind you there was no ACTUAL proof, but tons of circumstantial evidence.

We dont even need proof you did it to not vote you in, strong enough circumstantial, OUT OF HERE!!!

It's strange that you make an exaggerated hypothetical and multiple conservatrolls get up in arms, yet when given the option of a Democrat or a pedophile, Republicans only just barely held their noses and cast throw-away ballots so as not to vote for a Democrat. Seriously, the margin of victory for Doug Jones was less than the number of write-up votes, and that means there were STILL 650,000 Republicans that would rather vote a pedophile than a Democrat. And of course now that Roy Moore lost, every conservatroll in this topic series claims they were always against him and are glad he lost, just like how they were all completely against Donald Trump when the polls came out after the pussy tape. Simply astounding.
---

boy republicans sure do take things liberals say at extreme face value huh

LetsGoMewtwo150 posted...

We dont even need proof you did it to not vote you in, strong enough circumstantial, OUT OF HERE!!!

why would you ruin a man's career over a claim with zero evidence like this? he had such a bright future ahead of him
---

lol at responding to the Moore mention but not Hastert.
---

Let's be honest here...if Roy Moore won the election, every single conservatroll in this topic would be bragging about it and happy that the libs were super butthurt about Republicans preferring pedophiles to Democrats. It's ONLY because he lost that they're willing to distance themselves from him at all.
---

Inviso posted...

Let's be honest here...if Roy Moore won the election, every single conservatroll in this topic would be bragging about it and happy that the libs were super butthurt about Republicans preferring pedophiles to Democrats. It's ONLY because he lost that they're willing to distance themselves from him at all.

at this point it's tiring to point out everything the conservatives do

you could just say, as a blanket statement, that they will always do everything in bad faith in the name of supporting their tribe at all costs

everyone knows this is true, ignore them and move on

As I've said, I cannot ignore MWC for at LEAST another month. All the others though, yeah, they don't contribute anything of value.
---

gotta be like the cool kids who have designated accounts for smfffc-reading
---

Inviso posted...

Let's be honest here...if Roy Moore won the election, every single conservatroll in this topic would be bragging about it and happy that the libs were super butthurt about Republicans preferring pedophiles to Democrats.

if their response to kavanaugh is any indication this is how it would have gone, yeah
---

Inviso posted...

It's strange that you make an exaggerated hypothetical and multiple conservatrolls get up in arms, yet when given the option of a Democrat or a pedophile, Republicans only just barely held their noses and cast throw-away ballots so as not to vote for a Democrat. Seriously, the margin of victory for Doug Jones was less than the number of write-up votes, and that means there were STILL 650,000 Republicans that would rather vote a pedophile than a Democrat. And of course now that Roy Moore lost, every conservatroll in this topic series claims they were always against him and are glad he lost, just like how they were all completely against Donald Trump when the polls came out after the pussy tape. Simply astounding.

I was never for Moore after that, you were here, you saw my posts.

I also didnt remotely turn on Donald for that tape.

Donald lost some points with me.... but he was still up against Hillary.

Kenri posted...

LetsGoMewtwo150 posted...

We dont even need proof you did it to not vote you in, strong enough circumstantial, OUT OF HERE!!!

why would you ruin a man's career over a claim with zero evidence like this? he had such a bright future ahead of him

Are you comparing voting in a general election which is the LITERAL court of public opinion to any thing else?

I can believe you are a swamp monster or not like your shoes and not vote for you if I wanted.

For a crime they would have needed actual proof on Moore.

Hes icky probably is more than enough to not vote for him however