Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 250: Hearing Laws

Topic List	Page List: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 10
red sox 777 11/26/19 12:31:45 PM #102:	HeroDelTiempo17 posted... Well this seems like it could be bad news in the future https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/2019/11/26/20981758/brett-kavanaughs-terrify-democrats-supreme-court-gundy-paul the tldr is that the Supreme Court declined to take a case because it was too similar to a previous one, but Kavanaugh went out of his way to state that he agreed with the dissent in that previous case. The conservative justices there are basically arguing that Congress shouldn't be able to delegate broad power to federal agencies, and needs to be more specific. Which is bad, because some of those agencies are important, and a conservative, anti-regulatory SC would simply strike down more specific legislation it is opposed to. This isn't really that controversial. Laws ought to be clear, and if they aren't, people shouldn't be punished for failing to follow them. It doesn't seem like a good system where you have to pore over thousands of pages of ever-shifting agency regulations to figure out what a law Congress passed decades ago means right now. And remember, there is nothing stopping Congress from updating its laws. The only reason it wouldn't do that is if the current Congress disagrees with the Congress that passed the law in the first place. Imagine if in 2017, the Republican Congress had passed an act that reads as follows: 1. Every action within the power of Congress to prohibit under the Constitution of the United States is hereby prohibited under penalty of imprisonment, and every action not prohibited by the Constitution of the United States that may be taken by the government of the United States is hereby authorized, when such prohibition or such action is necessary to support the goal of making America greater. 2. Donald J. Trump, and after him the heirs of his body in perpetuity, shall have the sole power to determine whether a prohibition of action or a government action is necessary to support the goal of making America greater. This is the delegation doctrine taken to an extreme, and the act effectively makes President Trump into a King. In fact, notice that it authorizes DJT, not the President, to make these decisions so his absolute power to make and unmake law would continue even if he left office. As long as Republicans maintained a majority in the Senate, the Trump family would be able to rule over the country forever. --- September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013 Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest! <cite>red sox 777 posted [p:930727787] in Politics C... [t:78196160]...</cite> <quote>HeroDelTiempo17 posted...</cite> <quote>Well this seems like it could be bad news in the future https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/2019/11/26/20981758/brett-kavanaughs-terrify-democrats-supreme-court-gundy-paul the tldr is that the Supreme Court declined to take a case because it was too similar to a previous one, but Kavanaugh went out of his way to state that he agreed with the dissent in that previous case. The conservative justices there are basically arguing that Congress shouldn't be able to delegate broad power to federal agencies, and needs to be more specific. Which is bad, because some of those agencies are important, and a conservative, anti-regulatory SC would simply strike down more specific legislation it is opposed to. </quote> This isn't really that controversial. Laws ought to be clear, and if they aren't, people shouldn't be punished for failing to follow them. It doesn't seem like a good system where you have to pore over thousands of pages of ever-shifting agency regulations to figure out what a law Congress passed decades ago means right now. And remember, there is nothing stopping Congress from updating its laws. The only reason it wouldn't do that is if the current Congress disagrees with the Congress that passed the law in the first place. Imagine if in 2017, the Republican Congress had passed an act that reads as follows: 1. Every action within the power of Congress to prohibit under the Constitution of the United States is hereby prohibited under penalty of imprisonment, and every action not prohibited by the Constitution of the United States that may be taken by the government of the United States is hereby authorized, when such prohibition or such action is necessary to support the goal of making America greater. 2. Donald J. Trump, and after him the heirs of his body in perpetuity, shall have the sole power to determine whether a prohibition of action or a government action is necessary to support the goal of making America greater. This is the delegation doctrine taken to an extreme, and the act effectively makes President Trump into a King. In fact, notice that it authorizes DJT, not the President, to make these decisions so his absolute power to make and unmake law would continue even if he left office. As long as Republicans maintained a majority in the Senate, the Trump family would be able to rule over the country forever.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
banananor 11/26/19 12:34:49 PM #103:	question- I'm not familiar with Gundy v United states How familiar are you with it? --- You did indeed stab me in the back. However, you are only level one, whilst I am level 50. That means I should remain uninjured. <cite>banananor posted [p:930727924] in Politics C... [t:78196160]...</cite> <quote>question- I'm not familiar with Gundy v United states How familiar are you with it?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
red sox 777 11/26/19 12:42:26 PM #104:	banananor posted... question- I'm not familiar with Gundy v United states How familiar are you with it? If that's directed at me, I haven't read it. But I did read that Vox article which does not go into the details of that case or the arguments made by the Supreme Court at all, so if the discussion is going to be at a super high level, I think the blanket assertion made by the Vox article that nondelegation is bad as a concept is clearly misleading. Obviously there's a lot of room between [give Trump the power to decide what the law is forever] and [Congress has to update the laws itself every year if it wants to index by inflation]. But that's sort of my point here. --- September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013 Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest! <cite>red sox 777 posted [p:930728247] in Politics C... [t:78196160]...</cite> <quote>banananor posted...</cite> <quote>question- I'm not familiar with Gundy v United states How familiar are you with it?</quote> If that's directed at me, I haven't read it. But I did read that Vox article which does not go into the details of that case or the arguments made by the Supreme Court at all, so if the discussion is going to be at a super high level, I think the blanket assertion made by the Vox article that nondelegation is bad as a concept is clearly misleading. Obviously there's a lot of room between [give Trump the power to decide what the law is forever] and [Congress has to update the laws itself every year if it wants to index by inflation]. But that's sort of my point here.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
banananor 11/26/19 12:57:13 PM #105:	Yeah, I just have no idea what's actually right here. I've been misled before. I can leave something like this to the experts. The subtext here is that it's just tough to trust the experts to be objective when you already consider them to be of low character (I have my own biases about kavanaugh at this point) compare it to how trump supporters don't worry or look too hard at the specifics of what he's doing- they trust he's doing his best. Or how Obama supporters felt about Obama's decisions So this article could simply be "kavanaugh has opinion about X issue" and I'd feel a little bit uneasy, because it's a reminder that he has that power and I don't particularly like him --- You did indeed stab me in the back. However, you are only level one, whilst I am level 50. That means I should remain uninjured. <cite>banananor posted [p:930728825] in Politics C... [t:78196160]...</cite> <quote>Yeah, I just have no idea what's actually right here. I've been misled before. I can leave something like this to the experts. The subtext here is that it's just tough to trust the experts to be objective when you already consider them to be of low character (I have my own biases about kavanaugh at this point) compare it to how trump supporters don't worry or look too hard at the specifics of what he's doing- they trust he's doing his best. Or how Obama supporters felt about Obama's decisions So this article could simply be "kavanaugh has opinion about X issue" and I'd feel a little bit uneasy, because it's a reminder that he has that power and I don't particularly like him</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
HeroDelTiempo17 11/26/19 1:09:15 PM #106:	banananor posted... question- I'm not familiar with Gundy v United states How familiar are you with it? This is my first time hearing about it and I'm still reading into it. The gist is that it centers around a sex offender who failed to register in multiple states. He ran afoul of a law passed after his crimes, because Congress delegated some aspects to the Attorney General, who decided it applied retroactively. The courts decided this was reasonable for congress to delegate. The article's tone is pretty dire but in general I think I agree with the claim that requiring specific legislation would make agencies less efficient, because our legislative system is already extremely obstructionist and slow to react. Plus I think it is very troubling that conservative judges (or at least the Trump appointed ones) tend to argue for MORE executive power directly to the President, but are arguing for LESS executive power to these other branches of it. This is a theme within the GOP as a whole, which is also how we get people like Barr, who is very clearly in favor of maximum chief executive power. The Trump admin has also been quietly hampering government agencies with bad appointments and doing things like moving HQs across the country to get people to quit, so. It doesn't add up to me. --- DPOblivion was far more determined than me. <cite>HeroDelTiempo17 posted [p:930729346] in Politics C... [t:78196160]...</cite> <quote>banananor posted... </cite> <quote>question- I'm not familiar with Gundy v United states How familiar are you with it?</quote> This is my first time hearing about it and I'm still reading into it. The gist is that it centers around a sex offender who failed to register in multiple states. He ran afoul of a law passed after his crimes, because Congress delegated some aspects to the Attorney General, who decided it applied retroactively. The courts decided this was reasonable for congress to delegate. The article's tone is pretty dire but in general I think I agree with the claim that requiring specific legislation would make agencies less efficient, because our legislative system is already extremely obstructionist and slow to react. Plus I think it is very troubling that conservative judges (or at least the Trump appointed ones) tend to argue for MORE executive power directly to the President, but are arguing for LESS executive power to these other branches of it. This is a theme within the GOP as a whole, which is also how we get people like Barr, who is very clearly in favor of maximum chief executive power. The Trump admin has also been quietly hampering government agencies with bad appointments and doing things like moving HQs across the country to get people to quit, so. It doesn't add up to me. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
pyresword 11/26/19 1:22:54 PM #107:	It adds up perfectly well to me. Trump wants to turn the US into a sham democracy or dictatorship in which he controls everything. Conservative politicians would rather cater to him and pray that the problem goes away on its own than directly oppose him and risk alienating their base of voters. --- Oh woops. Putting Advokaiser in my sig like this until I think of something more clever <cite>pyresword posted [p:930729937] in Politics C... [t:78196160]...</cite> <quote>It adds up perfectly well to me. Trump wants to turn the US into a sham democracy or dictatorship in which he controls everything. Conservative politicians would rather cater to him and pray that the problem goes away on its own than directly oppose him and risk alienating their base of voters.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
HeroDelTiempo17 11/26/19 1:29:42 PM #108:	pyresword posted... It adds up perfectly well to me. Trump wants to turn the US into a sham democracy or dictatorship in which he controls everything. Conservative politicians would rather cater to him and pray that the problem goes away on its own than directly oppose him and risk alienating their base of voters. Oh, I mean of course that. And it isn't just Trump but the entire Republican establishment that wants this. It isn't a problem to them because they'll still be in power. I'm just saying it doesnt add up from like, a hypothetical good faith argument about the constitution or whatever --- DPOblivion was far more determined than me. <cite>HeroDelTiempo17 posted [p:930730210] in Politics C... [t:78196160]...</cite> <quote>pyresword posted... </cite> <quote>It adds up perfectly well to me. Trump wants to turn the US into a sham democracy or dictatorship in which he controls everything. Conservative politicians would rather cater to him and pray that the problem goes away on its own than directly oppose him and risk alienating their base of voters.</quote> Oh, I mean of course that. And it isn't just Trump but the entire Republican establishment that wants this. It isn't a problem to them because they'll still be in power. I'm just saying it doesnt add up from like, a hypothetical good faith argument about the constitution or whatever </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
red sox 777 11/26/19 1:37:01 PM #109:	Practically speaking, I think a lot of people are not aware of how excessively complicated laws/regulations favor large corporations over small businesses. The reason is that when laws are extremely complicated, it becomes essentially a required cost of business to hire attorneys to get legal advice so that you don't run afoul of those laws/regulations. You really can't just open up a statute book and understand how it applies to you - it would just take too much time which you don't have while running your business. Really, you need a team of lawyers. This gives big corporations a competitive advantage for two reasons: 1. Legal advice is often fairly scalable. If you build one factory, you need to incur some cost getting legal advice to make sure your new factory is compliant with all the environmental, safety, etc. laws. If you build 100 identical factories, you can mostly recycle that advice from the first factory. So you don't pay 100x as much for legal costs, but it delivers 100x as much value to you. The cost of the legal advice can very well make your first factory unprofitable, but with 100 factories it's a relatively minor cost. This favors big businesses over small ones. 2. Larger businesses can do more of their legal work in-house, which saves money since they pay their attorneys a salary rather than hourly fees to a law firm, a large portion of which will go to law firm profits. Small businesses have a harder time doing that, because they may not have enough legal work to keep a general counsel productively employed - it makes no sense for him to sit around doing nothing and drawing a salary when the business could pay outside counsel for work on an as-needed basis (at a higher hourly rate). Also, because of the inconsistent nature of legal needs, a GC who hasn't had much work for months may suddenly find himself with an overwhelming amount of urgent work that he doesn't humanly have the time to do - in which case the business will still need to hire outside counsel. Now, big corporations still hire outside counsel, but it's usually for work that can't be handled by their in-house team, either due to overflow demands or due to a great need for expertise on an issue that the outside firm has. But because they can shift a greater percentage of their total legal hours onto in-house counsel, their average hourly rate for legal work will be lower. --- September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013 Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest! <cite>red sox 777 posted [p:930730553] in Politics C... [t:78196160]...</cite> <quote>Practically speaking, I think a lot of people are not aware of how excessively complicated laws/regulations favor large corporations over small businesses. The reason is that when laws are extremely complicated, it becomes essentially a required cost of business to hire attorneys to get legal advice so that you don't run afoul of those laws/regulations. You really can't just open up a statute book and understand how it applies to you - it would just take too much time which you don't have while running your business. Really, you need a team of lawyers. This gives big corporations a competitive advantage for two reasons: 1. Legal advice is often fairly scalable. If you build one factory, you need to incur some cost getting legal advice to make sure your new factory is compliant with all the environmental, safety, etc. laws. If you build 100 identical factories, you can mostly recycle that advice from the first factory. So you don't pay 100x as much for legal costs, but it delivers 100x as much value to you. The cost of the legal advice can very well make your first factory unprofitable, but with 100 factories it's a relatively minor cost. This favors big businesses over small ones. 2. Larger businesses can do more of their legal work in-house, which saves money since they pay their attorneys a salary rather than hourly fees to a law firm, a large portion of which will go to law firm profits. Small businesses have a harder time doing that, because they may not have enough legal work to keep a general counsel productively employed - it makes no sense for him to sit around doing nothing and drawing a salary when the business could pay outside counsel for work on an as-needed basis (at a higher hourly rate). Also, because of the inconsistent nature of legal needs, a GC who hasn't had much work for months may suddenly find himself with an overwhelming amount of urgent work that he doesn't humanly have the time to do - in which case the business will still need to hire outside counsel. Now, big corporations still hire outside counsel, but it's usually for work that can't be handled by their in-house team, either due to overflow demands or due to a great need for expertise on an issue that the outside firm has. But because they can shift a greater percentage of their total legal hours onto in-house counsel, their average hourly rate for legal work will be lower.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Nelson_Mandela 11/26/19 3:17:56 PM #110:	https://twitter.com/SteveKornacki/status/1199418736027033602?s=19 Crown Biden already. This primary is tiring. --- "A more mature answer than I expected."~ Jakyl25 "Sephy's point is right."~ Inviso <cite>Nelson_Mandela posted [p:930735087] in Politics C... [t:78196160]...</cite> <quote>https://twitter.com/SteveKornacki/status/1199418736027033602?s=19 Crown Biden already. This primary is tiring.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
HeroicSpiderPig 11/26/19 3:25:54 PM #111:	I don't have any ill will towards him like a lot of my other liberal/progressive brethern, but I have yet to come across either online, or in person, the number of Buttigieg supporters that his numbers imply. Where are they? Do I need to know more liberal soccer moms? All of the white collar white liberals I know/know of are in for Warren. I don't know where this is coming from. --- Congrats on Advokaiser for winning the 2018 Guru Contest! Yesmar <cite>HeroicSpiderPig posted [p:930735432] in Politics C... [t:78196160]...</cite> <quote>I don't have any ill will towards him like a lot of my other liberal/progressive brethern, but I have yet to come across either online, or in person, the number of Buttigieg supporters that his numbers imply. Where are they? Do I need to know more liberal soccer moms? All of the white collar white liberals I know/know of are in for Warren. I don't know where this is coming from. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
red sox 777 11/26/19 3:26:01 PM #112:	Nelson_Mandela posted... https://twitter.com/SteveKornacki/status/1199418736027033602?s=19 Crown Biden already. This primary is tiring. So after losing with the most corrupt candidate in history, the Democrats will nominate a candidate who demanded that Ukraine fire its public prosecutor in exchange for a lot of money from the US. So people keep saying that Hunter wasn't on Burisma's board until after the incident they were being investigated for occurred, but does that matter? If you were on the Burisma board and there was a big investigation pending, wouldn't it make a lot of sense to hire the US Vice President's son so that his father would make the investigation go away? Looks like a classic case of quid pro quo. --- September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013 Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest! <cite>red sox 777 posted [p:930735438] in Politics C... [t:78196160]...</cite> <quote>Nelson_Mandela posted...</cite> <quote>https://twitter.com/SteveKornacki/status/1199418736027033602?s=19 Crown Biden already. This primary is tiring.</quote> So after losing with the most corrupt candidate in history, the Democrats will nominate a candidate who demanded that Ukraine fire its public prosecutor in exchange for a lot of money from the US. So people keep saying that Hunter wasn't on Burisma's board until after the incident they were being investigated for occurred, but does that matter? If you were on the Burisma board and there was a big investigation pending, wouldn't it make a lot of sense to hire the US Vice President's son so that his father would make the investigation go away? Looks like a classic case of quid pro quo.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
HeroicSpiderPig 11/26/19 3:30:23 PM #113:	red sox 777 posted... So people keep saying that Hunter wasn't on Burisma's board until after the incident they were being investigated for occurred, but does that matter? If you were on the Burisma board and there was a big investigation pending, wouldn't it make a lot of sense to hire the US Vice President's son so that his father would make the investigation go away? Looks like a classic case of quid pro quo. The prosecuter that was fired was specifically choosing NOT to investigate Burisma, presumably after being bribed. There is no way that firing the prosecuter would have made an investigation of Burisma less likely. --- Congrats on Advokaiser for winning the 2018 Guru Contest! Yesmar <cite>HeroicSpiderPig posted [p:930735625] in Politics C... [t:78196160]...</cite> <quote>red sox 777 posted... </cite> <quote>So people keep saying that Hunter wasn't on Burisma's board until after the incident they were being investigated for occurred, but does that matter? If you were on the Burisma board and there was a big investigation pending, wouldn't it make a lot of sense to hire the US Vice President's son so that his father would make the investigation go away? Looks like a classic case of quid pro quo.</quote> The prosecuter that was fired was specifically choosing NOT to investigate Burisma, presumably after being bribed. There is no way that firing the prosecuter would have made an investigation of Burisma less likely. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
LordoftheMorons 11/26/19 3:30:51 PM #114:	HeroicSpiderPig posted... I don't have any ill will towards him like a lot of my other liberal/progressive brethern, but I have yet to come across either online, or in person, the number of Buttigieg supporters that his numbers imply. Where are they? Do I need to know more liberal soccer moms? All of the white collar white liberals I know/know of are in for Warren. I don't know where this is coming from. Hes massively overperforming in Iowa (and to a lesser extent NH) compared to his national numbers Though if you want an anecdote, my mom seems to really like him! Not sure if shell vote for him or Biden. --- Congrats to Advokaiser for winning the CBX Guru Challenge! <cite>LordoftheMorons posted [p:930735650] in Politics C... [t:78196160]...</cite> <quote>HeroicSpiderPig posted... </cite> <quote>I don't have any ill will towards him like a lot of my other liberal/progressive brethern, but I have yet to come across either online, or in person, the number of Buttigieg supporters that his numbers imply. Where are they? Do I need to know more liberal soccer moms? All of the white collar white liberals I know/know of are in for Warren. I don't know where this is coming from.</quote>Hes massively overperforming in Iowa (and to a lesser extent NH) compared to his national numbers Though if you want an anecdote, my mom seems to really like him! Not sure if shell vote for him or Biden. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
red sox 777 11/26/19 3:31:39 PM #115:	HeroicSpiderPig posted... I don't have any ill will towards him like a lot of my other liberal/progressive brethern, but I have yet to come across either online, or in person, the number of Buttigieg supporters that his numbers imply. Where are they? Do I need to know more liberal soccer moms? All of the white collar white liberals I know/know of are in for Warren. I don't know where this is coming from. My dad randomly messaged me out of the blue saying he supports Buttigieg. I think what's appealing about him is he doesn't have the negative baggage of a lot of the others. Warren and Sanders are socialists and keep talking about wealth taxes, so a lot of people see them as not an option because they believe such policies will crash the economy. Biden has issues with corruption, segregation, etc. The others either don't have strong name recognition, seem a little weird, or have painted themselves into a corner with their focus on racial/gender issues. Buttigieg is the archetypal centrist Democrat, only he doesn't yet have baggage from a career in Washington. Also, I think Buttigieg is doing way better in Iowa and NH than elsewhere, and that's because both of those states are generally sane (read: non-ideological). --- September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013 Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest! <cite>red sox 777 posted [p:930735675] in Politics C... [t:78196160]...</cite> <quote>HeroicSpiderPig posted...</cite> <quote>I don't have any ill will towards him like a lot of my other liberal/progressive brethern, but I have yet to come across either online, or in person, the number of Buttigieg supporters that his numbers imply. Where are they? Do I need to know more liberal soccer moms? All of the white collar white liberals I know/know of are in for Warren. I don't know where this is coming from. </quote> My dad randomly messaged me out of the blue saying he supports Buttigieg. I think what's appealing about him is he doesn't have the negative baggage of a lot of the others. Warren and Sanders are socialists and keep talking about wealth taxes, so a lot of people see them as not an option because they believe such policies will crash the economy. Biden has issues with corruption, segregation, etc. The others either don't have strong name recognition, seem a little weird, or have painted themselves into a corner with their focus on racial/gender issues. Buttigieg is the archetypal centrist Democrat, only he doesn't yet have baggage from a career in Washington. Also, I think Buttigieg is doing way better in Iowa and NH than elsewhere, and that's because both of those states are generally sane (read: non-ideological).</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Nelson_Mandela 11/26/19 3:32:28 PM #116:	HeroicSpiderPig posted... I don't have any ill will towards him like a lot of my other liberal/progressive brethern, but I have yet to come across either online, or in person, the number of Buttigieg supporters that his numbers imply. Where are they? Do I need to know more liberal soccer moms? All of the white collar white liberals I know/know of are in for Warren. I don't know where this is coming from. He is getting the Elites that were previously supporting Warren before they realized her policy is a fraud (at least Bernie is honest that he wants to steal from the middle class). The conclusion to draw though is that no one is siphoning votes from Biden. He has a solid grasp on the black community, and they will be ensuring he gets the nomination (as they did for Hillary). If progressives really want to take back their party, they need to expel the African American community tbh. --- "A more mature answer than I expected."~ Jakyl25 "Sephy's point is right."~ Inviso <cite>Nelson_Mandela posted [p:930735706] in Politics C... [t:78196160]...</cite> <quote>HeroicSpiderPig posted...</cite> <quote>I don't have any ill will towards him like a lot of my other liberal/progressive brethern, but I have yet to come across either online, or in person, the number of Buttigieg supporters that his numbers imply. Where are they? Do I need to know more liberal soccer moms? All of the white collar white liberals I know/know of are in for Warren. I don't know where this is coming from. </quote> He is getting the Elites that were previously supporting Warren before they realized her policy is a fraud (at least Bernie is honest that he wants to steal from the middle class). The conclusion to draw though is that no one is siphoning votes from Biden. He has a solid grasp on the black community, and they will be ensuring he gets the nomination (as they did for Hillary). If progressives really want to take back their party, they need to expel the African American community tbh.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
red sox 777 11/26/19 3:36:23 PM #117:	HeroicSpiderPig posted... red sox 777 posted... So people keep saying that Hunter wasn't on Burisma's board until after the incident they were being investigated for occurred, but does that matter? If you were on the Burisma board and there was a big investigation pending, wouldn't it make a lot of sense to hire the US Vice President's son so that his father would make the investigation go away? Looks like a classic case of quid pro quo. The prosecuter that was fired was specifically choosing NOT to investigate Burisma, presumably after being bribed. There is no way that firing the prosecuter would have made an investigation of Burisma less likely. He was fired for not investigating Burisma or not investigating other corruption? Remember, this is Ukraine. Just because the prosecutor was corruptly turning a blind eye to other companies doesn't mean that he wasn't pursuing a legitimate investigation of Burisma - it just means Burisma didn't pay him enough. Or maybe they found an alternate way of dealing with things that was cheaper. --- September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013 Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest! <cite>red sox 777 posted [p:930735861] in Politics C... [t:78196160]...</cite> <quote>HeroicSpiderPig posted...</cite> <quote>red sox 777 posted... </cite> <quote>So people keep saying that Hunter wasn't on Burisma's board until after the incident they were being investigated for occurred, but does that matter? If you were on the Burisma board and there was a big investigation pending, wouldn't it make a lot of sense to hire the US Vice President's son so that his father would make the investigation go away? Looks like a classic case of quid pro quo.</quote> The prosecuter that was fired was specifically choosing NOT to investigate Burisma, presumably after being bribed. There is no way that firing the prosecuter would have made an investigation of Burisma less likely. </quote> He was fired for not investigating Burisma or not investigating other corruption? Remember, this is Ukraine. Just because the prosecutor was corruptly turning a blind eye to other companies doesn't mean that he wasn't pursuing a legitimate investigation of Burisma - it just means Burisma didn't pay him enough. Or maybe they found an alternate way of dealing with things that was cheaper.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
HeroicSpiderPig 11/26/19 3:37:17 PM #118:	Oh, I totally get Buttigieg's appeal. I'm just not coming across as many supporters as I feel I theoretically should. --- Congrats on Advokaiser for winning the 2018 Guru Contest! Yesmar <cite>HeroicSpiderPig posted [p:930735899] in Politics C... [t:78196160]...</cite> <quote>Oh, I totally get Buttigieg's appeal. I'm just not coming across as many supporters as I feel I theoretically should. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ChaosTonyV4 11/26/19 3:38:52 PM #119:	I have a feeling Biden is massively over performing in polls. I dont know anyone who is excited for Biden, not even the media is excited for Biden. Hillary sucked, but there was a FERVOR for her from certain groups. @LordoftheMorons as the only Biden stan, why do you think someone with pretty much no excitement can do better than Hillary did? Have Dems literally ever won without a candidate that excites people? --- Phantom Dust. "I'll just wait for time to prove me right again." - Vlado <cite>ChaosTonyV4 posted [p:930735971] in Politics C... [t:78196160]...</cite> <quote>I have a feeling Biden is massively over performing in polls. I dont know anyone who is excited for Biden, not even the media is excited for Biden. Hillary sucked, but there was a FERVOR for her from certain groups. @LordoftheMorons as the only Biden stan, why do you think someone with pretty much no excitement can do better than Hillary did? Have Dems literally ever won without a candidate that excites people? </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
red sox 777 11/26/19 3:38:54 PM #120:	Nelson_Mandela posted... HeroicSpiderPig posted... I don't have any ill will towards him like a lot of my other liberal/progressive brethern, but I have yet to come across either online, or in person, the number of Buttigieg supporters that his numbers imply. Where are they? Do I need to know more liberal soccer moms? All of the white collar white liberals I know/know of are in for Warren. I don't know where this is coming from. He is getting the Elites that were previously supporting Warren before they realized her policy is a fraud (at least Bernie is honest that he wants to steal from the middle class). The conclusion to draw though is that no one is siphoning votes from Biden. He has a solid grasp on the black community, and they will be ensuring he gets the nomination (as they did for Hillary). If progressives really want to take back their party, they need to expel the African American community tbh. Well, they may never figure out that expelling people who don't agree with them 100% isn't the way to win elections. At some point, they may expel enough people that they fall behind a third party. --- September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013 Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest! <cite>red sox 777 posted [p:930735974] in Politics C... [t:78196160]...</cite> <quote>Nelson_Mandela posted...</cite> <quote>HeroicSpiderPig posted...</cite> <quote>I don't have any ill will towards him like a lot of my other liberal/progressive brethern, but I have yet to come across either online, or in person, the number of Buttigieg supporters that his numbers imply. Where are they? Do I need to know more liberal soccer moms? All of the white collar white liberals I know/know of are in for Warren. I don't know where this is coming from. </quote> He is getting the Elites that were previously supporting Warren before they realized her policy is a fraud (at least Bernie is honest that he wants to steal from the middle class). The conclusion to draw though is that no one is siphoning votes from Biden. He has a solid grasp on the black community, and they will be ensuring he gets the nomination (as they did for Hillary). If progressives really want to take back their party, they need to expel the African American community tbh.</quote> Well, they may never figure out that expelling people who don't agree with them 100% isn't the way to win elections. At some point, they may expel enough people that they fall behind a third party.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Jakyl25 11/26/19 3:39:55 PM #121:	https://deadstate.org/christian-televangelist-trumps-impeachment-is-an-effort-to-prevent-the-return-of-christ/ I humbly ask all religions to stop practicing. Please. --- Thank you, Eddie Guerrero. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DRlKR5nU8AA_v_C?format=jpg&name=large <cite>Jakyl25 posted [p:930736013] in Politics C... [t:78196160]...</cite> <quote>https://deadstate.org/christian-televangelist-trumps-impeachment-is-an-effort-to-prevent-the-return-of-christ/ I humbly ask all religions to stop practicing. Please.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
LordoftheMorons 11/26/19 3:43:39 PM #122:	ChaosTonyV4 posted... I have a feeling Biden is massively over performing in polls. I dont know anyone who is excited for Biden, not even the media is excited for Biden. Hillary sucked, but there was a FERVOR for her from certain groups. @LordoftheMorons as the only Biden stan, why do you think someone with pretty much no excitement can do better than Hillary did? Have Dems literally ever won without a candidate that excites people? I think any of the plausible candidates can win (and none are guaranteed to). Biden, imo, is less likely than the others to turn off persuadable voters, and voting against Trump will be a huge motivation for most Dems (and if it isnt for individual voters, thats more of a problem with them than the candidate). --- Congrats to Advokaiser for winning the CBX Guru Challenge! <cite>LordoftheMorons posted [p:930736182] in Politics C... [t:78196160]...</cite> <quote>ChaosTonyV4 posted... </cite> <quote>I have a feeling Biden is massively over performing in polls. I dont know anyone who is excited for Biden, not even the media is excited for Biden. Hillary sucked, but there was a FERVOR for her from certain groups. @LordoftheMorons as the only Biden stan, why do you think someone with pretty much no excitement can do better than Hillary did? Have Dems literally ever won without a candidate that excites people?</quote>I think any of the plausible candidates can win (and none are guaranteed to). Biden, imo, is less likely than the others to turn off persuadable voters, and voting against Trump will be a huge motivation for most Dems (and if it isnt for individual voters, thats more of a problem with them than the candidate). </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
HeroicSpiderPig 11/26/19 3:44:14 PM #123:	red sox 777 posted... He was fired for not investigating Burisma or not investigating other corruption? Remember, this is Ukraine. Just because the prosecutor was corruptly turning a blind eye to other companies doesn't mean that he wasn't pursuing a legitimate investigation of Burisma - it just means Burisma didn't pay him enough. Or maybe they found an alternate way of dealing with things that was cheaper. I don't think he was fired for not investigating Burisma specifically, but he had stopped investigating them when Biden put pressure on Ukraine to fire him. That is my understanding, at least. --- Congrats on Advokaiser for winning the 2018 Guru Contest! Yesmar <cite>HeroicSpiderPig posted [p:930736215] in Politics C... [t:78196160]...</cite> <quote>red sox 777 posted... </cite> <quote> He was fired for not investigating Burisma or not investigating other corruption? Remember, this is Ukraine. Just because the prosecutor was corruptly turning a blind eye to other companies doesn't mean that he wasn't pursuing a legitimate investigation of Burisma - it just means Burisma didn't pay him enough. Or maybe they found an alternate way of dealing with things that was cheaper.</quote> I don't think he was fired for not investigating Burisma specifically, but he had stopped investigating them when Biden put pressure on Ukraine to fire him. That is my understanding, at least. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
red sox 777 11/26/19 3:45:12 PM #124:	ChaosTonyV4 posted... I have a feeling Biden is massively over performing in polls. I dont know anyone who is excited for Biden, not even the media is excited for Biden. Hillary sucked, but there was a FERVOR for her from certain groups. @LordoftheMorons as the only Biden stan, why do you think someone with pretty much no excitement can do better than Hillary did? Have Dems literally ever won without a candidate that excites people? I generally agree with this, but now that I think about it, the excitement for Hillary came from precisely the wrong people. Each of those Hillary ultras probably swung at least one vote over to Trump, just from how obnoxious they were. Together, they pretty much elected Donald Trump. --- September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013 Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest! <cite>red sox 777 posted [p:930736265] in Politics C... [t:78196160]...</cite> <quote>ChaosTonyV4 posted...</cite> <quote>I have a feeling Biden is massively over performing in polls. I dont know anyone who is excited for Biden, not even the media is excited for Biden. Hillary sucked, but there was a FERVOR for her from certain groups. @LordoftheMorons as the only Biden stan, why do you think someone with pretty much no excitement can do better than Hillary did? Have Dems literally ever won without a candidate that excites people? </quote> I generally agree with this, but now that I think about it, the excitement for Hillary came from precisely the wrong people. Each of those Hillary ultras probably swung at least one vote over to Trump, just from how obnoxious they were. Together, they pretty much elected Donald Trump.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ChaosTonyV4 11/26/19 3:51:31 PM #125:	LordoftheMorons posted... I think any of the plausible candidates can win (and none are guaranteed to). Biden, imo, is less likely than the others to turn off persuadable voters, and voting against Trump will be a huge motivation for most Dems (and if it isnt for individual voters, thats more of a problem with them than the candidate) This was 2016, my guy --- Phantom Dust. "I'll just wait for time to prove me right again." - Vlado <cite>ChaosTonyV4 posted [p:930736554] in Politics C... [t:78196160]...</cite> <quote>LordoftheMorons posted... </cite> <quote>I think any of the plausible candidates can win (and none are guaranteed to). Biden, imo, is less likely than the others to turn off persuadable voters, and voting against Trump will be a huge motivation for most Dems (and if it isnt for individual voters, thats more of a problem with them than the candidate)</quote> This was 2016, my guy </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Jakyl25 11/26/19 3:52:41 PM #126:	ChaosTonyV4 posted... Have Dems literally ever won without a candidate that excites people? I can think of a couple recent second term Dems that werent all that exciting --- Thank you, Eddie Guerrero. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DRlKR5nU8AA_v_C?format=jpg&name=large <cite>Jakyl25 posted [p:930736593] in Politics C... [t:78196160]...</cite> <quote>ChaosTonyV4 posted...</cite> <quote> Have Dems literally ever won without a candidate that excites people? </quote> I can think of a couple recent second term Dems that werent all that exciting</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Reg 11/26/19 3:54:02 PM #127:	Jakyl25 posted... https://deadstate.org/christian-televangelist-trumps-impeachment-is-an-effort-to-prevent-the-return-of-christ/ I humbly ask all religions to stop practicing. Please. Yes pls. Evangelicals are a very special kind of cancer on this country and planet, but yes pls all the same. If you need magical sky fairy to tell you not to lie, cheat, steal, murder, etc, you're a bad person. <cite>Reg posted [p:930736654] in Politics C... [t:78196160]...</cite> <quote>Jakyl25 posted...</cite> <quote>https://deadstate.org/christian-televangelist-trumps-impeachment-is-an-effort-to-prevent-the-return-of-christ/ I humbly ask all religions to stop practicing. Please.</quote> Yes pls. Evangelicals are a very special kind of cancer on this country and planet, but yes pls all the same. If you need magical sky fairy to tell you not to lie, cheat, steal, murder, etc, you're a bad person.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ChaosTonyV4 11/26/19 3:56:46 PM #128:	Jakyl25 posted... I can think of a couple recent second term Dems that werent all that exciting But the Presidency? --- Phantom Dust. "I'll just wait for time to prove me right again." - Vlado <cite>ChaosTonyV4 posted [p:930736755] in Politics C... [t:78196160]...</cite> <quote>Jakyl25 posted... </cite> <quote>I can think of a couple recent second term Dems that werent all that exciting</quote> But the Presidency? </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
LordoftheMorons 11/26/19 3:57:38 PM #129:	ChaosTonyV4 posted... This was 2016, my guy Well, Im not convinced that Bernie would have won either! in any case, there are definitely people who suck and will stay home/vote third party/vote for Trump if their preferred candidate doesnt win for any of the candidates. I just suspect (based on, e.g. general election polling, with the caveat that its early) that Biden would do better. I actually dont have a ton of confidence in that, but I dont think anybody else has much cause to be supremely confident either! So you might as well vote for who you want now. --- Congrats to Advokaiser for winning the CBX Guru Challenge! <cite>LordoftheMorons posted [p:930736790] in Politics C... [t:78196160]...</cite> <quote>ChaosTonyV4 posted... </cite> <quote>This was 2016, my guy</quote>Well, Im not convinced that Bernie would have won either! in any case, there are definitely people who suck and will stay home/vote third party/vote for Trump if their preferred candidate doesnt win for any of the candidates. I just suspect (based on, e.g. general election polling, with the caveat that its early) that Biden would do better. I actually dont have a ton of confidence in that, but I dont think anybody else has much cause to be supremely confident either! So you might as well vote for who you want now. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
red sox 777 11/26/19 3:58:13 PM #130:	The Democrats have won one election in the last 70 years that wasn't with someone young and exciting - and that was Carter. Kennedy, (Bill) Clinton, and Obama all fit the same mold - young and exciting. --- September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013 Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest! <cite>red sox 777 posted [p:930736811] in Politics C... [t:78196160]...</cite> <quote>The Democrats have won one election in the last 70 years that wasn't with someone young and exciting - and that was Carter. Kennedy, (Bill) Clinton, and Obama all fit the same mold - young and exciting.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
red sox 777 11/26/19 4:01:11 PM #131:	LordoftheMorons posted... ChaosTonyV4 posted... This was 2016, my guy Well, Im not convinced that Bernie would have won either! in any case, there are definitely people who suck and will stay home/vote third party/vote for Trump if their preferred candidate doesnt win for any of the candidates. I just suspect (based on, e.g. general election polling, with the caveat that its early) that Biden would do better. I actually dont have a ton of confidence in that, but I dont think anybody else has much cause to be supremely confident either! So you might as well vote for who you want now. If you never give Bernie a chance, you'll never find out if his supporters were right that he's more electable. Frankly, I would recommend not listening so much to people who were badly mistaken in 2016, and listen more to people who called that election correctly. --- September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013 Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest! <cite>red sox 777 posted [p:930736919] in Politics C... [t:78196160]...</cite> <quote>LordoftheMorons posted...</cite> <quote>ChaosTonyV4 posted... </cite> <quote>This was 2016, my guy</quote>Well, Im not convinced that Bernie would have won either! in any case, there are definitely people who suck and will stay home/vote third party/vote for Trump if their preferred candidate doesnt win for any of the candidates. I just suspect (based on, e.g. general election polling, with the caveat that its early) that Biden would do better. I actually dont have a ton of confidence in that, but I dont think anybody else has much cause to be supremely confident either! So you might as well vote for who you want now. </quote> If you never give Bernie a chance, you'll never find out if his supporters were right that he's more electable. Frankly, I would recommend not listening so much to people who were badly mistaken in 2016, and listen more to people who called that election correctly.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Jakyl25 11/26/19 4:05:53 PM #132:	https://twitter.com/alx/status/1198643746696572928?s=21 Its over Dems. Pack it up. --- Thank you, Eddie Guerrero. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DRlKR5nU8AA_v_C?format=jpg&name=large <cite>Jakyl25 posted [p:930737110] in Politics C... [t:78196160]...</cite> <quote>https://twitter.com/alx/status/1198643746696572928?s=21 Its over Dems. Pack it up.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
LordoftheMorons 11/26/19 4:08:30 PM #133:	Well my basic positions on electability are It actually is a very important factor in who the best Dem candidate is, BUT Electability is very hard to actually measure (without doing experiments, i.e. elections, which we cant do without a time machine and a bunch of parallel universes!). General election polling is better than nothing, but its not great this far out. The idea that more moderate candidates are generally more electable has some actual data backing it up, but we dont know for sure that that would hold up in these very polarized times. So my basic philosophy is to just vote for whoever you think will make the best president in the primary, and then vote for the Dem nominee regardless of who it is in the general. And youll note that Im generally arguing for Biden because I think hed make the best president of the plausible choices, not because I think hes the most electable (which, again, I do, but with high uncertainty). --- Congrats to Advokaiser for winning the CBX Guru Challenge! <cite>LordoftheMorons posted [p:930737222] in Politics C... [t:78196160]...</cite> <quote>Well my basic positions on electability are It actually is a very important factor in who the best Dem candidate is, BUTElectability is very hard to actually measure (without doing experiments, i.e. elections, which we cant do without a time machine and a bunch of parallel universes!). General election polling is better than nothing, but its not great this far out. The idea that more moderate candidates are generally more electable has some actual data backing it up, but we dont know for sure that that would hold up in these very polarized times.So my basic philosophy is to just vote for whoever you think will make the best president in the primary, and then vote for the Dem nominee regardless of who it is in the general. And youll note that Im generally arguing for Biden because I think hed make the best president of the plausible choices, not because I think hes the most electable (which, again, I do, but with high uncertainty). </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
red sox 777 11/26/19 4:11:10 PM #134:	Jakyl25 posted... https://twitter.com/alx/status/1198643746696572928?s=21 Its over Dems. Pack it up. Are those reliable? I think that is pretty much game over if they are. --- September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013 Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest! <cite>red sox 777 posted [p:930737348] in Politics C... [t:78196160]...</cite> <quote>Jakyl25 posted...</cite> <quote>https://twitter.com/alx/status/1198643746696572928?s=21 Its over Dems. Pack it up.</quote> Are those reliable? I think that is pretty much game over if they are.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
LordoftheMorons 11/26/19 4:14:56 PM #135:	red sox 777 posted... Are those reliable? I think that is pretty much game over if they are. Very obviously no Trumps overall approval rating is extremely steady. He is not simultaneously gaining slightly losing ground with white people and tripling or quadrupling his support among black people (errors for subpopulations are huge; remember that sampling error goes down like 1/sqrt(N) for a poll of N people). --- Congrats to Advokaiser for winning the CBX Guru Challenge! <cite>LordoftheMorons posted [p:930737512] in Politics C... [t:78196160]...</cite> <quote>red sox 777 posted... </cite> <quote>Are those reliable? I think that is pretty much game over if they are.</quote>Very obviously no Trumps overall approval rating is extremely steady. He is not simultaneously gaining slightly losing ground with white people and tripling or quadrupling his support among black people (errors for subpopulations are huge; remember that sampling error goes down like 1/sqrt(N) for a poll of N people). </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Nelson_Mandela 11/26/19 4:15:44 PM #136:	red sox 777 posted... Jakyl25 posted... https://twitter.com/alx/status/1198643746696572928?s=21 Its over Dems. Pack it up. Are those reliable? I think that is pretty much game over if they are. This is exactly why Biden is realistically the best shot at 2020 (though I still think he loses). Warren and Pete's elitism will absolutely repel black voters. And blacks are distrustful of white people who promise free shit if you vote for them (Bernie). Trump also has a track record of actually doing stuff for the AA community (prison reform, lowest rates of black unemployment ever, giving Tiger Woods the Medal of Freedom) and not shying away from boasting about it. --- "A more mature answer than I expected."~ Jakyl25 "Sephy's point is right."~ Inviso <cite>Nelson_Mandela posted [p:930737547] in Politics C... [t:78196160]...</cite> <quote>red sox 777 posted...</cite> <quote>Jakyl25 posted...</cite> <quote>https://twitter.com/alx/status/1198643746696572928?s=21 Its over Dems. Pack it up.</quote> Are those reliable? I think that is pretty much game over if they are.</quote> This is exactly why Biden is realistically the best shot at 2020 (though I still think he loses). Warren and Pete's elitism will absolutely repel black voters. And blacks are distrustful of white people who promise free shit if you vote for them (Bernie). Trump also has a track record of actually doing stuff for the AA community (prison reform, lowest rates of black unemployment ever, giving Tiger Woods the Medal of Freedom) and not shying away from boasting about it.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Nelson_Mandela 11/26/19 4:16:39 PM #137:	If Republicans can get >20% of the black vote, the Democrats will never win a national election again. --- "A more mature answer than I expected."~ Jakyl25 "Sephy's point is right."~ Inviso <cite>Nelson_Mandela posted [p:930737585] in Politics C... [t:78196160]...</cite> <quote>If Republicans can get >20% of the black vote, the Democrats will never win a national election again.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
red sox 777 11/26/19 4:22:20 PM #138:	LordoftheMorons posted... red sox 777 posted... Are those reliable? I think that is pretty much game over if they are. Very obviously no Trumps overall approval rating is extremely steady. He is not simultaneously gaining slightly losing ground with white people and tripling or quadrupling his support among black people (errors for subpopulations are huge; remember that sampling error goes down like 1/sqrt(N) for a poll of N people). Why would that not be a possibility? Based on my observations and internal modeling that is exactly what I would expect to happen. White support declines from pearl clutching moderates/conservatives voicing their disapproval of his lack of civility and disrespect for tradition. But I would argue the white number is not as significant because most of those people will ultimately vote Republican because they have no other options. They may disapprove of Trump and vote for him anyway. So, question time. What was GWB's approval rating among black voters? Was it substantially higher than the 8% or so he got at the polls? If he was also getting around 30% approval and that translated into the same old 8% at the polls it doesn't mean much. But if not..... Also, I looked at that Emerson poll and Trump is even or ahead of all of the Dems except Bernie, and he's only losing to Bernie by 1 point. Hillary beat Trump by 2 points and lost with some room to spare (she needed to win by almost 3 points to win the EC). If the country is more polarized now than in 2016 it's entirely possible the Dem may need to win the popular vote by as much as 4 points to win the EC this time. --- September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013 Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest! <cite>red sox 777 posted [p:930737847] in Politics C... [t:78196160]...</cite> <quote>LordoftheMorons posted...</cite> <quote>red sox 777 posted... </cite> <quote>Are those reliable? I think that is pretty much game over if they are.</quote>Very obviously no Trumps overall approval rating is extremely steady. He is not simultaneously gaining slightly losing ground with white people and tripling or quadrupling his support among black people (errors for subpopulations are huge; remember that sampling error goes down like 1/sqrt(N) for a poll of N people). </quote> Why would that not be a possibility? Based on my observations and internal modeling that is exactly what I would expect to happen. White support declines from pearl clutching moderates/conservatives voicing their disapproval of his lack of civility and disrespect for tradition. But I would argue the white number is not as significant because most of those people will ultimately vote Republican because they have no other options. They may disapprove of Trump and vote for him anyway. So, question time. What was GWB's approval rating among black voters? Was it substantially higher than the 8% or so he got at the polls? If he was also getting around 30% approval and that translated into the same old 8% at the polls it doesn't mean much. But if not..... Also, I looked at that Emerson poll and Trump is even or ahead of all of the Dems except Bernie, and he's only losing to Bernie by 1 point. Hillary beat Trump by 2 points and lost with some room to spare (she needed to win by almost 3 points to win the EC). If the country is more polarized now than in 2016 it's entirely possible the Dem may need to win the popular vote by as much as 4 points to win the EC this time.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
LordoftheMorons 11/26/19 4:25:27 PM #139:	If there really was a surge in support for Trump solely among black people, there would almost certainly be an actual concrete action that caused that surge (of which I can certainly think of none). But theres a much simpler explanation: statistical noise. --- Congrats to Advokaiser for winning the CBX Guru Challenge! <cite>LordoftheMorons posted [p:930737986] in Politics C... [t:78196160]...</cite> <quote>If there really was a surge in support for Trump solely among black people, there would almost certainly be an actual concrete action that caused that surge (of which I can certainly think of none). But theres a much simpler explanation: statistical noise. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Grimlyn 11/26/19 4:28:18 PM #140:	kan "ye" west --- https://gmun.moe/ffcc GuessMyUserName's account's very own account! <cite>Grimlyn posted [p:930738101] in Politics C... [t:78196160]...</cite> <quote>kan "ye" west</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Leafeon13N 11/26/19 4:28:40 PM #141:	Nelson_Mandela posted... If Republicans can get >20% of the black vote, the Democrats will never win a national election again. They can't. <cite>Leafeon13N posted [p:930738117] in Politics C... [t:78196160]...</cite> <quote>Nelson_Mandela posted... </cite> <quote>If Republicans can get >20% of the black vote, the Democrats will never win a national election again.</quote>They can't. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Suprak the Stud 11/26/19 4:29:55 PM #142:	Buttigiegs surge seems to be coming from growing his base of old white college educated voters to MORE old white college educated voters. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/our-poll-shows-buttigiegs-new-supporters-look-a-lot-like-his-old-ones/ --- Moops? "I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion." <cite>Suprak the Stud posted [p:930738165] in Politics C... [t:78196160]...</cite> <quote>Buttigiegs surge seems to be coming from growing his base of old white college educated voters to MORE old white college educated voters. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/our-poll-shows-buttigiegs-new-supporters-look-a-lot-like-his-old-ones/</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Xeybozn 11/26/19 4:33:23 PM #143:	Nelson_Mandela posted... If Republicans can get >20% of the black vote, the Democrats will never win a national election again. The GOP would have to stop running on covert racism to get a meaningful share of the black vote, which would lower their support among white voters by enough to cancel out the gains. --- Congrats to 2019 Guru champ Advokaiser! <cite>Xeybozn posted [p:930738307] in Politics C... [t:78196160]...</cite> <quote>Nelson_Mandela posted...</cite> <quote>If Republicans can get >20% of the black vote, the Democrats will never win a national election again.</quote> The GOP would have to stop running on covert racism to get a meaningful share of the black vote, which would lower their support among white voters by enough to cancel out the gains.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
red sox 777 11/26/19 4:34:31 PM #144:	LordoftheMorons posted... If there really was a surge in support for Trump solely among black people, there would almost certainly be an actual concrete action that caused that surge (of which I can certainly think of none). But theres a much simpler explanation: statistical noise. The Emerson poll sampled 153 black voters. That seems big enough to distinguish 8% from 35%. I ran the numbers with an online margin of error calculator, which shows 99.99% confidence that the actual value is within +/- 15% of the polling number. Even at 20% black support, that is basically game over. Also, Trump has actually and consistently tried to reach out to black voters for years. He doubled Mitt's number at the 2016 election. Since then he's achieved a lot of results with the economy and has never talked down to his supporters. --- September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013 Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest! <cite>red sox 777 posted [p:930738362] in Politics C... [t:78196160]...</cite> <quote>LordoftheMorons posted...</cite> <quote>If there really was a surge in support for Trump solely among black people, there would almost certainly be an actual concrete action that caused that surge (of which I can certainly think of none). But theres a much simpler explanation: statistical noise. </quote> The Emerson poll sampled 153 black voters. That seems big enough to distinguish 8% from 35%. I ran the numbers with an online margin of error calculator, which shows 99.99% confidence that the actual value is within +/- 15% of the polling number. Even at 20% black support, that is basically game over. Also, Trump has actually and consistently tried to reach out to black voters for years. He doubled Mitt's number at the 2016 election. Since then he's achieved a lot of results with the economy and has never talked down to his supporters.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
red sox 777 11/26/19 4:38:20 PM #145:	FWIW, I found a poll from 2005 that had black support for GWB at 16%. So double what he actually got at the polls. But 17% at the polls is probably still game over-ish. --- September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013 Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest! <cite>red sox 777 posted [p:930738519] in Politics C... [t:78196160]...</cite> <quote>FWIW, I found a poll from 2005 that had black support for GWB at 16%. So double what he actually got at the polls. But 17% at the polls is probably still game over-ish.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Jakyl25 11/26/19 4:39:35 PM #146:	If Republicans really had that much black support, they wouldnt have lost the Louisiana governorship I would be more likely to believe that white people are claiming to be black to mess with polling results --- Thank you, Eddie Guerrero. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DRlKR5nU8AA_v_C?format=jpg&name=large <cite>Jakyl25 posted [p:930738573] in Politics C... [t:78196160]...</cite> <quote>If Republicans really had that much black support, they wouldnt have lost the Louisiana governorship I would be more likely to believe that white people are claiming to be black to mess with polling results</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
LordoftheMorons 11/26/19 4:41:29 PM #147:	red sox 777 posted... The Emerson poll sampled 153 black voters. That seems big enough to distinguish 8% from 35%. I ran the numbers with an online margin of error calculator, which shows 99.99% confidence that the actual value is within +/- 15% of the polling number. Even at 20% black support, that is basically game over. Also, Trump has actually and consistently tried to reach out to black voters for years. He doubled Mitt's number at the 2016 election. Since then he's achieved a lot of results with the economy and has never talked down to his supporters. Youre assuming that all of the error is statistical, which it isnt (Im certain you could find several other polls which have Trump at single digit black support). Is it possible that other polls are underestimating Trumps black support by a few points, or that Trumps gained a few points? Sure. Is he actually above 20, let alone 30? No way in hell. --- Congrats to Advokaiser for winning the CBX Guru Challenge! <cite>LordoftheMorons posted [p:930738655] in Politics C... [t:78196160]...</cite> <quote>red sox 777 posted... </cite> <quote>The Emerson poll sampled 153 black voters. That seems big enough to distinguish 8% from 35%. I ran the numbers with an online margin of error calculator, which shows 99.99% confidence that the actual value is within +/- 15% of the polling number. Even at 20% black support, that is basically game over. Also, Trump has actually and consistently tried to reach out to black voters for years. He doubled Mitt's number at the 2016 election. Since then he's achieved a lot of results with the economy and has never talked down to his supporters.</quote>Youre assuming that all of the error is statistical, which it isnt (Im certain you could find several other polls which have Trump at single digit black support). Is it possible that other polls are underestimating Trumps black support by a few points, or that Trumps gained a few points? Sure. Is he actually above 20, let alone 30? No way in hell. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
red sox 777 11/26/19 4:50:31 PM #148:	The last polls I saw on this issue had Trump in the 15-20 area shortly after Kanye announced his support. I'm not aware of recent polling in the single digits but would be happy to look at the polls if someone wants to find them. --- September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013 Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest! <cite>red sox 777 posted [p:930739053] in Politics C... [t:78196160]...</cite> <quote>The last polls I saw on this issue had Trump in the 15-20 area shortly after Kanye announced his support. I'm not aware of recent polling in the single digits but would be happy to look at the polls if someone wants to find them.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Corrik7 11/26/19 4:52:32 PM #149:	I assume African-American support will greatly depend on who the Democratic candidate is. --- Xbox Live User Name - Corrik Currently playing: Division 2 <cite>Corrik7 posted [p:930739142] in Politics C... [t:78196160]...</cite> <quote>I assume African-American support will greatly depend on who the Democratic candidate is. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Jakyl25 11/26/19 4:53:23 PM #150:	red sox 777 posted... The last polls I saw on this issue had Trump in the 15-20 area shortly after Kanye announced his support. I'm not aware of recent polling in the single digits but would be happy to look at the polls if someone wants to find them. I cant vouch that these are accurate but I cant vouch that the other ones the dude on Twitter cited are either so shrug https://twitter.com/brand_allen/status/1199105012552609798?s=21 --- Thank you, Eddie Guerrero. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DRlKR5nU8AA_v_C?format=jpg&name=large <cite>Jakyl25 posted [p:930739186] in Politics C... [t:78196160]...</cite> <quote>red sox 777 posted...</cite> <quote>The last polls I saw on this issue had Trump in the 15-20 area shortly after Kanye announced his support. I'm not aware of recent polling in the single digits but would be happy to look at the polls if someone wants to find them.</quote> I cant vouch that these are accurate but I cant vouch that the other ones the dude on Twitter cited are either so shrug https://twitter.com/brand_allen/status/1199105012552609798?s=21</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
red sox 777 11/26/19 5:06:41 PM #151:	Jakyl25 posted... red sox 777 posted... The last polls I saw on this issue had Trump in the 15-20 area shortly after Kanye announced his support. I'm not aware of recent polling in the single digits but would be happy to look at the polls if someone wants to find them. I cant vouch that these are accurate but I cant vouch that the other ones the dude on Twitter cited are either so shrug https://twitter.com/brand_allen/status/1199105012552609798?s=21 Probably there's a lot of issues with question wording and stuff like that if there's that big a spread. But if it ends up around 15%, that's pretty good for Trump. --- September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013 Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest! <cite>red sox 777 posted [p:930739786] in Politics C... [t:78196160]...</cite> <quote>Jakyl25 posted...</cite> <quote>red sox 777 posted...</cite> <quote>The last polls I saw on this issue had Trump in the 15-20 area shortly after Kanye announced his support. I'm not aware of recent polling in the single digits but would be happy to look at the polls if someone wants to find them.</quote> I cant vouch that these are accurate but I cant vouch that the other ones the dude on Twitter cited are either so shrug https://twitter.com/brand_allen/status/1199105012552609798?s=21</quote> Probably there's a lot of issues with question wording and stuff like that if there's that big a spread. But if it ends up around 15%, that's pretty good for Trump.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 10

Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 250: Hearing Laws (+) Yeah! (+)

Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 250: Hearing Laws