01-20-2016 10:24 PM
#751
| |
| |
01-20-2016 10:58 PM
#752
| |
|
he doesn't use every sjw tactic in the book, but he likes playing the victim and vilifying his opposition in obscene fashion whenever he can. |
01-21-2016 09:44 AM
#753
| |
It's not really playing the victim when you really are the victim. It's like a boy who cries wolf situation en masse where so many people have "played the victim" without actually being a victim that it's a knee-jerk reaction to look down on anyone who actually is a victim. | |
| |
01-21-2016 06:12 PM
#754
| |
|
the scenarios where trump plays victim are typically when he is not a victim. his responses are self-serving fabrications. his response to the ny values thing perfectly illustrates this. his version of victimhood as well as vilification of the opposition have a special twinge of self-serving hypocrisy greater than is typical of others. every thing he has said this cycle, virtually without exception, is contradictory to things he said many years ago or just a couple years ago or even just a few days ago. |
01-21-2016 06:43 PM
#755
| |
|
earlier i said a trump presidency would not be revolutionary; i stick to that. but what would be revolutionary is a trump gop nomination. the reason for this is that trump is very antagonistic to just about every conservative value you can think of and highly favorable to every left liberal value you can think of. the only reason he has popularity is it just so happens that angry authoritarians who try to think about politics as little as possible have recently transitioned into the republican party, so it's in there that trump resonates. |
01-21-2016 06:50 PM
#756
| |
|
sobering perspective on trump by an economist and libertarian: |
01-21-2016 07:07 PM
#757
| |
|
on the spectrum the west has been operating under for a a few centuries now (classical-liberal market-capitalist individualism britain/america vs left-liberal socialist fascist state-stoicism italy/russia/france), trump is the latter by a lot. |
01-22-2016 06:23 PM
#758
| |
|
ive applied some more thought to it. even if trump wins both iowa and new hampshire, cruz could still be the hidden favorite to win the nomination. cruz's camp knows this too. the reason is that if cruz can finish second behind trump, after the first few states, it will knock everybody else out, and a large majority of their supporters will back cruz instead of trump. so far, trump has had a ceiling in all hypothetical heads up nomination polls of middling-low forties. |
01-22-2016 06:38 PM
#759
| |
|
i found some pro-trump sites for the purpose of trying to understand what goes through the minds of those who like him. three main things have jumped out: (1) they consistently mis-identify conservatism as republicanism, just like how the left mis-identifies trump support as conservatism. (2) they have no coherent ideology other than nationalism wielded by a strongman. (3) they take pride in how little they understand/care about/pay attention to politics. you'd think they would take this as a sign that their opinions are foolish, but no, they're mad that politics is even a thing in the first place. they view obama as a king and think the solution is a different king. |
01-22-2016 06:56 PM
#760
| |
|
spoon soon to de-endorse trump im sure |
01-22-2016 08:10 PM
#761
| |
| |
01-22-2016 08:17 PM
#762
| |
|
0% chance. |
01-22-2016 11:07 PM
#763
| |
I swear that you keep reaching and reaching for reasons to try to convince yourself that Trump is going to lose, and it's just not there. | |
| |
01-22-2016 11:27 PM
#764
| |
I want trump to lose. | |
01-23-2016 01:19 AM
#765
| |
|
you have presented exactly zero counters to any evaluation ive made on the strengths, weaknesses, and meanings of the data and logic. there are mountains of reasons why trump winning the nomination would be strange (a minority of his support comes from republicans for fuck's sake) and you're telling me im wrong because my statements don't agree with the ten second chatter. |
Last edited by wufwugy; 01-23-2016 at 01:39 AM. | |
01-23-2016 01:38 AM
#766
| |
|
i mean look at this. how in the shitting shit is this guy going to win the republican nomination when his support is made up of ~29% republicans and 43% democrats? is the wisdom now that the republican party isn't even republican anymore? if trump wins this nomination with these kinds of numbers, it basically means that the republican base isn't even the base (a paradox). |
01-23-2016 02:04 AM
#767
| |
|
I disagree. Trump's strategy is his doom. You know why he gets his ass kicked in head to head polls against Cruz or Rubio? Because everybody who isn't already on Trump's wagon fucking hates his guts because he has done nothing but lie and belittle everybody else. When Carson drops out, do you think his supporters will go to Trump? Fat fucking chance. When Bush goes, are his supporters becoming Trumpkins? No fucking way. If Rubio or Cruz go, their supporters will go to the other. |
Last edited by wufwugy; 01-23-2016 at 02:29 AM. | |
01-23-2016 07:04 AM
#768
| |
| |
01-23-2016 02:43 PM
#769
| |
|
there are plenty of politicians who are not, yet they have difficulty changing the system partly due to the view from some voters that politics is nothing but a corrupt monolith. |
01-23-2016 04:03 PM
#770
| |
| |
01-23-2016 08:20 PM
#771
| |
And Trump's lead continues to grow in Iowa and the rest of the United States. | |
| |
01-24-2016 01:15 PM
#772
| |
|
we're going to find out who wins the nomination based on who between cruz and rubio get the majority of the fallout vote from carson and bush. im giving trump a 15% chance to win based on a small possibility that he doesn't gain just the tiny amount that he should be expected to gain and the not as small chance that cruz and rubio both stay in the race for a while. many of the later states are northeast and may actually give trump a majority heads up, but if it's down to trump vs cruz or trump vs rubio immediately after the sec primary results, trump should lose. |
01-24-2016 01:19 PM
#773
| |
|
his lead hasn't grown, it has remained constant. |
01-24-2016 01:29 PM
#774
| |
|
this would drastically change if trump showed enough hu strength. then, the only chance he could lose would be by way of a conservative shy tory effect. id put trump at >70% under the circumstance of strong hu results. |
01-24-2016 01:53 PM
#775
| |
|
actually it does appear that trump has gained some iowa ground and cruz lost a little after trump major endorsed increasing ethanol subsidies and cruz stood his ground in denying cronyism. this should have collapsed trump's support outside of ethanol farmers, but ofc it wouldn't since people love doing the wrong thing. |
01-24-2016 01:57 PM
#776
| |
|
gonna be amazing when he underperforms his polls by 10% due terrible ground game and everybody sees trump is little other than a medium-talent manager and peak-talent narcissist. |
01-24-2016 02:13 PM
#777
| |
/ is what growth looks like | |
| |
01-24-2016 02:17 PM
#778
| |
|
do you think that president trump won't do what he says he'll do? |
01-24-2016 02:20 PM
#779
| |
| |
01-24-2016 02:28 PM
#780
| |
|
40% chance trump and hillary planned this. |
01-24-2016 03:05 PM
#781
| |
You're up to 90210%. | |
| |
01-24-2016 05:11 PM
#782
| |
|
politics can be both trivial entertainment and a vehicle to make lives better. |
01-24-2016 05:44 PM
#783
| |
lol what did Cruz do? | |
| |
01-24-2016 06:34 PM
#784
| |
|
538's polls-plus forecast is probably more accurate. i think it underestimates cruz's win probability as well. it doesn't account for caucus realities. history shows that the evangelical candidate can expect up to like 20% jump in actual results above the polls. |
01-24-2016 06:49 PM
#785
| |
|
if trump wins, we should be seriously looking at a theory that the media picks the nominees (and the president). the conservative base hates him, yet half the conservative media (mainly rush) are deflecting their own principles in supporting the most conservative candidate possible and giving trump a pass because of ratings. the national media is doing the same thing. a trump nomination would be the best possible thing for the media elite, and they know it. |
01-24-2016 07:08 PM
#786
| |
|
cruz's iowa strategy mirrors what has worked in the past. it's not just the ground game, but in not going negative. iowa caucus-goers historically punish the hell out of candidates who haven't stuck to the ground and who have gone off message of their own quality policies and who have spent too much time on the attack. this probably has to do with the fact that the caucus includes rallies of people discussing their own selections. this weights heavily towards the devoted with a strong message. i wouldnt be surprised to see a meltdown of trump support at the caucus along these lines, as his supporters will not have much ammunition for their candidate and will end up learning more about other candidates than from the entire time leading up to feb 1. |
01-24-2016 07:17 PM
#787
| |
|
that said, it really could be that the ball was dropped already on the effective way to attack trump and he'll cruise to victory. too many candidates, too focused on beating out other candidates, none able to focus energies on the leftist running way with their nomination. |
01-24-2016 07:46 PM
#788
| |
| |
01-24-2016 07:57 PM
#789
| |
|
o dat bernie |
01-24-2016 08:03 PM
#790
| |
| |
01-24-2016 08:26 PM
#791
| |
|
steve deace explains why the latest round of iowa polls likely do not remotely represent reality. |
Last edited by wufwugy; 01-24-2016 at 08:35 PM. | |
01-24-2016 08:28 PM
#792
| |
| |
01-24-2016 08:42 PM
#793
| |
|
iowa gop registrations are down too. on logistics alone, it's not possible for all those new voters to come out for trump. day-of registrations take time. trumpkins will be the first of any to use any excuse to not make their monday afternoon-night all about the cold and the stress. |
01-24-2016 08:54 PM
#794
| |
I'm busy watching the Royal Rumble. | |
| |
01-25-2016 12:49 AM
#795
| |
I don't see the problem. It is an unregulated company with serious problems, that doesn't mean it's unusable. They're in the middle of several lawsuits, not including those with taxi companies, and it's largely due to the company's failure to train it's drivers. | |
Last edited by JKDS; 01-25-2016 at 12:52 AM. | |
01-25-2016 12:49 AM
#796
| |
This says pretty much nothing about Bernie Sanders. His campaign, as a whole, relies on Uber. It is not beyond reasonable doubt to think that Sanders is not aware of every bit of minutiae within his campaign. I'll admit its a great headline, but to actually pretend it's substantive is laughable. | |
01-25-2016 12:53 AM
#797
| |
First, bitch | |
01-25-2016 07:16 AM
#798
| |
Oh god, it's an unregulated company, we better swoop in and regulate the fuck out of it so that we can save everyone from their unregulated selves. Typical liberal approach to everything. How about Bernie Sanders regulates deez nuts? Go over to Sweden, the country you're just in fucking love with, and get buttfucked in the ass by a pack of wild jihads and see how that works out for you. | |
| |
01-25-2016 12:36 PM
#799
| |
|
It is regulated, just less so than taxis. |
01-25-2016 12:41 PM
#800
| |
|
On top of that, the level quality assurance creation Uber has undergone in just a couple years is substantially higher than anything it could have gotten through government regulation. |
01-25-2016 01:31 PM
#801
| |
|
btw i hope you guys know i don't intend to attack sanders' character. i believe he is a good person with good intentions. but policy differences are fair. this can be muddied since a lot of the time people equate intentions and outcomes. the history of bad policy is painted with noble intentions. |
01-25-2016 08:15 PM
#802
| |
Still don't see why his use of uber is some kind of gaff. | |
01-25-2016 08:33 PM
#803
| |
| |
01-25-2016 09:21 PM
#804
| |
|
The point is that Sanders benefits from something that he could not benefit from if his policies had already been enacted. A secondary point I made was how capitalism is so resilient that even though Sanders' camp doesn't agree with the policies that allow something like Uber to emerge and flourish, they don't realize this, and even if they did, their pocketbook decisions do not reflect their philosophies. |
Last edited by wufwugy; 01-25-2016 at 09:24 PM. | |
01-25-2016 09:40 PM
#805
| |
|
To the point that the issue may be too small beans for somebody in Sanders' position, I disagree. Uber is a big deal in the world of political economics. A few months ago when it was getting lots of press, Jeb Bush came out hard against proposed regulations on Uber, saying all the things consistent with principles of microeconomics. Politicians can know this stuff. It's just not up Sanders' alley since his organized constituency (mainly unions) do not directly benefit from competitive markets and they hold the view that all markets work better when the government monopoly intervenes. |
01-25-2016 09:48 PM
#806
| |
|
Even then, monopoly-government intervention into economies of scale like Boeing is still contradictory to the fundamental principles of economics. It's just that it's easier to justify it if you wanted to, which is what a lot of Keynesian economists have done, probably because the field of macroeconomics from its very inception never confronted the idea that government itself is a monopoly subjected to the same supply and demand laws as any other market actors. |
Last edited by wufwugy; 01-25-2016 at 09:54 PM. | |
01-25-2016 10:20 PM
#807
| |
|
if donny boy wins iowa after this ad, the end has come |
01-25-2016 10:22 PM
#808
| |
|
his delivery on "how stupid are the people of iowa?" is key and peele level awesome. |
01-26-2016 08:48 AM
#809
| |
It'll just boost his poll numbers even higher. | |
| |
01-26-2016 10:23 AM
#810
| |
In response to the Sanders/Uber stuff: | |
01-26-2016 06:28 PM
#811
| |
|
Here's an analogy that shows my perspective: say there's a politician who eats corn (and calls doing so a net good) yet supports policies that, if enacted, would deter the consumers' ability to choose to consume corn. This strikes me as a not fully thought through position. |
Last edited by wufwugy; 01-26-2016 at 06:31 PM. | |
01-26-2016 08:06 PM
#812
| |
I fell like you're assuming this is some kind or relationship built out of necessity...biting the hand that feeds kind of thing. | |
01-26-2016 08:12 PM
#813
| |
|
I get the "biting hand that feeds" thing, because in a sense I think it is, but I don't get the "relationship built of necessity" thing. It is possible to get a pass when in a situation "built of necessity" even when it's hypocritical on the surface. This is why I added "and calls doing so a net good". The reason it's possible to get a pass is because governmental policies create environments where any individual who doesn't take advantage of them would suffer more than if his same decision was in an environment that the government hadn't created. Still, that should not have bearing against support for new legislation to overturn the governmental policy and be rid of the perverse incentive in the first place. |
01-26-2016 08:41 PM
#814
| |
|
trump's campaign chief saying he's definitely skipping thursday's debate. one can only hope. it would be such a huge mistake and hopefully the other candidates won't even mention his name on stage. |
01-26-2016 08:45 PM
#815
| |
|
it makes me wonder if trump's campaign all this time has truly been about kingmaking (plus publicity ofc). |
01-26-2016 08:54 PM
#816
| |
|
or it could be that trump knows that he is going to get absolutely SKUNKED at the debate, so it'll be even less of a mistake to skip it altogether. still, the right decision is to do the debate and fix your shit so you don't get skunked. |
01-26-2016 09:19 PM
#817
| |
|
http://theresurgent.com/what-a-wimp-...utin-and-isis/ |
01-26-2016 09:27 PM
#818
| |
Trump's move to skip the last debate right before Iowa is the perfect play. It's a move that plays right into the strategy that he had exhibited from the beginning, and his absence is going to hang over the entire debate and court more attention than he could have ever gotten by showing up. It also shows that he doesn't care because he's so far ahead that it doesn't matter, which also fits into the persona he has used in his campaign. | |
| |
01-26-2016 09:31 PM
#819
| |
|
if the candidates on stage opt to discuss trump a whole bunch, then yes, it could end up being the right move. but if nobody is that dumb, all it really does is give everybody watching it reason to support one of the candidates on stage instead of trump. |
01-26-2016 09:42 PM
#820
| |
|
granted i give it a 70% chance that this is what's really going on |
01-26-2016 09:44 PM
#821
| |
I think it's brilliant. Two days before a debate, while everyone has already worked overtime to prepare for it and try to take his spot away...he's suddenly gone. | |
01-26-2016 09:55 PM
#822
| |
|
the thing is that so many voters are truly uninformed. a good 10% will think that trump isn't running anymore just because they don't see him on the stage. |
01-26-2016 10:14 PM
#823
| |
Not a chance. The only people who watch debates are people who are at least somewhat informed, and the media has already made sure that they know trump wont be there. | |
01-26-2016 10:19 PM
#824
| |
|
a good deal of people dont keep up to date but do watch debates. |
01-26-2016 10:21 PM
#825
| |
|
being at the debate also gives a needed air of legitimacy. brushing over that hasn't been tried yet. i would advise against it, but im not always right (not always!) |