It is currently Wed Sep 26, 2018 11:44 am

All times are UTC+01:00




Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 3405 posts ]  Go to page Previous 1123 124 125 126 127137 Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Aug 07, 2018 1:17 pm 
Offline
Holyman
Holyman
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 04, 2005 1:00 pm
Posts: 16114
Location: Earth
When exactly is America going to be great again?

:-?

_________________
Image

"I've finally found someone I can love - a good, clean love... without utensils" - Detective Sergeant Lieutenant Frank Drebin, Police Squad


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Aug 07, 2018 1:29 pm 
Offline
Lieutenant-Colonel
Lieutenant-Colonel
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 12:00 pm
Posts: 19367
Holyman wrote:
When exactly is America going to be great again?

:-?


Well if we define great as not kowtowing to dictators or monarchs or apologizing for everything, then we already are.

If we define great as having a stable economy with job growth, then we're really close as we're getting some economic numbers we haven't seen since George W. Bush.

If we define great as being respected in the news media...well by that metric nobody on this planet is great except maybe China because China will simply jail your ass for not writing respectful things in the news media. (What spineless cowards so-called "journalists" are these days.)

It all depends on the metric. We're better off and "greater" than we were under Obama but that's a win by default, not a win by achievement. Trump simply hasn't and isn't doing enough to be truly great by achievement. Anybody else would have been a better President and made the country greater than Obama and Hillary, Trump qualifies as "anybody else".

_________________
Ill sell ya the rope with which you shall hang yourself.
Capitalism for the Win.

PCNC and PBF live in death!


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Aug 07, 2018 2:58 pm 
Offline
Holyman
Holyman
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 04, 2005 1:00 pm
Posts: 16114
Location: Earth
Do you think President Trump should more accurately define what being "Great" actually means then?

Have you decided what your ambiguous, populist, intellectually frail slogan is going to be for your run yet?

"Who Cares If They Think We're Crazy: So Long As They Are Scared Of Us"

...Might be worth a shot.

:-??

_________________
Image



"I've finally found someone I can love - a good, clean love... without utensils" - Detective Sergeant Lieutenant Frank Drebin, Police Squad


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Aug 08, 2018 4:27 am 
Offline
Lieutenant-Colonel
Lieutenant-Colonel
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 12:00 pm
Posts: 19367
Holyman wrote:
Do you think President Trump should more accurately define what being "Great" actually means then?


Not only him.

Holyman wrote:
Have you decided what your ambiguous, populist, intellectually frail slogan is going to be for your run yet?


Nah, Slacks had a decent one earlier "Time For Tom".

And my platform isn't intellectually frail.

Beyond the Citizen's Pay Initiative, I have also a set of infrastructure bills all acronymed CRAM Acts. CRAM I being the Country Renovation And Modernization Act, a ten year plan to comprehensively overhaul the entire nation's public infrastructure from roads to railways to water to power to Internet connections to courthouses and schools and beyond. Everything gets done up in that one. CRAM II is the Community Renovation And Modernization Act, a local investment plan to buy up disused, unused, abandoned and run down properties and redevelop/refurbish them for new use or failing that, be returned to their natural state for public use. A lot of Rust Belt imagery will go away with that one.

In addition I am proposing a 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution. The current text of which is:

"No member of Congress shall serve more than 12 years in any combination of House or Senate unless a state law specifies less in which case state law takes precedent for that seat."


I may simply chop off that lastmost part for simplicity's sake.

Another idea on my agenda is I am going to propose a Traveler's Bill of Rights, a set of regulations, laws and limits to what transportation, travel and hospitality industries can do to paying customers. First on the docket is "One ticket, one seat", a complete end to the practice of overbooking.

I also intend to introduce new legislation prohibiting censorship by social media. All user-created content is to be free of any and all censorship of any kind even if said content is genuine "hate speech". If and only if said content genuinely violates a law (for example inciting a riot) can content be taken down and even then preferably only with an active warrant issued by a court. Yes I fully intend to clash with EU regulations on the issue of free speech online.

Additional topics of my platform include but are not limited to undoing gun control, expanding and extending privacy rights and ending warrantless surveillance, expanding freedom of speech beyond social media, curtailing (or at least making a mockery of) the power of mandate set precedent by Obamacare and declaring war on invasive and destructive species, for example the tamarisk and the Russian thistle aka tumbleweed.

My platform is far more complicated and robust than you may imagine.

_________________
Ill sell ya the rope with which you shall hang yourself.
Capitalism for the Win.

PCNC and PBF live in death!


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Aug 08, 2018 4:45 am 
Offline
Colonel
Colonel
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 9:42 am
Posts: 23032
SomeGuy wrote:
Holyman wrote:
Do you think President Trump should more accurately define what being "Great" actually means then?


Not only him.

Holyman wrote:
Have you decided what your ambiguous, populist, intellectually frail slogan is going to be for your run yet?


Nah, Slacks had a decent one earlier "Time For Tom".

And my platform isn't intellectually frail.

Beyond the Citizen's Pay Initiative, I have also a set of infrastructure bills all acronymed CRAM Acts. CRAM I being the Country Renovation And Modernization Act, a ten year plan to comprehensively overhaul the entire nation's public infrastructure from roads to railways to water to power to Internet connections to courthouses and schools and beyond. Everything gets done up in that one. CRAM II is the Community Renovation And Modernization Act, a local investment plan to buy up disused, unused, abandoned and run down properties and redevelop/refurbish them for new use or failing that, be returned to their natural state for public use. A lot of Rust Belt imagery will go away with that one.

In addition I am proposing a 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution. The current text of which is:

"No member of Congress shall serve more than 12 years in any combination of House or Senate unless a state law specifies less in which case state law takes precedent for that seat."


I may simply chop off that lastmost part for simplicity's sake.

Another idea on my agenda is I am going to propose a Traveler's Bill of Rights, a set of regulations, laws and limits to what transportation, travel and hospitality industries can do to paying customers. First on the docket is "One ticket, one seat", a complete end to the practice of overbooking.

I also intend to introduce new legislation prohibiting censorship by social media. All user-created content is to be free of any and all censorship of any kind even if said content is genuine "hate speech". If and only if said content genuinely violates a law (for example inciting a riot) can content be taken down and even then preferably only with an active warrant issued by a court. Yes I fully intend to clash with EU regulations on the issue of free speech online.

Additional topics of my platform include but are not limited to undoing gun control, expanding and extending privacy rights and ending warrantless surveillance, expanding freedom of speech beyond social media, curtailing (or at least making a mockery of) the power of mandate set precedent by Obamacare and declaring war on invasive and destructive species, for example the tamarisk and the Russian thistle aka tumbleweed.

My platform is far more complicated and robust than you may imagine.





It surely is a beautiful thing.








Can I bring my doggie to the white house?

_________________
Empir immoto


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Aug 08, 2018 5:30 am 
Offline
Major
Major
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2003 12:00 pm
Posts: 16185
Location: teh internet
So anyone who runs a forum or social media site is forced to leave up any random BS that trolls put on it?

It truly is a beautiful thing.


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Aug 08, 2018 7:23 am 
Offline
Major General
Major General
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2004 12:00 pm
Posts: 30977
PBFMullethunter wrote:
So anyone who runs a forum or social media site is forced to leave up any random BS that trolls put on it?


Only OP would survive.

_________________
barcelona wrote:
Pics of Someguy naked wrapped in bacon........


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Aug 08, 2018 9:03 am 
Offline
Holyman
Holyman
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 04, 2005 1:00 pm
Posts: 16114
Location: Earth
SomeGuy wrote:
Holyman wrote:
Have you decided what your ambiguous, populist, intellectually frail slogan is going to be for your run yet?


Nah, Slacks had a decent one earlier "Time For Tom".

And my platform isn't intellectually frail.


*I* know that!

I wasn’t talking about your platform, position or policies.

I was talking about a vacuous, populist slogan, which confirms peoples’ prejudices and makes them feel like the candidate (you) “gets them”.

Because 95% of the people who might vote for you, won’t even bother to read the bit you just posted about your platform, much less any more detailed and formal policy manifesto you may produce.

Voters these days aren’t really interested in the sociological and economic detail of specific policy positions.

They just want to be told that what they believe about the State of the World and why it is in that state, is right.

It’s a piece of cake really.

You won’t ever have to actually tie your slogan to any specific policies, much less deliver on anything you bombastically promise. So your slogan can be any old bullshit, just so long as the people you want to vote for you, believe that *YOU* believe *THEY* are right.

I’ve got it.

Your slogan.

“You are Right.”

Reckon you’ll get a clean sweep of all the states with that slogan.

You’re welcome.

:D

_________________
Image



"I've finally found someone I can love - a good, clean love... without utensils" - Detective Sergeant Lieutenant Frank Drebin, Police Squad


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Aug 08, 2018 1:00 pm 
Offline
Lieutenant-Colonel
Lieutenant-Colonel
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 12:00 pm
Posts: 19367
Holyman wrote:
I was talking about a vacuous, populist slogan, which confirms peoples’ prejudices and makes them feel like the candidate (you) “gets them”.

Because 95% of the people who might vote for you, won’t even bother to read the bit you just posted about your platform, much less any more detailed and formal policy manifesto you may produce.


Therein lies the problem. People have been making such vacuous promises for decades, in 2016 they were (rightfully) wary of them.

If I give more of the same, the only outcome I'll get is defeat. Instead I must convince the voters that my ideas are the better one, or barring that steer them into supporting it otherwise.

Holyman wrote:
Voters these days aren’t really interested in the sociological and economic detail of specific policy positions.

They just want to be told that what they believe about the State of the World and why it is in that state, is right.

It’s a piece of cake really.

You won’t ever have to actually tie your slogan to any specific policies, much less deliver on anything you bombastically promise. So your slogan can be any old bullshit, just so long as the people you want to vote for you, believe that *YOU* believe *THEY* are right.

I’ve got it.

Your slogan.

“You are Right.”

Reckon you’ll get a clean sweep of all the states with that slogan.

You’re welcome.

:D


Clean sweep alright, clean sweep against me. If I tailor messages around that without any attempt at explaining, convincing, persuading or engaging the voter, I'll come across as yet another elitist, yet another person with a pompous, arrogant world view.

There may be some truth to what you say, but you can never tell the voter that. At least not in the way you're phrasing it.

_________________
Ill sell ya the rope with which you shall hang yourself.
Capitalism for the Win.

PCNC and PBF live in death!


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Aug 08, 2018 1:09 pm 
Offline
Lieutenant-Colonel
Lieutenant-Colonel
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 12:00 pm
Posts: 19367
PBFMullethunter wrote:
So anyone who runs a forum or social media site is forced to leave up any random BS that trolls put on it?


More or less. After what we've seen from Farcebook, Twatter and other tech companies, absolutely none of them are trustworthy with the power of censorship.

Government is not trustworthy with the power of censorship either.

_________________
Ill sell ya the rope with which you shall hang yourself.
Capitalism for the Win.

PCNC and PBF live in death!


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Aug 08, 2018 1:17 pm 
Offline
Major General
Major General
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2004 12:00 pm
Posts: 30977
SomeGuy wrote:
PBFMullethunter wrote:
So anyone who runs a forum or social media site is forced to leave up any random BS that trolls put on it?


More or less. After what we've seen from Farcebook, Twatter and other tech companies, absolutely none of them are trustworthy with the power of censorship.

Government is not trustworthy with the power of censorship either.


So you'd be ok with someone paying to splash gay porn all over your social media experience?

_________________
barcelona wrote:
Pics of Someguy naked wrapped in bacon........


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Aug 08, 2018 1:31 pm 
Offline
Lieutenant-Colonel
Lieutenant-Colonel
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 12:00 pm
Posts: 19367
Slacks wrote:
SomeGuy wrote:
PBFMullethunter wrote:
So anyone who runs a forum or social media site is forced to leave up any random BS that trolls put on it?


More or less. After what we've seen from Farcebook, Twatter and other tech companies, absolutely none of them are trustworthy with the power of censorship.

Government is not trustworthy with the power of censorship either.


So you'd be ok with someone paying to splash gay porn all over your social media experience?


They can put it on the same page where I store my Russian collusion contacts.

:D

_________________
Ill sell ya the rope with which you shall hang yourself.
Capitalism for the Win.

PCNC and PBF live in death!


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Aug 08, 2018 2:27 pm 
Offline
Holyman
Holyman
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 04, 2005 1:00 pm
Posts: 16114
Location: Earth
SomeGuy wrote:
Holyman wrote:
I was talking about a vacuous, populist slogan, which confirms peoples’ prejudices and makes them feel like the candidate (you) “gets them”.

Because 95% of the people who might vote for you, won’t even bother to read the bit you just posted about your platform, much less any more detailed and formal policy manifesto you may produce.


Therein lies the problem. People have been making such vacuous promises for decades, in 2016 they were (rightfully) wary of them.

If I give more of the same, the only outcome I'll get is defeat. Instead I must convince the voters that my ideas are the better one, or barring that steer them into supporting it otherwise.


I'll say this just once:

In the 2016 Election Campaign, Hillary Clinton spent a lot of time explaining her positions and trying to convince the voters that her ideas were the better ones.

Donald Trump just went for vacuous and populist promises that he doesn't really care about and certainly won't deliver upon.

...

Who was it that won that Election..?

:-?

_________________
Image



"I've finally found someone I can love - a good, clean love... without utensils" - Detective Sergeant Lieutenant Frank Drebin, Police Squad


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Aug 08, 2018 4:52 pm 
Offline
Major
Major
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 3:40 pm
Posts: 16363
Holyman wrote:

I'll say this just once:

In the 2016 Election Campaign, Hillary Clinton spent a lot of time explaining her positions and trying to convince the voters that her ideas were the better ones.
:-?


The hell she did.

At best - when she wasn't calling millions of Trump supporters "deplorables" - she ran status quo, assuming a cake-walk and barely had to talk specifics on ANY policies, let alone the manifest failures of the Obama administration that were coming to light.

All Trump had to do is talk about the one issue (immigration) that both of our party's elites refuse to address.

phpBB [video]


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Aug 08, 2018 7:24 pm 
Offline
Holyman
Holyman
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 04, 2005 1:00 pm
Posts: 16114
Location: Earth
Foota wrote:
Holyman wrote:
In the 2016 Election Campaign, Hillary Clinton spent a lot of time explaining her positions and trying to convince the voters that her ideas were the better ones.


The hell she did.

At best - when she wasn't calling millions of Trump supporters "deplorables" - she ran status quo, assuming a cake-walk and barely had to talk specifics on ANY policies, let alone the manifest failures of the Obama administration that were coming to light.

All Trump had to do is talk about the one issue (immigration) that both of our party's elites refuse to address.


Glad you agree with me with regards Trump.

As for your refutation of my point about Clinton:

In order for your assertion to have any validity, you must have watched, listened to and/or read all or most of what Hillary Clinton said and wrote in Public, whilst on the Campaign Trail.

And I'll bet you didn't.

I'll bet the only bits of Clinton's Campaign that you actually watched, were those that were replayed (to disparaging effect) on Fox News.

Come to that... I'll bet you didn't watch/read a great deal of what Trump had to say on the Campaign Trail either.

But then you didn't need to with Trump, 'cos like you say, Trump campaigned on a single issue, and you could learn all Trump thought and knew about that issue in less than a minute.

(Incidentally: where the fuck is Hunter S. Thompson when you *REALLY* need him..?!?)

Point being that you did *NOT* closely follow the Clinton Campaign, nor watch the endless rounds of fawning interviews given her by MSDNC and other friendly broadcasters.

In fact, I reckon it's a fair bet that I watched and listened to Hillary's performance in 2016 more closely than you did, despite the obvious fact that I would never have the opportunity to not vote for her...

And I'm telling you: she was like a fucking android.

Totally charmless technocrat, holding her nose whilst having to rub shoulders with the masses, and falling back on the only thing she knows how to do in public: patronise and condescend.

My point to SG was that Clinton spent 2016 trying to explain what she believed (still believes?) was in all Americans' best interests, to Americans.

And those Americans who were always going to vote for Clinton didn't listen.

And those Americans who were never going to vote for Clinton didn't listen.

And those Americans who were thinking about voting for her, were too busy listening (aghast) to what Trump was saying, to listen to Clinton.

No-one listened to Clinton.

Everyone listened to Trump: *ESPECIALLY* those who were never going to vote for him.

And Trump won.

Just sayin' it's an Electoral Strategy that SomeGuy should really consider.

If it got Trump into the White House, why shouldn't it get SG in the Top Seat?

:-??

_________________
Image



"I've finally found someone I can love - a good, clean love... without utensils" - Detective Sergeant Lieutenant Frank Drebin, Police Squad


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Aug 09, 2018 2:27 am 
Offline
Lieutenant-Colonel
Lieutenant-Colonel
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 12:00 pm
Posts: 19367
Foota, Holyman, consider for a minute that you're both right. Hillary has nothing but contempt and sneering at regular folks and speaks worse than an android. On the flipside she was also pushing bad ideas, poorly explaining them and worst of all of that, she had absolutely no convictions or beliefs in any ideas other than that she was entitled to be President, that it was "her turn". She ran everything off focus groups and (inaccurate) polling. She changed platforms more often than most folks change shoes. In 2016 she was berating Bernie Sanders' platform one month (because she had to be against him in a rigged primary), then by the Convention, she's all but embraced the very same things she was denigrating and doing a very piss poor job of communicating it.

With a spineless, contemptuous, elitist nature like that, was it a surprise nobody trusted her? That she failed to inspire masses of people to counteract the "obviously racist" Donald Trump?

Trump may not have much of an agenda or competence or ideas in general, but at least "Build the wall!" was one of the few consistent things about the 2016 election. People like consistency, that's one of the reasons they turned against Hillary. They also like leadership, which populist stances such as Trump's frequently fail to have. Combine both and the means to convey your message clearly to people and they'll queue up behind you in great numbers.

Besides, I don't want a repeat of 2016 with a popular vote loss but electoral vote win. I want a commanding win with a plurality of both popular vote and electoral. At minimum this means I pull a 2004, ideally I'd pull a 1984. (And no I'm not meaning George Orwell. :D )

I won't achieve a Reagan landslide just endlessly repeating "You were right".

_________________
Ill sell ya the rope with which you shall hang yourself.
Capitalism for the Win.

PCNC and PBF live in death!


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Aug 09, 2018 2:42 am 
Offline
Colonel
Colonel
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 9:42 am
Posts: 23032
Build a wall was a viable context for hiring this cunt of a president?





Really?



You will reap what you sow..


This will go down in the history books as the lulz time of times.. For it was all a big fat joke.

_________________
Empir immoto


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Aug 09, 2018 2:55 am 
Offline
Lieutenant-Colonel
Lieutenant-Colonel
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 12:00 pm
Posts: 19367
barcelona wrote:
Build a wall was a viable context for hiring this cunt of a president?


You tell me Mr. Brexit.

_________________
Ill sell ya the rope with which you shall hang yourself.
Capitalism for the Win.

PCNC and PBF live in death!


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Aug 09, 2018 3:43 am 
Offline
Colonel
Colonel
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 9:42 am
Posts: 23032
SomeGuy wrote:
barcelona wrote:
Build a wall was a viable context for hiring this cunt of a president?


You tell me Mr. Brexit.



I didn't vote for Brexit... I'm a remainer....

_________________
Empir immoto


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Aug 09, 2018 10:19 am 
Offline
Holyman
Holyman
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 04, 2005 1:00 pm
Posts: 16114
Location: Earth
SomeGuy wrote:
Foota, Holyman, consider for a minute that you're both right. Hillary has nothing but contempt and sneering at regular folks and speaks worse than an android.


Yup. I think Foota & I are more or less on the same page here, with regards Clinton.

I was just pulling him up on his assertion that Hillary didn’t spend most of her time on the Campaign Trail reading expensively prepared scripts that detailed her policy positions.

SomeGuy wrote:
On the flipside she was also pushing bad ideas, poorly explaining them and worst of all of that, she had absolutely no convictions or beliefs in any ideas other than that she was entitled to be President, that it was "her turn".


True dat.

SomeGuy wrote:
She ran everything off focus groups and (inaccurate) polling. She changed platforms more often than most folks change shoes. In 2016 she was berating Bernie Sanders' platform one month (because she had to be against him in a rigged primary), then by the Convention, she's all but embraced the very same things she was denigrating and doing a very piss poor job of communicating it.


Aye. She embraced the strategies and tactics that all Careerist Politicians have been using for the last couple of decades.

SomeGuy wrote:
With a spineless, contemptuous, elitist nature like that, was it a surprise nobody trusted her? That she failed to inspire masses of people to counteract the "obviously racist" Donald Trump?


She “inspired” more Americans to vote for her than Donald Trump did.

Her defeat was down to the fact that she should have walked it against the “obviously racist” Trump (though not because Trump is a racist: most Americans, including Clinton, are so hyper-nationalist they might as well be racist).

3 million more Americans voted for Clinton though, than voted for Trump.

If she’d just got those 110,000 people in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania “inspired” enough to vote for her: your current President would actually have a vagina, rather than just being one…

SomeGuy wrote:
Trump may not have much of an agenda or competence or ideas in general, but at least "Build the wall!" was one of the few consistent things about the 2016 election. People like consistency, that's one of the reasons they turned against Hillary. They also like leadership, which populist stances such as Trump's frequently fail to have. Combine both and the means to convey your message clearly to people and they'll queue up behind you in great numbers.


Agreed.

But that’s my whole point.

Trump just banged on about “The Wall”, without having much to say about anything else.

And 18 months into his Presidency, not a single brick has been placed, and it’s not looking like any will be before Trump is up for re-election.

So the Recipe for Success:

Just keep reiterating the same “policy” – a “policy” that is solely intended to confirm the worst prejudices people have – throughout your campaign; and when you win, you only have to blame all the people you just beat to the White House for not letting you deliver on your policy promise.

Job done!

Besides, I don't want a repeat of 2016 with a popular vote loss but electoral vote win. I want a commanding win with a plurality of both popular vote and electoral. At minimum this means I pull a 2004, ideally I'd pull a 1984. (And no I'm not meaning George Orwell. :D )

SomeGuy wrote:
I won't achieve a Reagan landslide just endlessly repeating "You were right".


Hmm… Alright, try this:

“Whatever you think is wrong with America, and the World: you are absolutely right!!”

B-)

_________________
Image



"I've finally found someone I can love - a good, clean love... without utensils" - Detective Sergeant Lieutenant Frank Drebin, Police Squad


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Aug 09, 2018 1:12 pm 
Offline
Lieutenant-Colonel
Lieutenant-Colonel
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 12:00 pm
Posts: 19367
Holyman wrote:
She “inspired” more Americans to vote for her than Donald Trump did.


Not before the West Coast results came in. Before they started counting California, Hawaii, Oregon and Washington, Trump led on all categories.

Which means, she ran up the score in a liberal stronghold somehow thinking it would overturn any undesirable results in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan and more. A very scenario the Electoral College was designed to prevent! A small (but populous) area of the country dictating to all the rest.

_________________
Ill sell ya the rope with which you shall hang yourself.
Capitalism for the Win.

PCNC and PBF live in death!


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Aug 09, 2018 1:15 pm 
Offline
Major General
Major General
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2004 12:00 pm
Posts: 30977
She was still a more popular choice for President than Trump though.

_________________
barcelona wrote:
Pics of Someguy naked wrapped in bacon........


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Aug 09, 2018 1:37 pm 
Offline
Holyman
Holyman
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 04, 2005 1:00 pm
Posts: 16114
Location: Earth
SomeGuy wrote:
Holyman wrote:
She “inspired” more Americans to vote for her than Donald Trump did.


Not before the West Coast results came in. Before they started counting California, Hawaii, Oregon and Washington, Trump led on all categories.

Which means, she ran up the score in a liberal stronghold somehow thinking it would overturn any undesirable results in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan and more. A very scenario the Electoral College was designed to prevent! A small (but populous) area of the country dictating to all the rest.


Did more Americans vote for Hillary Clinton in the (whole) 2016 Election than for Donald Trump?

Did more Americans *WANT* to vote for Hillary than wanted to vote for Trump?

I mean... I follow your thinking and all that...

I once raced Hussein Bolt in a 100m sprint.

For the first 4.5 inches of the race, I was in the lead.

Which means Bolt only beat me because he picked up some momentum towards the end of the race.

Doesn't really count though, does it?

>&8~

_________________
Image



"I've finally found someone I can love - a good, clean love... without utensils" - Detective Sergeant Lieutenant Frank Drebin, Police Squad


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Aug 09, 2018 2:35 pm 
Offline
Lieutenant-Colonel
Lieutenant-Colonel
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 12:00 pm
Posts: 19367
Holyman wrote:
Did more Americans vote for Hillary Clinton in the (whole) 2016 Election than for Donald Trump?


In the whole yes, but context is important. Otherwise you're assuming uniform distribution of votes when and where there is none. The Brexit vote didn't go 50-50 in Gibraltar, they were all but unanimous in saying Remain. Instead it was other areas, large swathes of territory coming together to counteract the tiny specks of land called cities thinking they could dictate. Likewise large swathes of territory came together to counteract Hillary at the Electoral level by circumventing the large coastal cities. It wasn't a 50-50 + 1 vote in Ohio, it solidly went for Trump and that isn't counteracted by running a 65% win margin in California. Same with Pennsylvania and Michigan and Wisconsin, all three of those are not overturned by a 65% win margin in California. But at the Electoral level, win those four states and you have more Electoral votes than whatever score you ran up in California even if the number of votes in California outnumbered all 4 combined. A wide swath of territory coming together to counteract the cities, just like Brexit.

Holyman wrote:
Did more Americans *WANT* to vote for Hillary than wanted to vote for Trump?


Given what we've seen since the election, Hillary's fall from grace into whinging and blaming, politicians running away from the Clinton Political Machine (especially with the MeToo thing pinning horndog Bill on it), and Trump....well he's not popular if we go by polls, but he's steady, well if we go by all that....

...more Americans didn't *WANT* to vote for Hillary after all, perhaps it was more voting against Trump.

_________________
Ill sell ya the rope with which you shall hang yourself.
Capitalism for the Win.

PCNC and PBF live in death!


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Aug 09, 2018 2:37 pm 
Offline
Major General
Major General
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2004 12:00 pm
Posts: 30977
Slacks wrote:
She was still a more popular choice for President than Trump though.

_________________
barcelona wrote:
Pics of Someguy naked wrapped in bacon........


Top
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 3405 posts ]  Go to page Previous 1123 124 125 126 127137 Next

All times are UTC+01:00


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited