This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Alternative Facts
Pages: 1 ... 313233 3435 ... 306
961
« on: November 04, 2016, 04:04:09 PM »
Where does everyone stand on this issue? With the current political climate, the US may as well be a one party system if either DC or Puerto Rico were to gain statehood. How exactly would the government go about accepting them as US states without royally fucking up the political balance?
I support the statehood of both, and disagree with your notion that the Government has to attempt to maintain the political balance in terms of that statehood.
962
« on: November 04, 2016, 03:59:09 PM »
Keep in mind that I'm only registered to the GOP because I wanted to vote in primaries and it was going to be a cold day in Hell before I registered with a party that hates me just for existing.
Which party hates you for existing?
963
« on: November 04, 2016, 03:58:06 PM »
I think the Democrats', um...commitment to a singular goal (to put it nicely) and apparent strength, has helped them avoid fracturing like the Republicans.
I'd also disagree with this notion that Democrats are working toward a single goal (At least beyond electing Clinton)
Yeah, that's the goal that they're working towards and have clearly been doing so for quite some time.
Problem is, once that goal is achieved, there's nothing that the Democratic Party is really working towards. At least not as a whole.
964
« on: November 04, 2016, 03:39:49 PM »
The Republicans are definitely weaker, and have been on a slow collapse for over a decade,
On a national level, I'd agree. Paul Ryan's role to try and reunify Congressional Republicans has been a complete failure - in part due to the rise of Trump. However, outside of DC, I'd argue that the Republican Party is (arguably) seeing a slight resurgence in terms of staying power and influence. I think the Democrats', um...commitment to a singular goal (to put it nicely) and apparent strength, has helped them avoid fracturing like the Republicans.
I'd also disagree with this notion that Democrats are working toward a single goal (At least beyond electing Clinton)
965
« on: November 04, 2016, 03:28:03 PM »
PSU the only person who would argue the Democratic Party is weaker. Maybe Ian.
Was actually me, to a degree
966
« on: November 04, 2016, 03:20:20 PM »
I was having this discussion the other night with a couple of people, and the general consensus seemed to be that the Republican Party is, arguably, the weaker of the two - that it would be the first to split off into smaller sects (Trump Republicans/Ryan Republicans/Paul Republicans), and has yet to heal divisions created during the Bush years.
But at the same time, the Democratic Party is facing it's own issues - namely that the coalition it's formed is fragmenting due to issues from the 2016 primary, and with no state wide candidates who can step up and take control, is likely to face similar issues as Republicans are now.
So yeah. Let's hear your thoughts
967
« on: November 03, 2016, 08:31:06 AM »
why is logic put at a higher pedistel than emotion?
the two concepts go hand in hand in the very end
At least you have THIS guy on your side, Turkey. Feel good about that?
He's right though. Emotionless writing of any kind comes off as soulless, disinteresting and far less likely to persuade your reader to your stance/argument/belief.
968
« on: November 02, 2016, 11:05:19 PM »
Fuck Chicago
969
« on: November 02, 2016, 01:39:26 PM »
Hes going to win wisconsin, Virgina
Based on?
970
« on: November 02, 2016, 10:11:02 AM »
>it's good if Clinton wins by technicality
>it was god-awful when Bush won by technicality Winning the popular vote, but not the electoral college (Or vice versa) isn't really a technicality. That would be "Well, these 600 ballots had Gore's name misspelled, so he can't claim them to win"
971
« on: November 02, 2016, 09:45:24 AM »
Due you think Clinton still has a good chance of winning despite this Anthony Weiner thing?
She's ahead in early voting in states that she needs to win - and by margins that align with what polls are predicting her win at. However, the African American vote has fallen since 2008 and 2012 and enthusiasm among Democrats is down. Good chance? Yes. Definite chance? No.
972
« on: November 01, 2016, 02:20:11 PM »
I'd also like to point out that this ABC poll has been tightening for a while, from a 12 point difference, to a 4, to now a tie. Way before this story broke loose.
Not a real surprise - there's been a larger percentage of undecided voters sitting on the fence for a longer time this election. 
973
« on: November 01, 2016, 02:08:40 PM »
Problem for Trump is that this is a national poll, and he's still losing in the must-win states. Clinton is bound to win every state that has voted Democratic since 1992, which includes California, Connecticut, D.C., Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin. That gives her 221 Electoral Votes, as shown on the map.  Pennsylvania, a battleground state, has also voted Democratic (Thanks to the suburbs of Philly) since 1992 and is a state Trump has yet to lead a single time in. Adding their 20 brings Clinton to 241. Virginia, home to VP Tim Kaine, voted Democrat in 2008 and 2012 - and Clinton Has a 6 point lead there, thanks to Arlington//Alexandria and other northern cities around DC. Their 13 votes bring Clinton up to 254. Colorado is a moderately Democratic state, and Clinton has lead by an average of 5 points since the start of October. The two polls done since Comey's announcement do show a narrow lead of 1-3 points, but hasn't seem to elevate Trump's chances. Assuming early vote tracking is accurate, Clinton would carry their 9 votes to 263. Even if Colorado were to go Republican, New Mexico's latino population (and 5 electoral votes) would also put Clinton over the top when matched with the others. North Carolina is really going to be the deciding vote, and again, Clinton is up 6 points, 47-41 - even with the ABC/WaPo poll data included. Clinton's support among minority voters - specifically the large African American vote and early voters - is holding up her poll numbers - and would put her over the edge with 278 electoral votes.  If Donald Trump wants any chance at winning, he has to pick off North Carolina and Michigan/Wisconsin - and polling shows that he is failing in those states. At best, you're looking at an outcome similar to 2000 - Trump wins the popular vote, but Clinton wins the electoral college
974
« on: October 28, 2016, 01:32:30 PM »
Don't toy with my heart like this.
Standard practice. Move along.
975
« on: October 28, 2016, 01:08:00 PM »
He already confirmed 2,000 classified emails went through her server. This won't lead to anything.
Criminally, likely not. But Clinton's polling numbers took big hits in July when Comey made their announcement then. For Trump and GOP candidates in the down ballot races, this is what they've been hoping for.
976
« on: October 28, 2016, 12:58:01 PM »
StoryThe FBI has reopened its investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server as secretary of state, director James Comey said Friday.
“In connection with an unrelated case, the FBI has learned of the existence of emails that appear to be pertinent to this investigation,” Comey wrote in a letter to several House committee chairmen.
Comey was briefed on those emails on Thursday, he wrote, and said he “agreed that the FBI should take appropriate investigative steps” to “determine whether they include classified information” and otherwise “assess their importance to our investigation.”
He did not specify where the additional emails came from.
In July, Comey said the FBI was not recommending charges against Clinton, saying “no reasonable prosecutor” would bring such a case. But he did chastise her for being “extremely careless” in her handling of sensitive information. The controversy over Clinton’s use of the server, reported for the first time by The New York Times in March 2015, has dogged her presidential run since its beginning.
Comey wrote on Friday that the FBI does not yet know if the new material is “significant” and did not specify a timeframe for investigating.
The news comes less than two weeks before Election Day and has the potential to change the dynamic of the race, in which Clinton had pulled away from Donald Trump. The Clinton campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Trump's campaign manager, Kellyanne Conway, immediately celebrated the news. "A great day in our campaign just got even better. FBI reviewing new emails in Clinton probe," Conway tweeted.
House Speaker Paul Ryan called the FBI's decision to reopen the case "long overdue." "Yes again, Hillary Clinton has nobody but herself to blame," he said in a statement. "She was entrusted with some of our nation's most important secrets, and she betrayed that trust by carelessly mishandling highly classified information." The Letter to Congress Here"In previous congressional testimony, I referred to the fact that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) had completed its investigation of former Secretary Clinton's personal email server. Due to recent developments, I am writing to supplement my previous testimony," Comey wrote.
"In connection with an unrelated case, the FBI has learned of the existence of emails that appear to be pertinent to the investigation. I am writing to inform you that the investigative team briefed me on this yesterday, and I agreed that the FBI should take appropriate investigative steps designed to allow investigators to review these emails to determine whether they contain classified information, as well as to assess their importance to our investigation," he added.
"Although the FBI cannot yet assess whether or not this material may be significant, and I cannot predict how long it will take us to complete this additional work, I believe it is important to update your Committees about our efforts in light of my previous testimony,"
977
« on: October 27, 2016, 11:27:04 PM »
I'm voting for Donald Trump. But I'm sure you all knew that already.
My 2nd choice would be Jill.
Those are two completely different endpoints.
978
« on: October 27, 2016, 01:07:24 PM »
Calling a philosophy he doesn't believe in an absolute joke is being an absolute dick, especially when he doesn't even say why.
Well, considering their philosophy has yet to land them a single seat in national government and only about 150 seats across every state and local government, I'd argue that their stance is a joke and has yet to resonate with voters.
Bro fuck you we literally had four presidents. Whigs were moderate libertarians.
Maybe you should go back to that name then.
979
« on: October 27, 2016, 12:30:13 PM »
Calling a philosophy he doesn't believe in an absolute joke is being an absolute dick, especially when he doesn't even say why.
Well, considering their philosophy has yet to land them a single seat in national government and only about 150 seats across every state and local government, I'd argue that their stance is a joke and has yet to resonate with voters.
980
« on: October 27, 2016, 12:08:41 PM »
Notice how all the media polls are bumping Trump a little. They don't want to look like completely biased morons (even though they are), when Trump beats her ass in 2 weeks.
Or, you know, undecided are finally picking sides.
981
« on: October 27, 2016, 12:07:27 PM »
You could have just said Jill Stein without being an absolute dick to a group of people that don't agree with you. There is nothing wrong with having a Libertarian PoV.
Nothing about his post is being "an absolute dick" OP: Hillary Clinton
982
« on: October 26, 2016, 01:01:20 PM »
Because electronic glitches, especially on outdated machinery, never happens.
Are those the machines owned by a certain dinosoros?
Because that's a wonderful cohencidence.
1
According to at least a dozen fringe political blogs, Clinton already has this election bagged: Her friend George Soros, they claim, will rig the election through his electronic voting firm Smartmatic. Last week, that rumor went so viral that one concerned voter petitioned Congress to convene an emergency session on it. Nearly 25,000 people have since signed on, all apparently unaware that Soros does not own Smartmatic.
It’s easy to see how this one spun out of control, because there is a (tenuous, mundane) connection between Soros and the London-based technology company. The company’s actual owner, Lord Mark Malloch-Brown, sits on one of the boards of the Open Society Foundations, a philanthropic organization founded by Soros. But OSF has 22 boards, with dozens of members between them. And Soros has never worked for or had an ownership stake in this specific firm, Smartmatic. Even if he had, it’s pretty much beside the point, since Smartmatic will not be in use in the United States during the 2016 elections.
Ultimately, this is a big distraction from the real problem with American voting machines — the fact that many are old, outdated and subject to error/attack. If you want to petition Congress for something, maybe try asking them to allocate funds for voting technology improvements.
2
• Smartmatic will not be deploying its technology in any U.S. county for the upcoming 2016 U.S. Presidential elections.
3: Stop that. We have enough conspiracy theorists.
'Mundane and Tenuous'
hmmmmm
Sounds almost like someone is downplaying the work of the lizardmen.
It's almost as if that's exactly what the WaPo does.
The very same WaPo that takes money from George Soros.
hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
Don't you have a union to leave?
983
« on: October 26, 2016, 12:50:47 PM »
Because electronic glitches, especially on outdated machinery, never happens. Are those the machines owned by a certain dinosoros?
Because that's a wonderful cohencidence.
1According to at least a dozen fringe political blogs, Clinton already has this election bagged: Her friend George Soros, they claim, will rig the election through his electronic voting firm Smartmatic. Last week, that rumor went so viral that one concerned voter petitioned Congress to convene an emergency session on it. Nearly 25,000 people have since signed on, all apparently unaware that Soros does not own Smartmatic.
It’s easy to see how this one spun out of control, because there is a (tenuous, mundane) connection between Soros and the London-based technology company. The company’s actual owner, Lord Mark Malloch-Brown, sits on one of the boards of the Open Society Foundations, a philanthropic organization founded by Soros. But OSF has 22 boards, with dozens of members between them. And Soros has never worked for or had an ownership stake in this specific firm, Smartmatic. Even if he had, it’s pretty much beside the point, since Smartmatic will not be in use in the United States during the 2016 elections.
Ultimately, this is a big distraction from the real problem with American voting machines — the fact that many are old, outdated and subject to error/attack. If you want to petition Congress for something, maybe try asking them to allocate funds for voting technology improvements.
2• Smartmatic will not be deploying its technology in any U.S. county for the upcoming 2016 U.S. Presidential elections. 3: Stop that. We have enough conspiracy theorists.
984
« on: October 26, 2016, 12:38:23 AM »
This proves everything.
Who is this guy, what are his credentials, and why do I want to punch him in the face?
985
« on: October 25, 2016, 01:36:27 PM »
Maybe Germany-senpai should invest more in military spending than it currently is. Let the Germans be great again.
You act like they don't control 70% of Europe already.
986
« on: October 25, 2016, 01:34:44 PM »
For anyone wondering Evan McMuffin is probably going to win Utah, and should the electoral college tie the house will probably pick him
Unlikely
what do you know
A bit more than you.
987
« on: October 25, 2016, 01:09:32 PM »
^What this election is really all about.
i like the pepe cameo
Probably the only accurate portion
988
« on: October 24, 2016, 06:15:57 PM »
Is there a point to Russia sending election monitors?
US media and politicians have a history of criticizing the legitimacy of Russian elections and accusing their state of voter fraud.
There's a difference between questioning another country's elections (Especially one where the same man has circulated power since 1999), and sending monitors in. A huge difference.
989
« on: October 24, 2016, 04:41:09 PM »
Is there a point to Russia sending election monitors?
990
« on: October 24, 2016, 04:39:04 PM »
I'm tired of election threads, so lets discuss this fun and worthwhile policy theory. For those who don't know it, click here or read the quote 1) Five states legalized abortion three years before Roe v. Wade. Crime started falling three years earlier in these states, with property crime (done by younger people) falling before violent crime.
2) After abortion was legalized, the availability of abortions differed dramatically across states. In some states like North Dakota and in parts of the deep South, it was virtually impossible to get an abortion even after Roe v. Wade. If one compares states that had high abortion rates in the mid 1970s to states that had low abortion rates in the mid 1970s, you see the following patterns with crime. For the period from 1973-1988, the two sets of states (high abortion states and low abortion states) have nearly identical crime patterns. Note, that this is a period before the generations exposed to legalized abortion are old enough to do much crime. So this is exactly what the Donohue-Levitt theory predicts. But from the period 1985-1997, when the post Roe cohort is reaching peak crime ages, the high abortion states see a decline in crime of 30% relative to the low abortion states. Our original data ended in 1997. If one updated the study, the results would be similar.)
3) All of the decline in crime from 1985-1997 experienced by high abortion states relative to low abortion states is concentrated among the age groups born after Roe v. Wade. For people born before abortion legalization, there is no difference in the crime patterns for high abortion and low abortion states, just as the Donohue-Levitt theory predicts.
4) When we compare arrest rates of people born in the same state, just before and just after abortion legalization, we once again see the identical pattern of lower arrest rates for those born after legalization than before.
5) The evidence from Canada, Australia, and Romania also support the hypothesis that abortion reduces crime.
6) Studies have shown a reduction in infanticide, teen age drug use, and teen age childbearing consistent with the theory that abortion will reduce other social ills similar to crime.
These six points all support the hypothesis. There is one fact that, without more careful analysis, argues against the Donohue-Levitt story:
7) The homicide rate of young males (especially young Black males) temporarily skyrocketed in the late 1980s, especially in urban centers like Los Angeles, New York City, and Washington, DC, before returning to regular levels soon thereafter. These young males who were hitting their peak crime years were born right around the time abortion was legalized.
Pages: 1 ... 313233 3435 ... 306
|
Show Posts