Lmao imagine being so humorless that not only do you not understand certain types of humor, but you actively seek and destroy humor elsewhere that you don't understand. src
when repubs thought they were losing in 2016 I remember how all of them yelled rigged. now dems doing the same. Horseshoes theory confirmed, RC reigns supreme as expected
I voted the wi-fi woman mostly because I want to see the world burn and I was in a state so heavily swung in one direction my vote didn't matter anyways.
Remember when Republicans won in 2016 and still cried about "millions of illegal voters?" All because Daddy couldn't handle the thought of losing 3 million voters to the most loathed candidate in history?
The most delicious thing about that election was some of the analysts saying “Trump may win the popular vote, but the electoral college will save us!” Followed quickly by “Remove the electoral college” days later.
It's even funnier when you realize the Hillary campaign bought into that idea and spent tons of money on GOTV initiatives in CA and NY instead of funneling some resources to Wisconsin and Michigan.
Thank you for this. Not sure if I like the Viking's death stare, the chubby elbows of the token, or the smug look that will soon turn to drug addled permanent resting bitch face more.
Which prominent analysts said that? Just about everyone, Republicans included thought for sure Hillary was going to win. Why do you think Trump was preemptively telling his supporters if he doesn't win its because of voter fraud?
This is a federal appeals court ruling in which the NC gop admitted to ending sunday voting because counties with sunday voting had too many black people in them.
That's the tip of the iceberg, they did even more:
Also in Wisconsin, Todd Allbaugh, 46, a staff aide to a Republican state legislator, attributed his decision to quit his job in 2015 and leave the party to what he witnessed at a Republican caucus meeting. He wrote on Facebook:
I was in the closed Senate Republican Caucus when the final round of multiple Voter ID bills were being discussed. A handful of the GOP Senators were giddy about the ramifications and literally singled out the prospects of suppressing minority and college voters. Think about that for a minute. Elected officials planning and happy to help deny a fellow American’s constitutional right to vote in order to increase their own chances to hang onto power.
Or:
In Pennsylvania, the state Republican Party chairman, Robert Gleason, told an interviewer that the state’s voter ID law “had helped a bit” in lowering President Obama’s margin of victory over the Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney in the state in 2012.
In that same election, the Republican leader of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives, Mike Turzai, predicted during the campaign that the voter ID law would “allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania, done.”
Or:
And also that year, Scott Tranter, a Republican political consultant for Mr. Romney and others, called voter ID laws — and generating long lines at polling places — part of his party's tool kit.
Or:
In Florida, both the state’s former Republican Party chairman, Jim Greer, and its former Republican governor, Charlie Crist, told The Palm Beach Post in 2012 that the state’s voter ID law was devised to suppress Democratic votes. Mr. Greer told The Post: “The Republican Party, the strategists, the consultants, they firmly believe that early voting is bad for Republican Party candidates. It’s done for one reason and one reason only,” he said. Consultants told him “we’ve got to cut down on early voting because early voting is not good for us,” he said.
Requiring proof of ID to vote seems like a good idea. We have it in Australia and no one complains about it. I do agree the Republican party is often racist and your examples are genuinely voter suppression but voter ID requirements are legitimately a good idea.
Requiring proof of ID to vote seems like a good idea.
That's neat, you were handed a federal court ruling in which the GOP argued they ended early voting in counties with too many black people in them.
You aren't spinning out of this.
I do agree the Republican party is often racist and your examples are genuinely voter suppression but voter ID requirements are legitimately a good idea.
Based on what? There is no voter fraud epidemic in this country. The entire point of these laws; the entire motivation behind pushing them is to suppress voters the Republican party can not win.
This has been proven over, and over, and over and over again, reaffirmed in federal court and in the supreme court.
I know the daily beast is shitty but the post has sources. Bascially democrats are also guilty of gerrymandering but to a lesser degree. But unfortunately neither of the parties are innocent in a all this shit.
I just linked you the statistical proof that this shit is just wrong. And I notice you didn't answer my question; the DNC is pushing to end gerrymandering on a national level, is the republican party doing so?
I'm like baffled as to how you people are this dumb. You understand that you can't actually register to vote as an illegal, right?
You also understand that of the trivial amount of "voter fraud" in the united states the vast majority is not in person fraud, but fraud over the mail, correct?
Why do you just ignore all academic sources, all credible research on the subject?
That's one argument. The other is that it requires people who don't know or don't care to vote on ill-informed grounds. Imagine how many votes the incumbent would get, just through sheer name recognition?
Alternatively, how many people would vote for stupid reasons, like naming a party "DUDE WEED LMAO"?
No one has to vote for a candidate you just have to cast a ballot there's a thing known as a donkey vote where you tick x on everything to make your vote not count.
People voting for the party whose name they recognize is a partisan issue and no voting system could really prevent that.
We have restrictions on naming of parties which would prevent the dude weed lmao party from existing.
Party name selection
Limitations in choice
Section 129 of the Electoral Act provides that an application will be refused if the party
name or its abbreviation:
■
is more than six words long
■
is obscene
■
is the same as, or is likely to be confused with, or mistaken for, the name of a
‘recognised political party’
1
, unless that other party is a ‘related party’
2
■
suggests a relationship or connection with a registered political
party if that
connection or relationship does not in fact exist
■
uses the words ‘Independent Party
’, or the word ‘Independent’ along
with the
name, or abbreviation or acronym of the name,
of a recognised political party, or in
a way that is likely to be confused with the name, abbreviation or acronym
of a
recognised political party.
The naming rules also apply to any abbreviation of the name put forward for registration.
People will always vote for stupid reasons but that's no reason to not have mandatory voting. I'll take a few stupid votes but a more representative vote over one where voting is a right that few exercise leading to a less representative democracy.
Not to mention the DNC in general doesn't do it at the same rate
Pick one.
the DNC is currently pushing to end gerrymandering nationwide
Ya because they care far more about the POC and woman vote than the white man vote especially the working class white men which they basically abandon since the 90's. I have no doubt in the near future the democrats will do things to make it harder for white men to vote while making it easier for others. I say that due to the current political climate and the growing hate towards white men, something the democrats are supporting/encouraging.
Not both parties to anywhere near the same extent.
Ya because they care far more about the POC and woman vote than the white man vote especially the working class white men which they basically abandon since the 90's. I have no doubt in the near future the democrats will do things to make it harder for white men to vote while making it easier for others. I say that due to the current political climate and the growing hate towards white men, something the democrats are supporting/encouraging.
That's neat, but when given direct proof that the GOP is cheating, "but the other side might do it in the future" is not a valid defense.
That's neat, but when given direct proof that the GOP is cheating, "but the other side might do it in the future" is not a valid defense.
Where did I say it was a defense? Its clear the democrats don't want the white man vote. And its not a far reach thing to say the dems aren't going to do this down the road.
You aren't oppressed, get over it.
Reading issues? Women and POC aren't oppressed either.
You should really work on your reading skills. Please explain to me how am I right wing. Wait let me guess I posted something that makes democrats look bad and your triggered. You are very much shaping up to be an NPC you know that right?
Literally whining because some retards said mean things about white people.
The posts you've submitted to cringeanarchy:
SJW so fragile they quarantine themselves. (reddit.com)
submitted 14 days ago by FineLow to r/CringeAnarchy
Police: Ohio University student made up anti-LGBT threats (cincinnati.com)
submitted 24 days ago by FineLow to r/CringeAnarchy
Screeching about some type of anti-Trump bias and unironic use of the NPC meme:
FineLow 0 points 3 days ago
Anything that is anti Trump they leave up. The sub should be renamed /r/liberalNPC.
More unironic use of the NPC meme:
FineLow 26 points 15 days ago
Or NPC.
Your constant "men are oppressed" bullshit you inject into nearly every argument:
I really find that hard to believe given the actions of feminism as a whole and how especially in education feminists have been fighting against helping men here and a lot of feminists don't think men have issues here.
The list goes on, and on, and on, and on. You are absolutely an internet right-wing SJW. You don't even do a good job of hiding it.
I don't even think you're a republican, you're just a run of the mill "I shit post right-wing opinions but totally am left wing" retard.
Literally whining because some retards said mean things about white people.
Says the little boy that went thru my posting history. That really does say it all right there.
I don't even think you're a republican, you're just a run of the mill "I shit post right-wing opinions but totally am left wing" retard.
Don't think you should be talking really as shouldn't you be in /r/TopMindsOfReddit or /r/politics? They surely will provide you a safe space that you need.
Just fuck off with your Democrat shilling. Both parties are guilty of gerrymandering and have been for decades. It's part of the game deal with it.
Take your holier than thou fake persona to /r/politics I'm sure it'll be welcome there among those brainless sheep.
Again, fuck off with the shilling. Just because Republicans have done more gerrymandering recently doesn't mean than in the past Democrats didn't also indulge in it. Democrats like gerrymandering when it benefits them but not when it benefits Republicans, what a surprise.
Link That first comment is pretty much the best breakdown of Democrat's gerrymandering and their hypocrisy.
Where am I defending gerrymandering? You obtuse twat. I was only attacking your blatant dishonesty in suggesting only Republicans do/did gerrymandering.
Democrats are against something as simple as voter IDs, something the rest of the world almost unanimously has. Why is it then, that the Democrats so vehemently oppose it? For a party that preaches about "muh Democracy" that seems to be a very anti-democratic stance. Or the fact that some Democrats want to allow illegal aliens to be able to vote.
Seriously though, just drop your fake outraged attitude. It doesn't convince anyone.
Most strikingly, the judges point to a "smoking gun" in North Carolina's justification for the law, proving discriminatory intent. The state argued in court that "counties with Sunday voting in 2014 were disproportionately black" and "disproportionately Democratic," and said it did away with Sunday voting as a result.
"Thus, in what comes as close to a smoking gun as we are likely to see in modern times, the State’s very justification for a challenged statute hinges explicitly on race — specifically its concern that African Americans, who had overwhelmingly voted for Democrats, had too much access to the franchise," the judges write in their decision.
Is this voter suppression?
Where am I defending gerrymandering? You obtuse twat. I was only attacking your blatant dishonesty in suggesting only Republicans do/did gerrymandering.
Republicans are behind the vast majority of gerrymandering:
The example you provided is indeed one of voter suppression, but then again so is this and many others that show the Democrats are no better than the Republicans when it comes to playing dirty.
And again, can you answer the question? as of right now, is the Republican party trying to end gerrymandering on a national level like the DNC is?
No but then again Democrats only want to "end" it because they're getting the short end of the stick lately.
The example you provided is indeed one of voter suppression, but then again so is this and many others that show the Democrats are no better than the Republicans when it comes to playing dirty.
Blatant bullshit.
Show me these democratic laws passed after requesting racial voter data.
Show me the federal court rulings.
No but then again Democrats only want to "end" it because they're getting the short end of the stick lately.
Again: Even if this were true, it is not relevant. AS of right now, one party wants to make gerrymandering illegal on the national level so that it never takes place again.
One does not.
Edit: On a side note, do you oppose voter ID and do you support illegal aliens voting in the US? I've answered your questions now answer mine.
Uh, illegals can't vote in the US even with no voter ID laws. So this is a false dilemma. Not only can they not register to vote, voter ID laws are ineffective at stopping in-person voter fraud. They are a remedy for a problem that does not exist in the united states.
I oppose voter ID laws on this basis. I oppose them based on what the overwhelming majority of research says, I oppose them based on what our federal courts have ruled.
Let me be clear here; literally the only reason the GOP pushes this shit is to justify their blatant voter suppression schemes. They've fabricated this myth of mass voter fraud to trick willful idiots such as yourself into defending them, you'll defend them no matter what the research says, no matter what the courts say; you are being used.
You just can't help being a partisan hack, do you?
Blatant bullshit.
Show me these democratic laws passed after requesting racial voter data.
Show me the federal court rulings.
I just gave you an example of Democratic voter suppression. Of course Democrats won't try to stifle the black and hispanic vote. They depend on it to win elections.
Again: Even if this were true, it is not relevant. AS of right now, one party wants to make gerrymandering illegal on the national level so that it never takes place again.
It was a couple dozen Democrats that came forward with the proposal. There's still many Democrats that are okay with gerrymandering. If Democrats were in power they'd be more than okay with gerrymandering as history has proven.
Uh, illegals can't vote in the US even with no voter ID laws. So this is a false dilemma. Not only can they not register to vote, voter ID laws are ineffective at stopping in-person voter fraud. They are a remedy for a problem that does not exist in the united states.
You seem to have misunderstood my question. Many Democrats want to grant illegal aliens the right to vote, are you okay with that?
The rest of the world pretty much unanimously has voter ID laws, why shouldn't the US also have it? In India where the population is over a billion people and every person above 18 years old has voter ID.
Let me be clear here; literally the only reason the GOP pushes this shit is to justify their blatant voter suppression schemes. They've fabricated this myth of mass voter fraud to trick willful idiots such as yourself into defending them, you'll defend them no matter what the research says, no matter what the courts say; you are being used.
I'm not defending the Republicans as much as I'm just not letting you get away with your hypocrisy that's all. And the irony of you calling me a willful idiot as you relentlessly shill for the Democrats.
Also, if there's no such thing as voter fraud why are Democrats so against looking into it? Link
Voter ID laws work for the rest of the world but only in the US are they "disenfranchising" to minorities. What would the Democrats do without their hispanic and black vote after all.
You seem to have misunderstood my question. Many Democrats want to grant illegal aliens the right to vote,
[CITATION FUCKING NEEDED]
It was a couple dozen Democrats that came forward with the proposal. There's still many Democrats that are okay with gerrymandering. If Democrats were in power they'd be more than okay with gerrymandering as history has proven.
The anti-gerrymandering campaign is being ran by the most powerful people in the party.
Also, if there's no such thing as voter fraud why are Democrats so against looking into it? Link
Because they're fucking trolls. Go look at the people Trump tried to put on that council. He was staffing it with well known science denying retards that have fabricated claims of illegal voter fraud for the last 15 years.
You understand George Bush had one of these councils that managed to find a grand total of 80 cases in 6 fucking years right?
After ten years of such research (see The Myth of Voter Fraud, published in 2010 by Cornell University Press), I found that intentional fraud by individual voters is exceedingly rare. For example, under President George W. Bush, the U.S. Justice Department launched a program to search vigorously for voter fraud. The first three years of the program covered two federal election cycles. Over that period just 26 people were convicted or pled guilty to illegal registration or voting. There were 197,056,035 votes cast in those two federal elections, yielding a miniscule rate of voter fraud of 0.00000132 percent of all votes cast.
1
Voter ID laws work for the rest of the world but only in the US are they "disenfranchising" to minorities. What would the Democrats do without their hispanic and black vote after all.
I don't give a shit about the rest of the world. We have irrfutable proof that republicans are attempting to use these laws to suppress minority voters. They openly fucking brag about it.
To this day; after countless papers, the GOP has failed to produce a single shred of fucking proof that there is any real voter fraud problem in this country.
You are absolutely a retard if you think these claims of voter fraud have any basis in reality, you are ignoring literally all academic work on the subject.
You seem to have misunderstood my question. Many Democrats want to grant illegal aliens the right to vote,
[CITATION FUCKING NEEDED]
Here. Also here. Where 140 House Democrats pretty much agreed on illegal aliens voting.
The anti-gerrymandering campaign is being ran by the most powerful people in the party.
Let's see how far it goes. I wish there was bipartisan support for it but there's still way too many people on both parties that want it to stay.
Because they're fucking trolls. Go look at the people Trump tried to put on that council. He was staffing it with well known science denying retards that have fabricated claims of illegal voter fraud for the last 15 years.
You understand George Bush had one of these councils that failed to find relevant amounts of voter fraud?
Fair enough, but couldn't it also be that Democrats stand to benefit more from illegals voting than Republicans do? As seen these past years, there ARE examples of voter fraud and illegalities in the voting process and almost always they benefit Democrats. Link
Why not take a more in-depth look to see if there is more voter fraud or illegalities in place? Is it so hard to believe that there are cases of such that don't get caught?
This could be a good political discussion if you weren't so rabidly partisan and an obvious shill for Democrats.
Do you truly believe the Democrats, as a party, are any better than the Republicans?
This doesn't seem very credible. This type of polling isn't all that accurate, you can get people to say pretty much anything depending on how it's worded.
For example, you can see the same thing with polling republicans about insane things.
53% of Republicans favor stripping U.S. citizenship from people who burn the American flag.
51% of Democrats support a law that requires Americans use transgender people's preferred gender pronouns.
58% of Democrats say employers should punish employees for offensive Facebook posts.
47% of Republicans favor bans on building new mosques.
The point is, gotcha surveys like this aren't valid sources of information. I was under the impression you had examples of this being called for by the party, on some platform.
This is called a propaganda bill, and I'm not surprised you took the bait. This is a pretty common tactic of the right in various western countries, another example would be in australia. They put a bill up for vote that said a bunch of stuff about "anti-white racism."
When the bill failed to pass, the right used it for propaganda. "SEE, THE GOVERNMENT DOESN'T THINK IT'S ANTI-WHITE RACISM IS BAD." But that's not true, they didn't vote on it because the bill because it was making absurd claims about the "dramatic rise of anti-white racism" and a bunch of questionable claims about immigration.
The genius of these type of propaganda bills is that they're win-win. If the government votes to pass them, the far-right then says "hey look, the government admits our delusions are true!!."
If the bill fails, the far right can start screeching about how the government is "anti-white" or whatever.
The bill you just linked is an example of a propaganda bill.
And if you read the text of the bill, you can see exactly why they didn't vote on it.
Whereas the city of San Francisco, California, is allowing non-citizens, including illegal immigrants, to register to vote in school board elections; and Whereas Federal law prohibits non-citizens from voting in elections for Federal office: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the House of Representatives recognizes that allowing illegal immigrants the right to vote devalues the franchise and diminishes the voting power of United States citizens.
It's very obvious what the GOP was trying to do here.
but couldn't it also be that Democrats stand to benefit more from illegals voting than Republicans do? As seen these past years, there ARE examples of voter fraud and illegalities in the voting process and almost always they benefit Democrats.
I need to establish a baseline of facts here. Is it true that in all of the empirical research on this subject that not a single shred of proof has ever been presented for the claim that there is any real level of voter fraud in this country?
That's a neat op-ed, but the premise is based on a lie. There is no relevant amount of voter fraud in the united states according to literally all academic research on the subject. If you're going to claim democrats are against these laws because they want illegal votes, you have to prove there is a relevant amount of voter fraud.
Until you can do that, these accusations are baseless.
Why not take a more in-depth look to see if there is more voter fraud or illegalities in place? Is it so hard to believe that there are cases of such that don't get caught?
You guys keep saying this. We have taken in-depth looks. We've had multiple republican led "voter fraud councils" that failed to turn up literally any proof of widespread voter fraud.
We have done countless studies looking for voter fraud and failed to turn up any proof for the claims republicans are making.
This is exactly how anti-vaxxers operate, they'll make wild claims about the safety of vaccines, and then when you confront them and point out that vaccines are safe, they'll start claiming we should do "more research" ignoring the fact we've already done a massive amount of research that says they're wrong.
What exactly gives you the impression that these claims of voter fraud have not been studied?
Do you truly believe the Democrats, as a party, are any better than the Republicans?
In what way? I believe the republican party is a religious fundamentalist party that seeks to inject their religion into our legal system, denies climate change, staffs vital governent departments with people that have no business being in said departments. I think the GOP is completely unhinged, and this is a view most of the civilized world shares as well.
It isn't only me that thinks the GOP is out of control, it's the entire western world. People like Donald Trump do not get elected by normal, rational political parties. The democratic party is not perfect; but they are the only political party in the country that operates in reality.
Damn you're dedicated to seriousposting. I gotta applaud that.
What I've taken from all this is that you really can't stand the idea of discussing any kind of fault the Democrat party might have out of pure hatred towards Trump and Republicans. That ain't healthy mate, and looking at your post history is nothing more than anti-Trump/Republican vitriol and agendaposting.
I think the GOP is completely unhinged, and this is a view most of the civilized world shares as well.
It isn't only me that thinks the GOP is out of control, it's the entire western world. People like Donald Trump do not get elected by normal, rational political parties. The democratic party is not perfect; but they are the only political party in the country that operates in reality.
Like you'd say CITATION NEEDED.
You'll see in the near future that being this bussyblasted over Trump and company isn't worth the effort. Until then, oh well keep at it.
I don't care about their policies, their opinion of us is relevant because the united states depends on these countries for many different things.
The world isolating the united states would be a serious problem. Like you people need to understand that when the rest of the world sees a guy like Donald Trump get elected, someone that very clearly is mentally ill if not outright senile, it doesn't make us look good.
I say the MSM gets much of the blame for being so hysterical and biased in their negative reporting of Trump.
They'd make it seem like the end of the world is just around the corner. People in other countries don't follow US politics that closely and they form their opinions on what they see on their news which in turn take what the US's MSM reports and copy pastes it.
I say the MSM gets much of the blame for being so hysterical and biased in their negative reporting of Trump.
And you'd be wrong. Like the vast majority of the things reported by Donald Trump are factually correc.t
Facts are not biased against him.
They'd make it seem like the end of the world is just around the corner. People in other countries don't follow US politics that closely and they form their opinions on what they see on their news which in turn take what the US's MSM reports and copy pastes it.
M8, there's a reason the GOP is viewed unhinged around the western world, it's because they're a religious fundamentalist party that is at the very least 35 years behind the rest of the civilized world.
And you'd be wrong. The vast majority of the things reported by Donald Trump are factually correc.t
Facts are not biased against him.
Have you seen the number of retractions and outright fake articles that have been pumped out these last 2 years? It's ridiculous. There's a very clear bias against Trump in MSM. You'd have to be blind not to see it.
M8, there's a reason the GOP is viewed unhinged around the western world, it's because they're a religious fundamentalist party that is at the very least 35 years behind the rest of the civilized world.
I'll give it to you that there's some in the GOP that are religious fundies but for the most part this is a bit of an inaccurate generalization.
What will you do today if Republicans keep both House and Senate?
Have you seen the number of retractions and outright fake articles that have been pumped out these last 2 years? It's ridiculous. There's a very clear bias against Trump in MSM. You'd have to be blind not to see it.
I've seen them all and they are a fringe minority compared the accurate stories about Donald Trump.
I'll give it to you that there's some in the GOP that are religious fundies but for the most part this is a bit of an inaccurate generalization.
The entire party leadership is made up of religious fundies.
What will you do today if Republicans keep both House and Senate?
Not care. I do not care about this country, if rurals want to destroy our image on the world stage and cede the planet to China, more power to them. They could win 100 elections and they'd still be wrong.
Not care. I do not care about this country, if rurals want to destroy our image on the world stage and cede the planet to China, more power to them. They could win 100 elections and they'd still be wrong.
It wasn't just rurals that voted for/support Trump you know that, right? US's economy is the strongest in the world right now. Military too. Trump's trade war with China is taking a HEAVY toll on their economy and stock market. China is now begging to come back to the table to strike a new trade deal to roll back the tariffs. Consumer confidence and excitement is coming back to record highs, stock market is holding strong, tax cuts revitalizing buying power, better trade deals being signed and looked at etc. Trump is having a positive influence in the economy and the country is feeling it, that's why there's so much support for him. Obama said the days of 2% yearly GDP growth were here to stay and that outsourced jobs were to be the norm and yet Trump has proved the contrary.
The US is and will still be the strongest geopolitical force in the world for a long time. And taking into consideration the boiling shitsthow that will be hitting Europe these following decades and the imminent socioeconomic collapse of China I'd say the US is in a good spot right now.
This comment is a pretty good example of why democracy is a farce. Like, almost nothing you just said is factually correct. To give you an example of what I mean, and to show how profoundly misinformed you are as a person:
Obama said the days of 2% yearly GDP growth were here to stay and that outsourced jobs were to be the norm and yet Trump has proved the contrary.
Right here. You're confusing annual GDP growth with quarterly GDP growth. Quarterly GDP growth was well above 2% for most of Obamas time in office:
But it wasn't stable growth. Sure he may have gotten over 3% a few times but it wasn't stable that's why it never got over 3% in annual growth. He had all the tools to achieve stable, strong economic growth with all the economic stimuli and a rebounding economy fresh out of a recession. Most economists agree Obama's economic recovery was painfully slow and stale. Also, I specifically said that it was yearly GDP growth in my comment. I didn't make any confusion mate.
Trump knew this; but he was able to con you because you never bothered to look into the things you believe.
The yearly GDP growth for this year is on mark to be over 3%. And besides that wasn't even my point but the message Obama was giving out when saying stuff like the days of stale growth and outsourced jobs were here to stay. That was a painfully pessimistic and even false message.
But it wasn't stable growth. Sure he may have gotten over 3% a few times but it wasn't stable that's why it never got over 3% in annual growth.
The economy has still not hit 3% annual. You need to just admit you're wrong, you very clearly did not know the difference between annual and quarterly GDP growth.
e had all the tools to achieve stable, strong economic growth with all the economic stimuli and a rebounding economy fresh out of a recession. Most economists agree Obama's economic recovery was painfully slow and stale. Also, I specifically said that it was yearly GDP growth in my comment. I didn't make any confusion mate.
That's neat, none of this mental gymnastics is going to explain away the fact you didn't know the difference between annual and quarterly gdp growth.
The yearly GDP growth for this year is on mark to be over 3%
You should read the entire forecast.
U.S. GDP growth will rise to 3.1 percent in 2018, 2.5 percent in 2019, and 2.0 percent in 2020.
And besides that wasn't even my point but the message Obama was giving out when saying stuff like the days of stale growth and outsourced jobs were here to stay. That was a painfully pessimistic and even false message.
It's not fucking "stale" and this is again displaying you don't know what you're talking about. The "ideal gdp growth" for the US is between 2 and 3%. 2.5% is not a "bad gdp" growth rate for a developed economy.
You need to just admit you're wrong, you very clearly did not know the difference between annual and quarterly GDP growth.
That's neat, none of this mental gymnastics is going to explain away the fact you didn't know the difference between annual and quarterly gdp growth.
My comment said yearly growth. Yearly=Annual. The 2018 GDP IS on track to go over 3% like I said in my comment.
You should read the entire forecast.
U.S. GDP growth will rise to 3.1 percent in 2018, 2.5 percent in 2019, and 2.0 percent in 2020.
It's a forecast that specifies it really doesn't know what the effect of Trump's tax cuts and trade war will have.
It's not fucking "stale" and this is again displaying you don't know what you're talking about. The "ideal gdp growth" for the US is between 2 and 3%. 2.5% is not a "bad gdp" growth rate for a developed economy.
The ideal GDP growth is between 2% and 4%. Also, I was talking about Obama's words itself.
Not to mention you're just repeating bullshit about "outsourced" jobs. The economy has been at full employment for a while:
You missed the point. I was talking about Obama's message in and of itself being pessimistic. Also, the unemployment percentage is low but take into account on how many of those jobs are part time. And yes, outsourcing has hurt american workers.
On a similar note, wages and labor force participation are surging under Trump. Jobs reports have been exceeding expectations. The tax cuts for companies have been quite helpful not only for them but for workers as well.
I know presidents don't have full control over the economy but they can influence it. 2017 and 2018 under Trump are proof of it.
It's a forecast that specifies it really doesn't know what the effect of Trump's tax cuts and trade war will have.
Tax cuts do not pay for themselves and trade wars are not "won."
You missed the point. I was talking about Obama's message in and of itself being pessimistic. Also, the unemployment percentage is low but take into account on how many of those jobs are part time. And yes, outsourcing has hurt american workers.
This is like when Trump claimed the employment report was fake under Obama and all of the sudden real when he came into office. Do you honestly not see what this is?
What I don't get is that you seem so dedicated to go against Trump and his policies while at the same time saying that democracy is a farce, there's no point in voting and that presidents really hold no power at all. Chastising Trump for rallying up people when he's doing the exact same thing every politician does. Politicians inherently work in half truths to get their voter base going. Criticizing Republicans for being religious fundies while ignoring the Democrats being the masters of dividing people with their identity politics and contributing to the social rift we see today. The Democrats are as much zealots of their ideologies as Republicans are.
Also, it's only 2 years into Trump's presidency, don't you see the metrics we were talking about like wages, labor force participation, unemployment, tax cuts etc. all improving in the following years?
riticizing Republicans for being religious fundies while ignoring the Democrats being the masters of dividing people with their identity politics and contributing to the social rift we see today.
Just an fyi, Trump ran one of the most identity-based campaigns in US history. The reason you don't it is because you were the chosen target. White identity politics are still identity politics. Rural identity politics are still identity politics.
In that way, the tea party wasn’t new. Something real has been percolating over the past decade in the Republican base when it comes to race and identity. When looking at the change in the county-by-county vote from 2000 to 2012, one of the most predictive variables for a place becoming more Republican has been the number of people ethnically identifying as “American,” not whether or not a person believes in smaller government or lower taxes. States such as Arkansas, Kentucky, Tennessee and West Virginia, where a plurality of people identified in the 2000 Census as “American,” are among those that have trended the most Republican since 2000.
Howe’s theory for the racial animus of Trump supporters boils down to simple attrition: “Everybody who was reasonable seems to have gone home in 2012,” he said. Romney’s loss in 2012 discouraged many of the once-energized fiscal conservative activists.
“This isn’t the most artful way to say it, but it’s like, where do you go when the only people who seem to agree with you on taxes hate black people?” Howe laughed ruefully. “I think what you do is you say, ‘Well, I may lose but I can’t align myself with them.’”
But instead, Howe said, he made moral compromises he regrets.
“There are some things that I don’t have core values about, that I can be negotiable on, compromise on. But then there are other things that I can’t budge on,” he said. “I think I thought I had to budge on some things: ‘Yeah, this guy talking to me right now just said he agrees with my taxes and also we need to get that Kenyan out of office.’ Why did I stand there and say, ‘Yeah’? You know? I shouldn’t have done that. I should’ve said, ‘Wait, what? No, that’s stupid. You’re stupid. Don’t be stupid.’”
When I spoke with Tim Miller, Jeb Bush’s former communications director, soon after Trump won the Indiana primary and the nomination, he wasn’t sure what the party might look like after November, much less four or eight years down the line.
There were potential paths back to a more mainstream party line, he theorized, including an economic downturn during a Clinton presidency, making Republicans more appealing by comparison. Miller wasn’t much comforted by that, though.
“I think another very real potential right now — why it’s important that people in the party speak out against Donald Trump and against Trumpism — is that the Republican Party moves to a period of minority status,” he said. “Where it’s essentially a party that’s driven by white grievances and by white — not racial politics, but a set of white identity politics.”
Your argument doesn't even make any sense. Let's think about this for a second. The DNC wins every demographic in the country outside of one, the GOP wins a single demographic. What's that tell you about who divides the country more? The party that has wide appeal to poor and rich, black and Asian, Hispanic and white; or the party that is only capable of winning rural whites.
Also, it's only 2 years into Trump's presidency, don't you see the metrics we were talking about like wages, labor force participation, unemployment, tax cuts etc. all improving in the following years?
Few things, labor force participation is unlikely to improve any time soon because the cause for the decline is not policy but demographical:
The U.S. civilian labor force—the number of people working or looking for work—has gone through substantial changes in its size and demographic composition over the last half of the 20th century. During the 1970s and 1980s, the labor force grew vigorously as women’s labor force participation rates surged and the baby-boom generation entered the labor market. However, the dynamic demographic, economic, and social forces that once spurred the level, growth, and composition of the labor force have changed and are now damping labor force growth. The labor force participation rate of women, which peaked in 1999, has been on a declining trend. In addition, instead of entering the labor force, baby boomers are retiring in large numbers and exiting the workforce. Once again, the baby-boom generation has become a generator of change, this time in its retirement. Moreover, the jobless recovery of the 2001 recession, coupled with the severe economic impact of the 2007–2009 recession, caused disruptions in the labor market. In the first 12 years of the 21st century, the growth of the population has slowed and labor force participation rates generally have declined. As a result, labor force growth also has slowed. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) projects that the next 10 years will bring about an aging labor force that is growing slowly, a declining overall labor force participation rate, and more diversity in the racial and ethnic composition of the labor force.
As for the rest of this; the only relevant thing you can bring up are the tax cuts, which do not pay for themselves. You can't just slash taxes for short-term GDP growth and ignore the fact you've reduced federal revenue. Where is that money going to come from?
Empirical evidence shows that Starve the Beast may be counterproductive, with lower taxes actually corresponding to higher spending. An October 2007 study by Christina D. Romer and David H. Romer of the National Bureau of Economic Research found: "[...] no support for the hypothesis that tax cuts restrain government spending; indeed, [the findings] suggest that tax cuts may actually increase spending. The results also indicate that the main effect of tax cuts on the government budget is to induce subsequent legislated tax increases."
What I don't get is that you seem so dedicated to go against Trump and his policies while at the same time saying that democracy is a farce, there's no point in voting and that presidents really hold no power at all.
The president has power, just not so much in terms of the economy. Foreign policy is where a lot of the power is.
On a side note, any critique of this analysis of the economy?
Well, for starters, every factor he's listing is an "expectation" factor. What you're seeing in these factors is the assumption that one party controlling the house, the senate, and the white house means they'll manage to get something done. They aren't really related to any policy Trump passed.
You can credit Trump with these things if you want to define perception as = to policy choices. Consumer confidence, for example, tends to increase after elections, the stock market tends to go up after elections. All of these things are based on perception.
Another questionable take here is his talk of domestic investment. Sure, due to perception domestic investment might have gone up, but he conviently left out the part where foreign investment crashed:
I think he handled NK very poorly and basically handed them a propaganda win on the world stage for no tangible gain.
I see your point but at the same time isn't there credit to be given when it comes to his aggressive stance towards North Korea in the beginning? I mean, there's no more rocket tests going on and peace talks and relations are getting better. Of course we'll see if it'll last but so far so good.
I think attacking our allies and neighbors is of no benefit to the united states.
I agree somewhat but at the same time US's allies have been exploiting the US for military defense (for example how much the US pays for military defense in Nato when compared to the rest of the members) and in trade wouldn't you say?
There are many valid arguments to be made about how he's helping China more than anything.
How so? From what I've seen he's standing up to China somewhat when it comes to trade, respecting intellectual property, stopping their financing of NK, south China sea etc.
Plus China's stock market and economy is taking quite a dip since Trump "started" the trade war.
I mean I think trying at the very least to stand up to China's shenanigans is a good thing.
What about the Iran deal and Paris accords? In my opinion the Paris accords were a sham (I believe in climate change, I just didn't like the accords and how little responsibility countries like India, China and Russia had under it) and the Iran deal shouldn't have been made in the first place. What's your take on those two?
When it comes to the economy, you don't believe the economy will improve? Is the next recession coming soon?
I see your point but at the same time isn't there credit to be given when it comes to his aggressive stance towards North Korea in the beginning? I mean, there's no more rocket tests going on and peace talks and relations are getting better. Of course we'll see if it'll last but so far so good.
Few things.
A) NK has been trying to bait a US admin into meeting with them since like 1990. They've agreed to denuclearize over 10 different times:
I agree somewhat but at the same time US's allies have been exploiting the US for military defense (for example how much the US pays for military defense in Nato when compared to the rest of the members) and in trade wouldn't you say?
This is a common narrative you see people repeat; claims that the US is being exploited because of NATO, it has no basis in reality.
A) If every country in NATO paid 0 dollars NATO would sitll be of a large strategic benefit to the united states. NATO is absolutely invaluable to the united states and our capabilities on a global scale. You can go ask any general about NATO and ask them if the US is being "exploited" and they'll laugh in your face.
B) No country has ever invoked NATO other than the united states.
How so? From what I've seen he's standing up to China somewhat when it comes to trade, respecting intellectual property, stopping their financing of NK, south China sea etc.
"Competing in the world marketplace": One of the most popular, enduring misconceptions of practical men is that countries are in competition with each other in the same way that companies in the same business are in competition. Ricardo already knew better in 1817. An introductory economics course should drive home to students the point that international trade is not about competition, it is about mutually beneficial exchange. Even more fundamentally, we should be able to teach students that imports, not exports, are the purpose of trade. That is, what a country gains from trade is the ability to import things it wants. Exports are not an objective in and of themselves: the need to export is a burden that a country must bear because its import suppliers are crass enough to demand payment.
1
What about the Iran deal
He literally destroyed US credibility on the world stage by ending an agreement we made, not only that, but nobody backed the united states in this:
(I believe in climate change, I just didn't like the accords and how little responsibility countries like India, China and Russia had under it)
Why should countries that contributed far less to climate change overall be as responsible as the countries that contributed the vast majority of pollution towards it?
and the Iran deal shouldn't have been made in the first place.
Why?
When it comes to the economy, you don't believe the economy will improve? Is the next recession coming soon?
No idea, we are due for a recession though. This is part of how the economy works.
A) NK has been trying to bait a US admin into meeting with them since like 1990. They've agreed to denuclearize over 10 different times:
B) NK never stopped building missiles or nukes:
It's still early to say if they will commit this time, but do you think this is the time they will finally cave in to SK and US's demands? NK desperately needs to modernize and get into the global economy wouldn't you say?
This is a common narrative you see people repeat; claims that the US is being exploited because of NATO, it has no basis in reality.
A) If every country in NATO paid 0 dollars NATO would sitll be of a large strategic benefit to the united states. NATO is absolutely invaluable to the united states and our capabilities on a global scale. You can go ask any general about NATO and ask them if the US is being "exploited" and they'll laugh in your face.
B) No country has ever invoked NATO other than the united states.
But the US is somewhat being "exploited" considering most other countries don't pay the share agreed upon.
I'm not arguing the merits of NATO and if it's a good or bad alliance. I think it's good but commitment to it should be the same across the board, right? That's Trump's main point, it's that every country should pay the agreed share.
Countries are moving closer to China:
Nobody really wins a trade war. The US economy is losing money as well. Trump in general doesn't have a very good comprehension of trade:
I don't think countries moving closer to China will be a trend. And on the topic of the trade war, I don't believe it's as much about winning as it is in standing up to China's shenanigans.
He literally destroyed US credibility on the world stage by ending an agreement we made, not only that, but nobody backed the united states in this:
Yes that was a side effect of it but then again was the deal necessary? I mean paying billions to literal religious radical fundamentalists so they don't advance their nuclear program? Isn't their responsibility to not build nukes? Why should the US swallow being black mailed for other countries responsibilities? I believe straining and outright starving Iran's government is the best hope the people there have to overthrow their theocratic government.
Why should countries that contributed far less to climate change overall be as responsible as the countries that contributed the vast majority of pollution towards it?
Fair point but then again the US is meeting their carbon emission marks right? Plus China continues to be the biggest polluter and India and Russia are climbing the ranks of carbon emission quite fast.
The US, even though Trump opposes the man made climate change point (something I don't agree with), is still meeting their emission goals and is slowly and naturally changing to renewable energies. The thing with the climate change argument is that there really isn't an ironclad "solution" to fix it. Do you believe there should be carbon taxes and all those "incentives" or that the change to renewable energies should just come naturally?
Yeah, the judges being partisan is why the state themselves argued in court that they ended early voting/sunday voting because the data showed too many black people voted.
Trump was talking about the DNC screwjob on Bernie. He was right. Just like when he pointed out that bad sick man was tapping his wires. Maybe, just maybe he has even more inside baseball info now that he has the full might of the Burger intelligence apparatus under his command?
You mean all those rigged polls designed to demoralize the Republicans by making them think they were facing overwhelming opposition and there was no way they could win?
Doesn't this mean they're going to win, though? Republicans called 2016 rigged and then they won. If the Democrats call this rigged, won't they win, then?
Yeah, but they were also expected to win the presidency in 2016 and they fucked that up hard. It wouldn't be a surprise if they were to fuck this up as well.
Democrats weren't expected to sit on their lazy asses in 2016 either. Thankfully Democrats are learning from their mistake by going out and vote in the polls.
Yeah i dont see them learning from their mistakes. Too many echo chambers and wishful thinking. I havent seen any change of mentality since "Hillary has a 98% chance to win".
Who is your candidate? Gary Johnson? If you vote for third party then your candidate DID lose overwhelmingly in the 2016 election. BTW Hillary overwhelming won the popular vote by 3 million voters.
Before nate silver there really was no actual statistical analysis of elections. You basically just had pundits guesstimating and random polls looked at in isolation.
Lol what a pussy. I vote R usually and I doubt they'll keep the house. Silver should just go with what his data actually says instead of just saying "it could go either way" so he doesn't get laughed at like when Trump won.
Nate Silver got a Godlike reputation after nearly flawless calls in 2008 and 2012, he's gotten burnt in the past few elections. I guess he's gotten more timid. Mainly because of bad polls, his methods are ultimately reliant on polls, and it's garbage in garbage out. But still he has to build a model around it.
The problem is that polls have to make a lot of assumptions about the electorate, their stated margin of errors are only true if they're modelling the electorate correctly. Which is a tough job. The law of large numbers only truly applies if you can exactly know what set of people will vote, which is of course impossible. So polling is half art, half science.
Porky Nate Bronze was walking on water after Rodom very smugly mentioned him by name. He thought he had made it, only to have a nervous breakdown on air election night.
Nate Silver will get fatter and balder if it's possible and then write a dozen more essays about how a predicted 85% chance of winning isn't a guaranteed victory
But... he's right. Predicting a 75% or whatever chance of winning doesn't count as a guaranteed victory. How do troglodytes such as yourself not get this incredibly basic statistical concept?
I agree that Nate Silver's right but I also enjoy the fact that he's become a funny looking punching bag for partisans on both sides. These are not mutually exclusive ideas, you should read more Nate Silver if you don't understand.
Well, if that's your take, alright, I agree. It is pretty funny, but at the same time somewhat bittersweet to me, because anti-intellectualism runs so rampant.
The initial comment about statisticians recovering just seemed like it was putting the blame on statistics and not on retards misunderstanding it, so I just assumed your comment was supposed to go in a similar direction, my bad.
You mean the fucks that terrorized Italy and formed east Germany, or the laughable idiots that filled Euro steaming sights for the last 10 years with videos of them starting shit and getting punched by skinheads?
I don't get this perspective. Fivethirtyeight put trump winning at 30%, as did the trump campaign itself. Now they have Repubs taking house at 1 in 7. Where did statisticians ever mess this up?
People have a tough time with probability and regress to binary thinking. A Republican win will solidify anti-science among a large portion of the country.
I doubt they have issues more than the liberals having issues if that happens. Though the fact wall street is siding with democrats here, I think its pretty safe to say they are going to take the house.
pollers will keep getting the majority of their funding from political campaigns to totally not influence elections with their statistically improbably errors
Modern statisticians are basically useless because the vast majority of them are heavily biased and either use heavily flawed interpretations of statistical surveys or use heavily flawed statistical surveys themselves to push their chosen narrative. Basically every bit of "information" that every news source puts out ranges from half-truth to flat out lie on both sides of the American political spectrum.
this kind of retarded shit makes it hard for me to embrace Democrats, I say this as a Trump-hating radical centrist. My God all I fucking want at this point is a President that doesn't call porn stars 'horse face' on twitter
I do love drama yes but not at my own personal expense: AKA the president of my country being actually legitimately retarded. At this point it's just sad
It's sad if you would rather not watch your country fall apart and don't believe that the entertainment value of the government is worth the government ans its supporters slowly erode the country into what may eventually become a shithole on par with Brazil. The situation we're in is the result of America's worst cultural values and shoddy education system interacting with the internet. It's all downhill from here, and that's a bad thing.
I'm not the one supporting an admin whose only redeeming quality is its theatrics.
If you think that it's "theatrics" to be ashamed that the country has come to a place where it's willing to elect a man who probably would have been dumped in a group home if he weren't born into wealth, for no other reason beyond 'it's different' or 'liberal tears' then you deserve to live in a country that makes decisions for those types of reasons.
Hypothetically if Trump wasn't born in wealth, he would be white trash like everyone else, that's why the country with the world's biggest economy is fucked.
Unlike the fentanyl Americans who've helped create the situation we're in now, I can easily move to a country that's actually good if shit hits the fan. Why would I go to Cuba?
other CTH users
Yes, I must be a commie because I understand that America is degrading into a shithole because our culture and widespread lack of education makes us extremely easy to exploit (as can be seen by the fact that a paint-licker was elected to the highest office for pirely emotional reasons)
Fall apart? On par with Brazil? Keep this fatalistic bullshit out of here tbqh. As a non burger you guys still have it best than most of the world. The idiot in chief will pass, you’ll get your Queen Yaaasss Democrat president in 2 or 6 years and life will keep on going as nice as it does for you people.
If you are seriously “afraid”, take your head out of whatever echo chamber you are in. Shit isn’t bad at all.
As a non burger you guys still have it better than most of the world.
Countries can rise and fall quickly (or slowly). Argentina was a powerhouse for a while and just look at it now. Plus the fact that the US isn't becoming Malawi doesn't mean that it isn't getting worse.
The idiot in chief will pass, you’ll get your Queen Yaaasss Democrat president in 2 or 6 years and life will keep on going as nice as it does for you people
You don't understand- regardless of who's in office, the population is becoming increasingly radicalized, susceptible to propaganda, and conspiracy-minded. As long as this continues to be a problem (and it will), Americans will continue to vote for people who exploit them and in some cases erode the democratic system, e.g. the Georgia governer who will almost certainly be reelected. I'm phoneposting and can't elaborate much atm, but the roots of the current problem are decades old and only beginning to grow severe enough for the average person to notice them.
Just accept that we are on track for a 2nd civil war in the next 50-100 years because the government we have is corrupt and the citizens are at each others throats because the left has moved too far left too fast and no longer can reconcile with the other side, which is why the democrats abandoned the working class and are attempting to quite literally replace them with foreigners.
Meanwhile voting for the right just further entrenches and rewards the corrupt republican party and the corporate pay to play in Washington DC.
America is in great fucking shape right now. I thought a Trump presidency was going to be a disaster, but all indicators have the US kicking ass across the board. We might be succeeding in spite of him, but he hasn't caused any significant damage.
Years of shitty left wing policies and left wing corruption drove Brazil into the ground, so a pretty piss poor comparison at the highest degree on your part.
Maybe if the media environment didn't incentivize him calling a lying porn star a horse face he wouldn't have to? I mean, Trump has just been giving the media what they want, a 24/7 shitshow.
An indelicate retard he may be, but he hasn't started any wars yet, no nuclear detonations, no economic collapse, no Armageddon, no wimmin and gays sent to internment camps, if he can just keep this up for a little longer he'll go down as one of the less destructive presidents in history.
Careful, there's no way he isn't on par with Mao, Stalin and Hitler. I mean, Hitler didn't have as much time as the other 2, but Trump still has 6 more years to kick it up a /u/xnotch.
When you're the president you're held to a higher standard and are expected to in a respectable manner that displays class and leadership. Not cyber bully random porn stars on twitter that you regret fucking.
Obama didn't rile up a fan base of uneducated retards by blaming the Mexicans and foreigners for all their shortcomings.
You can name one example ever of Obama calling someone a jackass ever, as if that excuses all the bullshit Trump pulls.
You know, there was a politician that recently lost an ugly race where his opponent ran a smear campaign. They were still going to have to work together after the election since both still held political positions. When asked if he was going to badmouth his opponent afterwards he said "no, were constituents now and there's no place for personal insults". And god damn was that refreshing to hear.
Obama didn't rile up a fan base of uneducated retards by blaming the Mexicans and foreigners for all their shortcomings.
Yeah, racyss whitey is the problem. Here's why that's a good thing.
You can name one example ever of Obama calling someone a jackass ever, as if that excuses all the bullshit Trump pulls.
Am I supposed to care that Trump called a rich ugly whore horseface?
You know, there was a politician that recently lost an ugly race where his opponent ran a smear campaign. They were still going to have to work together after the election since both still held political positions. When asked if he was going to badmouth his opponent afterwards he said "no, we're constituents now and there's no place for personal insults". And god damn was that refreshing to hear.
How rich can she be? Word on the street is that the sluts make $1000 a scene. Has she done 10000 scenes? cause a thousand scenes doesn't make one "rich"
At least he was charismatic enough to get a blowjob in the first place. Bill Clinton should be a mod here. He spent his time in the Oval Office smoking weed and getting his dick sucked
If you think we're holding all the cards when it comes to foreign policy then you're more retarded than I thought. Goes to show how little MAGAtards understand about foreign policy.
Foreign policy is much more complex than "DID WE WIN THIS SPECIFIC TRADE DEAL??"
Trump literally thinks a trade deficit means that we're losing money, because he's fucking retarded and doesn't understand foreign policy or economics or how trade works.
In 4 years when the next president is trying to negotiate trade deals, the other world leaders are going to be pissed at us and give us 0 leniency and not try to work with us for an advantageous deal on both sides. They aren't just going to forget that our country has been treating them like shit while Trump is in office.
Trump souring our relations with our allies could have terrible devastating long term effects. As well as his inexperienced yet hands-on approach to trade deficits & international economics.
I'm not that concerned about trade deals in particular (though I do think Free Trade is mostly just an excuse for multinationals to have unfettered access to the American market without reciprocity from other countries), I'm just sick to death of weaselly Europeans constantly browbeating us for whatever we do and then begging us to intervene when they fuck up (see: Libya).
Trump demanding NATO countries finally put in the 2% military spending the agreement stipulates was one of the few good things he's done.
China has been pulling some shady tactics but that doesn't excuse Trump's behavior with our actual allies and doesn't mean his general view of trade is correct. It's like a 4 year going "DADA LOOK SKY IS BLUE" and then calling him a meteorologist for pointing out the obvious
GOP senate, Dem house. Both sides claim victory despite the blue wave being more of a puddle, while everyone is secretly seething and pretending everything is going their way.
I don't think they will. I think we're going to see the end of a historical trend. Too many of the elections dems need to win are "too close to call." Because of the way most polls are conducted that probably means the republican leads by 2-to-3 points. That's still in the margin of error, but I'm seeing some anecdotal stuff that makes me think the democrats are going to lose. Republicans are fired up. They even outdid democrats in early voting in a lot of places.
what's funny is that if you look at it more closely gerrymandering is not even such a problem per se (and could even backfire if there is a wave on either side, though it makes for a compelling blame narrative for /r/politics), much bigger and deeper problem which democrats are afraid to admit are rurals, dems need to adress the rural question
Imagine collectively screaming, covering and plugging your ears, and crying because you aren't getting your way on the world stage for everyone to see and remember for decades to come.
Depends if you count suppressing the non boomer mayo votes "cheating", just like im sure Republicans think democrats are cheating because they get all of the black vote just because they dont court racist boomers.
Amazing to me how the same people can mock Trumpets for their ridiculous voter fraud conspiracy theories and then turn around have their own ridiculous voter fraud conspiracy theories.
/r/politics and /r/worldnews are too easy of a target anymore. They have become cultish havens for individuals with extra chromosomes and conspiracy theorists.
I was watching the news today and yesterday and they only mentioned daylight savings once. I would hate to know how many minority and inner city voters get turned away because a republican policy tricked them into thinking they had an extra hour to vote. Everyone knows rich Rs have iphones, laptops, ect, so they don't need to turn back their clocks, but your average single mom working 2 jobs and raising a kid won't remember to turn back their old kitchen clocks. It's pretty bad we can't push off daylight savings till after the election, but that's gerrymandering lol
329 comments
1 SnapshillBot 2018-11-05
Lmao imagine being so humorless that not only do you not understand certain types of humor, but you actively seek and destroy humor elsewhere that you don't understand. src
Snapshots:
I am a bot. (Info / Contact)
1 Ultrashitposter 2018-11-05
bracing for failure, huh?
1 Handsome7InchesTruth 2018-11-05
when repubs thought they were losing in 2016 I remember how all of them yelled rigged. now dems doing the same. Horseshoes theory confirmed, RC reigns supreme as expected
1 headasplodes 2018-11-05
So many people in that thread unironically saying "but it's different when WE do it!"
1 GigoloJuggalo 2018-11-05
Indeed, RC Cola is far superior to normie partisan Coke and Pepsi. Truly it is the Gary Johnson of soft drinks.
1 muck4doo 2018-11-05
I voted Johnson. Like me, he didn't give a shit about what an Aleppo is, even though I knew what it was.
1 -absolutego- 2018-11-05
I voted the wi-fi woman mostly because I want to see the world burn and I was in a state so heavily swung in one direction my vote didn't matter anyways.
1 Ranilen 2018-11-05
Tbf he probably knew too, he was just super high.
1 SeattleFingers 2018-11-05
Dude, you voted 3rd party?
Fucking brave, dude. You want me to lick your ass?
A little closer to the hole, sir?
1 muck4doo 2018-11-05
No thanks. That tongue already deep dived Hillary or Trump.
1 ArlenBilldozer 2018-11-05
FROM YOUR LIPS TO ALLAH'S EARS, BROTHER!
1 seenten 2018-11-05
1 jaredschaffer27 2018-11-05
We can't even pay our bills and they're drinking Royal Crown Cola
1 seshfan2 2018-11-05
Remember when Republicans won in 2016 and still cried about "millions of illegal voters?" All because Daddy couldn't handle the thought of losing 3 million voters to the most loathed candidate in history?
1 Thatlookedlikeithurt 2018-11-05
The most delicious thing about that election was some of the analysts saying “Trump may win the popular vote, but the electoral college will save us!” Followed quickly by “Remove the electoral college” days later.
1 -absolutego- 2018-11-05
It's even funnier when you realize the Hillary campaign bought into that idea and spent tons of money on GOTV initiatives in CA and NY instead of funneling some resources to Wisconsin and Michigan.
1 SJCards 2018-11-05
It's about winning with style, you pleb.
1 pepperouchau 2018-11-05
Hillary lost WI the moment this happened
1 hastur777 2018-11-05
You need to label that NSFW.
1 Greatpointbut 2018-11-05
Thank you for this. Not sure if I like the Viking's death stare, the chubby elbows of the token, or the smug look that will soon turn to drug addled permanent resting bitch face more.
1 SeattleFingers 2018-11-05
I wish they'd address the issues of the working class and not privileged white women, tbh
1 -absolutego- 2018-11-05
Ya know shit's fucked in this country when the Republicans now have better credentials as a working-class party than Democrats.
1 None-Of-You-Are-Real 2018-11-05
Which prominent analysts said that? Just about everyone, Republicans included thought for sure Hillary was going to win. Why do you think Trump was preemptively telling his supporters if he doesn't win its because of voter fraud?
1 drift_summary 2018-11-05
Pepperidge Farm remembers!
1 Chicup 2018-11-05
Why can't it be both?
1 Greatpointbut 2018-11-05
When its easier to vote than buy a 40 of mad dog, something may be amiss.
1 aef823 2018-11-05
Wasn't her lead in the popular vote a couple million too?
It'd make sense to whine about millions of fucky votes if the one thing the other side likes flaunting is a lead of a couple mill.
1 winklefitzgerald 2018-11-05
Hillary was only the 2nd most loathed candidate in history. Trump himself was clearly the most loathed. If the entire country had actually turned out to vote Hillary probably would have won by a narrow margin. And we'll never be able to test this now, but it's pretty likely that if the Democrats had put up almost anyone other than Hillary they'd have won. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/08/31/poll-clinton-trump-most-unfavorable-candidates-ever/89644296/
1 IDFSHILL 2018-11-05
The article is discussing voter suppression, which is a proven thing.
1 Oof134 2018-11-05
Both parties like to gerrymander though so it's hypocritical to attack one side. Also what's this about voter suppression?
1 IDFSHILL 2018-11-05
While I suspect you believe this, but no, not both parties.
The type of gerrymandering the GOP put in place after 2010 is the most effective in US history.
Not to mention the DNC in general doesn't do it at the same rate:
http://election.princeton.edu/2012/12/30/gerrymanders-part-1-busting-the-both-sides-do-it-myth/
Also, the DNC is currently pushing to end gerrymandering nationwide, can you say the same for the Republican party?
You been under a rock?
http://pdfserver.amlaw.com/nlj/7-29-16%204th%20Circuit%20NAACP%20v%20NC.pdf
This is a federal appeals court ruling in which the NC gop admitted to ending sunday voting because counties with sunday voting had too many black people in them.
That's the tip of the iceberg, they did even more:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/07/29/the-smoking-gun-proving-north-carolina-republicans-tried-to-disenfranchise-black-voters/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.89ee3f57c212
Not only did they get busted in federal court, they tried to brag about it after:
https://www.thedailybeast.com/north-carolina-gop-brags-racist-voter-suppression-is-workingand-theyre-right
Or, you know, stuff like this:
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/17/us/some-republicans-acknowledge-leveraging-voter-id-laws-for-political-gain.html
Or:
Or:
Or:
So the idea these things aren't proven is false.
1 LongPostBot 2018-11-05
Wow, you must be a JP fan
I am a bot. Contact for questions
1 Oof134 2018-11-05
I don't think pizza likes daddy lobster.
1 Greatpointbut 2018-11-05
I think pizza is too ugly and malformed to find a daddy.
1 Oof134 2018-11-05
Requiring proof of ID to vote seems like a good idea. We have it in Australia and no one complains about it. I do agree the Republican party is often racist and your examples are genuinely voter suppression but voter ID requirements are legitimately a good idea.
I know the daily beast is shitty but the post has sources. Bascially democrats are also guilty of gerrymandering but to a lesser degree. But unfortunately neither of the parties are innocent in a all this shit.
1 IDFSHILL 2018-11-05
That's neat, you were handed a federal court ruling in which the GOP argued they ended early voting in counties with too many black people in them.
You aren't spinning out of this.
Based on what? There is no voter fraud epidemic in this country. The entire point of these laws; the entire motivation behind pushing them is to suppress voters the Republican party can not win.
This has been proven over, and over, and over and over again, reaffirmed in federal court and in the supreme court.
I just linked you the statistical proof that this shit is just wrong. And I notice you didn't answer my question; the DNC is pushing to end gerrymandering on a national level, is the republican party doing so?
http://election.princeton.edu/2012/12/30/gerrymanders-part-1-busting-the-both-sides-do-it-myth/
Here you go, this is as credible a source as you're going to find on gerrymandering in this country.
1 LongPostBot 2018-11-05
Ma'am we've been over this before. You need to stop.
I am a bot. Contact for questions
1 Alimentas 2018-11-05
But-but-but it's voter suppression when illegals can't vote!
1 IDFSHILL 2018-11-05
I'm like baffled as to how you people are this dumb. You understand that you can't actually register to vote as an illegal, right?
You also understand that of the trivial amount of "voter fraud" in the united states the vast majority is not in person fraud, but fraud over the mail, correct?
Why do you just ignore all academic sources, all credible research on the subject?
Why are you a useful idiot?
1 Blinwar 2018-11-05
Imagine having to ask permission to be able to vote 🤣
1 Greatpointbut 2018-11-05
He's not useful, and you are an idiot. Checkmark.
1 Pepperglue 2018-11-05
We don't have to wait for one to make it into law, because that would be too late.
1 throwawayact69 2018-11-05
MDEfugee's are FUMING, good job triggering the real snowflakes
1 ComedicSans 2018-11-05
You also have mandatory voting, you fucking mong. If
1 seenten 2018-11-05
Imagine having so many "random voters because if they don't they'll get fined" that they have to be factored in to predictions
1 Oof134 2018-11-05
Are you against mandatory voting?
1 ComedicSans 2018-11-05
I'm against measures that prohibit people from exercising their democratic rights.
1 Oof134 2018-11-05
Well I would argue mandatory voting improves the accuracy of the vote as a much larger percentage of the people will vote.
1 ComedicSans 2018-11-05
That's one argument. The other is that it requires people who don't know or don't care to vote on ill-informed grounds. Imagine how many votes the incumbent would get, just through sheer name recognition?
Alternatively, how many people would vote for stupid reasons, like naming a party "DUDE WEED LMAO"?
1 Oof134 2018-11-05
No one has to vote for a candidate you just have to cast a ballot there's a thing known as a donkey vote where you tick x on everything to make your vote not count.
People voting for the party whose name they recognize is a partisan issue and no voting system could really prevent that.
We have restrictions on naming of parties which would prevent the dude weed lmao party from existing.
Party name selection Limitations in choice Section 129 of the Electoral Act provides that an application will be refused if the party name or its abbreviation: ■ is more than six words long ■ is obscene ■ is the same as, or is likely to be confused with, or mistaken for, the name of a ‘recognised political party’ 1 , unless that other party is a ‘related party’ 2 ■ suggests a relationship or connection with a registered political party if that connection or relationship does not in fact exist ■ uses the words ‘Independent Party ’, or the word ‘Independent’ along with the name, or abbreviation or acronym of the name, of a recognised political party, or in a way that is likely to be confused with the name, abbreviation or acronym of a recognised political party. The naming rules also apply to any abbreviation of the name put forward for registration.
People will always vote for stupid reasons but that's no reason to not have mandatory voting. I'll take a few stupid votes but a more representative vote over one where voting is a right that few exercise leading to a less representative democracy.
1 LongPostBot 2018-11-05
This is one of the worst post I have EVER seen. Delete it.
I am a bot. Contact for questions
1 Oof134 2018-11-05
Woah rude!
1 ComedicSans 2018-11-05
Lmao
1 FineLow 2018-11-05
Pick one.
Ya because they care far more about the POC and woman vote than the white man vote especially the working class white men which they basically abandon since the 90's. I have no doubt in the near future the democrats will do things to make it harder for white men to vote while making it easier for others. I say that due to the current political climate and the growing hate towards white men, something the democrats are supporting/encouraging.
1 IDFSHILL 2018-11-05
Not both parties to anywhere near the same extent.
That's neat, but when given direct proof that the GOP is cheating, "but the other side might do it in the future" is not a valid defense.
1 FineLow 2018-11-05
Where did I say it was a defense? Its clear the democrats don't want the white man vote. And its not a far reach thing to say the dems aren't going to do this down the road.
Reading issues? Women and POC aren't oppressed either.
1 IDFSHILL 2018-11-05
You aren't oppressed dude, take your right-wing SJWism and pedal your victimhood narrative to someone that gives a shit.
1 FineLow 2018-11-05
So you do have reading issues. Why am I not surprised? I also love the typical liberal us vs them mentality.
1 IDFSHILL 2018-11-05
I don't really care what SJWs think, and you're a right-wing SJW. So why would I care what you think?
1 FineLow 2018-11-05
You should really work on your reading skills. Please explain to me how am I right wing. Wait let me guess I posted something that makes democrats look bad and your triggered. You are very much shaping up to be an NPC you know that right?
1 IDFSHILL 2018-11-05
Literally whining because some retards said mean things about white people.
The posts you've submitted to cringeanarchy:
Screeching about some type of anti-Trump bias and unironic use of the NPC meme:
More unironic use of the NPC meme:
Your constant "men are oppressed" bullshit you inject into nearly every argument:
The list goes on, and on, and on, and on. You are absolutely an internet right-wing SJW. You don't even do a good job of hiding it.
I don't even think you're a republican, you're just a run of the mill "I shit post right-wing opinions but totally am left wing" retard.
1 LongPostBot 2018-11-05
You can type 10,000 characters and you decided that these were the one's that you wanted.
I am a bot. Contact for questions
1 FineLow 2018-11-05
Says the little boy that went thru my posting history. That really does say it all right there.
Don't think you should be talking really as shouldn't you be in /r/TopMindsOfReddit or /r/politics? They surely will provide you a safe space that you need.
1 DAT_BOI_HUNNIT 2018-11-05
You really aren't that clever you know.
1 IDFSHILL 2018-11-05
Let me tell you, I greatly value the opinions of right-wing SJWs.
1 IDFSHILL 2018-11-05
I don't speak retard fam.
1 vjaY619 2018-11-05
Just fuck off with your Democrat shilling. Both parties are guilty of gerrymandering and have been for decades. It's part of the game deal with it.
Take your holier than thou fake persona to /r/politics I'm sure it'll be welcome there among those brainless sheep.
1 IDFSHILL 2018-11-05
Shilling, also known as empirical data:
http://election.princeton.edu/2012/12/30/gerrymanders-part-1-busting-the-both-sides-do-it-myth/
1 vjaY619 2018-11-05
Again, fuck off with the shilling. Just because Republicans have done more gerrymandering recently doesn't mean than in the past Democrats didn't also indulge in it. Democrats like gerrymandering when it benefits them but not when it benefits Republicans, what a surprise.
Link That first comment is pretty much the best breakdown of Democrat's gerrymandering and their hypocrisy.
1 IDFSHILL 2018-11-05
You realize comparing gerrymandering historically to modern gerrymandering is absurd, right?
Modern gerrymandering is done with algorithms to make the districts basically wave immune. They're absurdly sophisticated.
And again, as of right now, is the Republican party endorsing efforts to end gerrymandering on a national level and make it illegal forever?
1 vjaY619 2018-11-05
Where am I defending gerrymandering? You obtuse twat. I was only attacking your blatant dishonesty in suggesting only Republicans do/did gerrymandering.
Democrats are against something as simple as voter IDs, something the rest of the world almost unanimously has. Why is it then, that the Democrats so vehemently oppose it? For a party that preaches about "muh Democracy" that seems to be a very anti-democratic stance. Or the fact that some Democrats want to allow illegal aliens to be able to vote.
Seriously though, just drop your fake outraged attitude. It doesn't convince anyone.
1 IDFSHILL 2018-11-05
Is this voter suppression?
Republicans are behind the vast majority of gerrymandering:
http://election.princeton.edu/2012/12/30/gerrymanders-part-1-busting-the-both-sides-do-it-myth/
1 vjaY619 2018-11-05
And you double down. Big Yikes.
1 IDFSHILL 2018-11-05
I notice you failed to answer either question.
1 vjaY619 2018-11-05
Is this voter suppression?
The example you provided is indeed one of voter suppression, but then again so is this and many others that show the Democrats are no better than the Republicans when it comes to playing dirty.
No but then again Democrats only want to "end" it because they're getting the short end of the stick lately.
Link Link
1 IDFSHILL 2018-11-05
Blatant bullshit.
Show me these democratic laws passed after requesting racial voter data.
Show me the federal court rulings.
Again: Even if this were true, it is not relevant. AS of right now, one party wants to make gerrymandering illegal on the national level so that it never takes place again.
One does not.
Uh, illegals can't vote in the US even with no voter ID laws. So this is a false dilemma. Not only can they not register to vote, voter ID laws are ineffective at stopping in-person voter fraud. They are a remedy for a problem that does not exist in the united states.
I oppose voter ID laws on this basis. I oppose them based on what the overwhelming majority of research says, I oppose them based on what our federal courts have ruled.
Let me be clear here; literally the only reason the GOP pushes this shit is to justify their blatant voter suppression schemes. They've fabricated this myth of mass voter fraud to trick willful idiots such as yourself into defending them, you'll defend them no matter what the research says, no matter what the courts say; you are being used.
https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/images/public_education/latl-votephotoid.pdf
1 LongPostBot 2018-11-05
still unemployed then?
I am a bot. Contact for questions
1 vjaY619 2018-11-05
You just can't help being a partisan hack, do you?
I just gave you an example of Democratic voter suppression. Of course Democrats won't try to stifle the black and hispanic vote. They depend on it to win elections.
It was a couple dozen Democrats that came forward with the proposal. There's still many Democrats that are okay with gerrymandering. If Democrats were in power they'd be more than okay with gerrymandering as history has proven.
You seem to have misunderstood my question. Many Democrats want to grant illegal aliens the right to vote, are you okay with that?
The rest of the world pretty much unanimously has voter ID laws, why shouldn't the US also have it? In India where the population is over a billion people and every person above 18 years old has voter ID.
I'm not defending the Republicans as much as I'm just not letting you get away with your hypocrisy that's all. And the irony of you calling me a willful idiot as you relentlessly shill for the Democrats.
Also, if there's no such thing as voter fraud why are Democrats so against looking into it? Link
Voter ID laws work for the rest of the world but only in the US are they "disenfranchising" to minorities. What would the Democrats do without their hispanic and black vote after all.
1 LongPostBot 2018-11-05
All them words won't bring your pa back.
I am a bot. Contact for questions
1 IDFSHILL 2018-11-05
[CITATION FUCKING NEEDED]
The anti-gerrymandering campaign is being ran by the most powerful people in the party.
Because they're fucking trolls. Go look at the people Trump tried to put on that council. He was staffing it with well known science denying retards that have fabricated claims of illegal voter fraud for the last 15 years.
You understand George Bush had one of these councils that managed to find a grand total of 80 cases in 6 fucking years right?
https://mcf.org/voter-fraud-myth
1
I don't give a shit about the rest of the world. We have irrfutable proof that republicans are attempting to use these laws to suppress minority voters. They openly fucking brag about it.
To this day; after countless papers, the GOP has failed to produce a single shred of fucking proof that there is any real voter fraud problem in this country.
https://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/debunking-voter-fraud-myth
You are absolutely a retard if you think these claims of voter fraud have any basis in reality, you are ignoring literally all academic work on the subject.
1 LongPostBot 2018-11-05
I've known more coherent downies.
I am a bot. Contact for questions
1 vjaY619 2018-11-05
Getting a bit too worked up there aren't ya?
Here. Also here. Where 140 House Democrats pretty much agreed on illegal aliens voting.
Let's see how far it goes. I wish there was bipartisan support for it but there's still way too many people on both parties that want it to stay.
Fair enough, but couldn't it also be that Democrats stand to benefit more from illegals voting than Republicans do? As seen these past years, there ARE examples of voter fraud and illegalities in the voting process and almost always they benefit Democrats. Link
Why not take a more in-depth look to see if there is more voter fraud or illegalities in place? Is it so hard to believe that there are cases of such that don't get caught?
This could be a good political discussion if you weren't so rabidly partisan and an obvious shill for Democrats.
Do you truly believe the Democrats, as a party, are any better than the Republicans?
1 LongPostBot 2018-11-05
That's great and all, but I asked for my burger without cheese.
I am a bot. Contact for questions
1 IDFSHILL 2018-11-05
This doesn't seem very credible. This type of polling isn't all that accurate, you can get people to say pretty much anything depending on how it's worded.
For example, you can see the same thing with polling republicans about insane things.
https://reason.com/volokh/2018/10/13/dont-take-too-much-comfort-from-surveys
The point is, gotcha surveys like this aren't valid sources of information. I was under the impression you had examples of this being called for by the party, on some platform.
No, nice try.
This is called a propaganda bill, and I'm not surprised you took the bait. This is a pretty common tactic of the right in various western countries, another example would be in australia. They put a bill up for vote that said a bunch of stuff about "anti-white racism."
When the bill failed to pass, the right used it for propaganda. "SEE, THE GOVERNMENT DOESN'T THINK IT'S ANTI-WHITE RACISM IS BAD." But that's not true, they didn't vote on it because the bill because it was making absurd claims about the "dramatic rise of anti-white racism" and a bunch of questionable claims about immigration.
The genius of these type of propaganda bills is that they're win-win. If the government votes to pass them, the far-right then says "hey look, the government admits our delusions are true!!."
If the bill fails, the far right can start screeching about how the government is "anti-white" or whatever.
The bill you just linked is an example of a propaganda bill.
And if you read the text of the bill, you can see exactly why they didn't vote on it.
It's very obvious what the GOP was trying to do here.
I need to establish a baseline of facts here. Is it true that in all of the empirical research on this subject that not a single shred of proof has ever been presented for the claim that there is any real level of voter fraud in this country?
That's a neat op-ed, but the premise is based on a lie. There is no relevant amount of voter fraud in the united states according to literally all academic research on the subject. If you're going to claim democrats are against these laws because they want illegal votes, you have to prove there is a relevant amount of voter fraud.
Until you can do that, these accusations are baseless.
You guys keep saying this. We have taken in-depth looks. We've had multiple republican led "voter fraud councils" that failed to turn up literally any proof of widespread voter fraud.
We have done countless studies looking for voter fraud and failed to turn up any proof for the claims republicans are making.
This is exactly how anti-vaxxers operate, they'll make wild claims about the safety of vaccines, and then when you confront them and point out that vaccines are safe, they'll start claiming we should do "more research" ignoring the fact we've already done a massive amount of research that says they're wrong.
What exactly gives you the impression that these claims of voter fraud have not been studied?
In what way? I believe the republican party is a religious fundamentalist party that seeks to inject their religion into our legal system, denies climate change, staffs vital governent departments with people that have no business being in said departments. I think the GOP is completely unhinged, and this is a view most of the civilized world shares as well.
It isn't only me that thinks the GOP is out of control, it's the entire western world. People like Donald Trump do not get elected by normal, rational political parties. The democratic party is not perfect; but they are the only political party in the country that operates in reality.
1 LongPostBot 2018-11-05
All those words won't bring daddy back.
I am a bot. Contact for questions
1 vjaY619 2018-11-05
Damn you're dedicated to seriousposting. I gotta applaud that.
What I've taken from all this is that you really can't stand the idea of discussing any kind of fault the Democrat party might have out of pure hatred towards Trump and Republicans. That ain't healthy mate, and looking at your post history is nothing more than anti-Trump/Republican vitriol and agendaposting.
Like you'd say CITATION NEEDED.
You'll see in the near future that being this bussyblasted over Trump and company isn't worth the effort. Until then, oh well keep at it.
1 IDFSHILL 2018-11-05
This isn't a response to anything I said.
Are you serious? Have you just not see the international backlash Trump has gotten?
You understand that the GOP encapsulates literally every negative trait the world believes the united states has, right?
You understand that George Bush was the start of this, he completely ruined our standing on the world stage.
http://www.pewglobal.org/2018/10/01/trumps-international-ratings-remain-low-especially-among-key-allies/
http://www.pewglobal.org/2017/06/26/u-s-image-suffers-as-publics-around-world-question-trumps-leadership/
1 vjaY619 2018-11-05
Now you care what the rest of the world thinks?
1 IDFSHILL 2018-11-05
I don't care about their policies, their opinion of us is relevant because the united states depends on these countries for many different things.
The world isolating the united states would be a serious problem. Like you people need to understand that when the rest of the world sees a guy like Donald Trump get elected, someone that very clearly is mentally ill if not outright senile, it doesn't make us look good.
It screams "this is not a stable country."
1 vjaY619 2018-11-05
I say the MSM gets much of the blame for being so hysterical and biased in their negative reporting of Trump.
They'd make it seem like the end of the world is just around the corner. People in other countries don't follow US politics that closely and they form their opinions on what they see on their news which in turn take what the US's MSM reports and copy pastes it.
1 IDFSHILL 2018-11-05
And you'd be wrong. Like the vast majority of the things reported by Donald Trump are factually correc.t
Facts are not biased against him.
M8, there's a reason the GOP is viewed unhinged around the western world, it's because they're a religious fundamentalist party that is at the very least 35 years behind the rest of the civilized world.
1 vjaY619 2018-11-05
Have you seen the number of retractions and outright fake articles that have been pumped out these last 2 years? It's ridiculous. There's a very clear bias against Trump in MSM. You'd have to be blind not to see it.
I'll give it to you that there's some in the GOP that are religious fundies but for the most part this is a bit of an inaccurate generalization.
What will you do today if Republicans keep both House and Senate?
1 IDFSHILL 2018-11-05
I've seen them all and they are a fringe minority compared the accurate stories about Donald Trump.
The entire party leadership is made up of religious fundies.
Not care. I do not care about this country, if rurals want to destroy our image on the world stage and cede the planet to China, more power to them. They could win 100 elections and they'd still be wrong.
1 vjaY619 2018-11-05
It wasn't just rurals that voted for/support Trump you know that, right? US's economy is the strongest in the world right now. Military too. Trump's trade war with China is taking a HEAVY toll on their economy and stock market. China is now begging to come back to the table to strike a new trade deal to roll back the tariffs. Consumer confidence and excitement is coming back to record highs, stock market is holding strong, tax cuts revitalizing buying power, better trade deals being signed and looked at etc. Trump is having a positive influence in the economy and the country is feeling it, that's why there's so much support for him. Obama said the days of 2% yearly GDP growth were here to stay and that outsourced jobs were to be the norm and yet Trump has proved the contrary.
The US is and will still be the strongest geopolitical force in the world for a long time. And taking into consideration the boiling shitsthow that will be hitting Europe these following decades and the imminent socioeconomic collapse of China I'd say the US is in a good spot right now.
1 IDFSHILL 2018-11-05
This comment is a pretty good example of why democracy is a farce. Like, almost nothing you just said is factually correct. To give you an example of what I mean, and to show how profoundly misinformed you are as a person:
Right here. You're confusing annual GDP growth with quarterly GDP growth. Quarterly GDP growth was well above 2% for most of Obamas time in office:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/188185/percent-chance-from-preceding-period-in-real-gdp-in-the-us/
Annual GDP growth is what never hit 3%.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/188165/annual-gdp-growth-of-the-united-states-since-1990/
Trump knew this; but he was able to con you because you never bothered to look into the things you believe.
1 vjaY619 2018-11-05
But it wasn't stable growth. Sure he may have gotten over 3% a few times but it wasn't stable that's why it never got over 3% in annual growth. He had all the tools to achieve stable, strong economic growth with all the economic stimuli and a rebounding economy fresh out of a recession. Most economists agree Obama's economic recovery was painfully slow and stale. Also, I specifically said that it was yearly GDP growth in my comment. I didn't make any confusion mate.
The yearly GDP growth for this year is on mark to be over 3%. And besides that wasn't even my point but the message Obama was giving out when saying stuff like the days of stale growth and outsourced jobs were here to stay. That was a painfully pessimistic and even false message.
​
1 IDFSHILL 2018-11-05
The economy has still not hit 3% annual. You need to just admit you're wrong, you very clearly did not know the difference between annual and quarterly GDP growth.
That's neat, none of this mental gymnastics is going to explain away the fact you didn't know the difference between annual and quarterly gdp growth.
You should read the entire forecast.
https://www.thebalance.com/us-economic-outlook-3305669
It's not fucking "stale" and this is again displaying you don't know what you're talking about. The "ideal gdp growth" for the US is between 2 and 3%. 2.5% is not a "bad gdp" growth rate for a developed economy.
https://www.thebalance.com/what-is-the-ideal-gdp-growth-rate-3306017
Not to mention you're just repeating bullshit about "outsourced" jobs. The economy has been at full employment for a while:
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2015/04/is-the-us-approaching-full-employment/
It's just insane to be how gullible you people are.
1 vjaY619 2018-11-05
My comment said yearly growth. Yearly=Annual. The 2018 GDP IS on track to go over 3% like I said in my comment.
It's a forecast that specifies it really doesn't know what the effect of Trump's tax cuts and trade war will have.
The ideal GDP growth is between 2% and 4%. Also, I was talking about Obama's words itself.
You missed the point. I was talking about Obama's message in and of itself being pessimistic. Also, the unemployment percentage is low but take into account on how many of those jobs are part time. And yes, outsourcing has hurt american workers.
On a similar note, wages and labor force participation are surging under Trump. Jobs reports have been exceeding expectations. The tax cuts for companies have been quite helpful not only for them but for workers as well.
I know presidents don't have full control over the economy but they can influence it. 2017 and 2018 under Trump are proof of it.
1 IDFSHILL 2018-11-05
Tax cuts do not pay for themselves and trade wars are not "won."
This is like when Trump claimed the employment report was fake under Obama and all of the sudden real when he came into office. Do you honestly not see what this is?
https://www.frbatlanta.org/chcs/wage-growth-tracker.aspx?panel=1
Interesting how yet another graph doesn't actually show Trump did anything.
By surging, do you mean pretty much the same as they were before and will remain?
https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000
Where do you get this shit from? Where do you get these stats?
Yeah, you mean like they have been for like 8 or 9 years now?
You're literally just claiming long-term trends are because of Donald Trump, trends that started before he was even in office.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C1fyt0JVEAMld2b.jpg:large
Yes, long-term trends that have been taking place for over 8 years are proof Donald Trump has done something for the economy.
1 vjaY619 2018-11-05
You clearly know more about the subject than me so let me ask, do you work in finance?
1 IDFSHILL 2018-11-05
No, my friend was an economist at Goldman Sachs and he discusses these subjects often.
1 vjaY619 2018-11-05
What I don't get is that you seem so dedicated to go against Trump and his policies while at the same time saying that democracy is a farce, there's no point in voting and that presidents really hold no power at all. Chastising Trump for rallying up people when he's doing the exact same thing every politician does. Politicians inherently work in half truths to get their voter base going. Criticizing Republicans for being religious fundies while ignoring the Democrats being the masters of dividing people with their identity politics and contributing to the social rift we see today. The Democrats are as much zealots of their ideologies as Republicans are.
Also, it's only 2 years into Trump's presidency, don't you see the metrics we were talking about like wages, labor force participation, unemployment, tax cuts etc. all improving in the following years?
1 IDFSHILL 2018-11-05
Just an fyi, Trump ran one of the most identity-based campaigns in US history. The reason you don't it is because you were the chosen target. White identity politics are still identity politics. Rural identity politics are still identity politics.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-end-of-a-republican-party/
Your argument doesn't even make any sense. Let's think about this for a second. The DNC wins every demographic in the country outside of one, the GOP wins a single demographic. What's that tell you about who divides the country more? The party that has wide appeal to poor and rich, black and Asian, Hispanic and white; or the party that is only capable of winning rural whites.
Few things, labor force participation is unlikely to improve any time soon because the cause for the decline is not policy but demographical:
https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2013/article/labor-force-projections-to-2022-the-labor-force-participation-rate-continues-to-fall.htm
As for the rest of this; the only relevant thing you can bring up are the tax cuts, which do not pay for themselves. You can't just slash taxes for short-term GDP growth and ignore the fact you've reduced federal revenue. Where is that money going to come from?
http://www.crfb.org/papers/tax-cuts-dont-pay-themselves
https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/tax-bill-2017/card/1513030772
https://thehill.com/policy/finance/251946-gop-appointee-tax-cuts-do-not-pay-for-themselves
In fact, this has been a republican talking point since at least Reagan:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starve_the_beast
The president has power, just not so much in terms of the economy. Foreign policy is where a lot of the power is.
1 vjaY619 2018-11-05
Good lord longpost. I see your points.
Any critique of Trump when it comes to foreign policy?
​
1 IDFSHILL 2018-11-05
I think he handled NK very poorly and basically handed them a propaganda win on the world stage for no tangible gain.
I think attacking our allies and neighbors is of no benefit to the united states.
There are many valid arguments to be made about how he's helping China more than anything.
He, in general, seems to be fairly clueless as to how any of this works.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/05/24/trump-has-no-idea-how-diplomatic-deals-work/
Well, for starters, every factor he's listing is an "expectation" factor. What you're seeing in these factors is the assumption that one party controlling the house, the senate, and the white house means they'll manage to get something done. They aren't really related to any policy Trump passed.
You can credit Trump with these things if you want to define perception as = to policy choices. Consumer confidence, for example, tends to increase after elections, the stock market tends to go up after elections. All of these things are based on perception.
Another questionable take here is his talk of domestic investment. Sure, due to perception domestic investment might have gone up, but he conviently left out the part where foreign investment crashed:
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2018-07-23/how-trump-repelling-foreign-investment
1 vjaY619 2018-11-05
I see your point but at the same time isn't there credit to be given when it comes to his aggressive stance towards North Korea in the beginning? I mean, there's no more rocket tests going on and peace talks and relations are getting better. Of course we'll see if it'll last but so far so good.
I agree somewhat but at the same time US's allies have been exploiting the US for military defense (for example how much the US pays for military defense in Nato when compared to the rest of the members) and in trade wouldn't you say?
How so? From what I've seen he's standing up to China somewhat when it comes to trade, respecting intellectual property, stopping their financing of NK, south China sea etc.
Plus China's stock market and economy is taking quite a dip since Trump "started" the trade war.
I mean I think trying at the very least to stand up to China's shenanigans is a good thing.
What about the Iran deal and Paris accords? In my opinion the Paris accords were a sham (I believe in climate change, I just didn't like the accords and how little responsibility countries like India, China and Russia had under it) and the Iran deal shouldn't have been made in the first place. What's your take on those two?
When it comes to the economy, you don't believe the economy will improve? Is the next recession coming soon?
​
1 IDFSHILL 2018-11-05
Few things.
A) NK has been trying to bait a US admin into meeting with them since like 1990. They've agreed to denuclearize over 10 different times:
https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/dprkchron
B) NK never stopped building missiles or nukes:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-spy-agencies-north-korea-is-working-on-new-missiles/2018/07/30/b3542696-940d-11e8-a679-b09212fb69c2_story.html?utm_term=.21dc61ff7e7f
https://www.pri.org/stories/2018-07-27/denuclearization-not-going-happen-says-north-korea-expert
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/400727-bolton-north-korea-has-not-taken-the-steps-to-denuclearize
This is a common narrative you see people repeat; claims that the US is being exploited because of NATO, it has no basis in reality.
A) If every country in NATO paid 0 dollars NATO would sitll be of a large strategic benefit to the united states. NATO is absolutely invaluable to the united states and our capabilities on a global scale. You can go ask any general about NATO and ask them if the US is being "exploited" and they'll laugh in your face.
B) No country has ever invoked NATO other than the united states.
Countries are moving closer to China:
https://www.axios.com/trump-trade-war-spurs-japan-china-friendship-2dacb45f-a9ce-4bdb-8ac0-82e9b1766cea.html
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/china/2018-09-28/how-trumps-policies-are-helping-china
Nobody really wins a trade war. The US economy is losing money as well. Trump in general doesn't have a very good comprehension of trade:
1
He literally destroyed US credibility on the world stage by ending an agreement we made, not only that, but nobody backed the united states in this:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/nov/06/european-clearing-house-to-bypass-us-sanctions-against-iran
Why should countries that contributed far less to climate change overall be as responsible as the countries that contributed the vast majority of pollution towards it?
Why?
No idea, we are due for a recession though. This is part of how the economy works.
1 vjaY619 2018-11-05
It's still early to say if they will commit this time, but do you think this is the time they will finally cave in to SK and US's demands? NK desperately needs to modernize and get into the global economy wouldn't you say?
But the US is somewhat being "exploited" considering most other countries don't pay the share agreed upon.
I'm not arguing the merits of NATO and if it's a good or bad alliance. I think it's good but commitment to it should be the same across the board, right? That's Trump's main point, it's that every country should pay the agreed share.
I don't think countries moving closer to China will be a trend. And on the topic of the trade war, I don't believe it's as much about winning as it is in standing up to China's shenanigans.
Yes that was a side effect of it but then again was the deal necessary? I mean paying billions to literal religious radical fundamentalists so they don't advance their nuclear program? Isn't their responsibility to not build nukes? Why should the US swallow being black mailed for other countries responsibilities? I believe straining and outright starving Iran's government is the best hope the people there have to overthrow their theocratic government.
Fair point but then again the US is meeting their carbon emission marks right? Plus China continues to be the biggest polluter and India and Russia are climbing the ranks of carbon emission quite fast.
The US, even though Trump opposes the man made climate change point (something I don't agree with), is still meeting their emission goals and is slowly and naturally changing to renewable energies. The thing with the climate change argument is that there really isn't an ironclad "solution" to fix it. Do you believe there should be carbon taxes and all those "incentives" or that the change to renewable energies should just come naturally?
1 throwawayact69 2018-11-05
You come back with evidence and facts :cry: we don't deserve you. MDEfugees OUT
1 Chicup 2018-11-05
USA is the only country on the planet that doesn't require an ID to vote = suppression.
Police car near a voting location? Suppression.
Removing bad addresses and dead people? Suppression.
1 IDFSHILL 2018-11-05
Here's a yes or no question, is it true that the republican party has lost in federal court multiple times over this issue?
Let's try something Chicup, is the following an example of racial voter suppression?
1 Chicup 2018-11-05
So one judge felt something.
1 IDFSHILL 2018-11-05
By one judge, do you mean multiple federal courts and a federal appeals court?
1 captainpriapism 2018-11-05
sorry the 9th circuit has reversed this decision
1 IDFSHILL 2018-11-05
Yeah, the judges being partisan is why the state themselves argued in court that they ended early voting/sunday voting because the data showed too many black people voted.
1 Chicup 2018-11-05
Sorry can't talk my ward leader said we need to be in Harlem with tbf robes by 6am.
1 throwawayact69 2018-11-05
They downvoted Pizza because he spoke the truth!
1 SonyXboxNintendo11 2018-11-05
That didn't work for Bernie.
1 ItWouldBeGrand 2018-11-05
Well they still believe the 2016 election was rigged, but Hillary was so bad that she even lost a rigged election.
1 seenten 2018-11-05
They still yell that
1 Greatpointbut 2018-11-05
Trump was talking about the DNC screwjob on Bernie. He was right. Just like when he pointed out that bad sick man was tapping his wires. Maybe, just maybe he has even more inside baseball info now that he has the full might of the Burger intelligence apparatus under his command?
Or
Orangemanbad AND stupid 🤔
1 Karmaisforsuckers 2018-11-05
The second one
1 Illogik01 2018-11-05
You mean all those rigged polls designed to demoralize the Republicans by making them think they were facing overwhelming opposition and there was no way they could win?
1 Tobans 2018-11-05
Yep. You're retarded
1 TheRobidog 2018-11-05
Or were the polls rigged to tell democrats they didn't need to vote because Hillary would surely win anyway?
1 ClockSpiral 2018-11-05
Sadly, since the 2016 Elections, there has actually been evidence found of vote rigging in numerous areas... all apparently Left-leaning in choice.
1 RyuunDragon 2018-11-05
Doesn't this mean they're going to win, though? Republicans called 2016 rigged and then they won. If the Democrats call this rigged, won't they win, then?
1 redblaze17 2018-11-05
Probably so Democrats are expected to take the House and maybe the Senate by tomorrow night.
1 Ultrashitposter 2018-11-05
Yeah, but they were also expected to win the presidency in 2016 and they fucked that up hard. It wouldn't be a surprise if they were to fuck this up as well.
1 redblaze17 2018-11-05
Democrats weren't expected to sit on their lazy asses in 2016 either. Thankfully Democrats are learning from their mistake by going out and vote in the polls.
1 Ultrashitposter 2018-11-05
Yeah i dont see them learning from their mistakes. Too many echo chambers and wishful thinking. I havent seen any change of mentality since "Hillary has a 98% chance to win".
1 redblaze17 2018-11-05
Sounds to me like you are the one living in an echo chamber and using wishful thinking.
1 Ultrashitposter 2018-11-05
nah, my candidate didnt lose despite overwhelming media support
1 redblaze17 2018-11-05
Who is your candidate? Gary Johnson? If you vote for third party then your candidate DID lose overwhelmingly in the 2016 election. BTW Hillary overwhelming won the popular vote by 3 million voters.
1 Ultrashitposter 2018-11-05
Im not a murrican so i didn't really have a candidate in 2016. I just hate liberals, and hillbots in particular.
1 redblaze17 2018-11-05
So your Russian then?
Its okay most Russian bots didn't have a candidate in 2016.
Yeah, so do thousands of Neo-Nazis and Russianbots.
1 Ultrashitposter 2018-11-05
IF opinion.other =! opinion.mine
print "You're a russian, reeeeeee"
1 redblaze17 2018-11-05
Your sure are awfully defensive of Russia for a dude who claims to be non-Russian.
1 Tobans 2018-11-05
I love mommy and wish she'd've won
1 Greatpointbut 2018-11-05
People have caught on that the majority of Big Media and the pollsters they hire are lefties. People lie to the pollsters. Pollsters are Skeuomorphs.
1 nomad1c 2018-11-05
Dems will get the house, Reps will get the Senate, shocking no one politically active
1 redblaze17 2018-11-05
Nope, but the White House is bracing for failure tomorrow night. Leak memo shows that Daddy is planning on blaming Republicans for midterm losses.
1 siempreloco31 2018-11-05
Honestly not sure how statisticians recover if the Republicans keep the house.
1 BaguetteFetish 2018-11-05
They've have been predicting shit wrong for decades. They'll be fine.
1 Watermark03 2018-11-05
Before nate silver there really was no actual statistical analysis of elections. You basically just had pundits guesstimating and random polls looked at in isolation.
1 PoopShowPass 2018-11-05
Nate Silver came out yesterday to say the house was a 50/50 shot in order to cover his ass.
1 Crusader_1096_2 2018-11-05
Lol what a pussy. I vote R usually and I doubt they'll keep the house. Silver should just go with what his data actually says instead of just saying "it could go either way" so he doesn't get laughed at like when Trump won.
1 Watermark03 2018-11-05
Nate Silver got a Godlike reputation after nearly flawless calls in 2008 and 2012, he's gotten burnt in the past few elections. I guess he's gotten more timid. Mainly because of bad polls, his methods are ultimately reliant on polls, and it's garbage in garbage out. But still he has to build a model around it.
The problem is that polls have to make a lot of assumptions about the electorate, their stated margin of errors are only true if they're modelling the electorate correctly. Which is a tough job. The law of large numbers only truly applies if you can exactly know what set of people will vote, which is of course impossible. So polling is half art, half science.
1 TehAlpacalypse 2018-11-05
Except, he is?
https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1059203034826334209
1 1999-2017 2018-11-05
Link? That would be perfect
1 PoopShowPass 2018-11-05
Idk just saw it in passing. Didnt realize drama had so many Nate Silver fanboys.
1 TehAlpacalypse 2018-11-05
Are you stupid?
https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1059149034693316608
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2018-midterm-election-forecast/house/?ex_cid=rrpromo
You can literally look at the house forecast right here, on his website.
>listening to dinesh desouza in current year
1 SeattleFingers 2018-11-05
I come to r/Drama to witness burns like this.
1 Greatpointbut 2018-11-05
Nate bronze and his bozo the clown hairdo on election night was delicous. The look of a their caught redhanded.
1 Tobans 2018-11-05
Wut r projecshuns 🤤
1 Greatpointbut 2018-11-05
Porky Nate Bronze was walking on water after Rodom very smugly mentioned him by name. He thought he had made it, only to have a nervous breakdown on air election night.
1 FakeBartReagor 2018-11-05
Wew lad.
1 nicethingyoucanthave 2018-11-05
A bold prediction. What if you're wrong?
1 Myrsephone 2018-11-05
He's been wrong for decades. He'll be fine.
1 MaleEnergy 2018-11-05
Nate Silver will get fatter and balder if it's possible and then write a dozen more essays about how a predicted 85% chance of winning isn't a guaranteed victory
1 YHofSuburbia 2018-11-05
But... he's right. Predicting a 75% or whatever chance of winning doesn't count as a guaranteed victory. How do troglodytes such as yourself not get this incredibly basic statistical concept?
1 MaleEnergy 2018-11-05
He can be right and still be fat and bald
1 pepperouchau 2018-11-05
Statcels btfo
1 LordAndSaviorHaskell 2018-11-05
Yeah, if I had to constantly explain myself to retards who think my job is diviner, I'd probably go fat and bald too.
1 Greatpointbut 2018-11-05
Or maybe he has poor impulse control after he robbed ESPN for 100 million large
1 Ranilen 2018-11-05
Thinking a 75% chance is a lock is from the same school of thought as '50/50 chance because it'll either happen, or it won't!'
Silver was basically the only credible analyst who thought Trump had any real shot.
1 LordAndSaviorHaskell 2018-11-05
Even ignoring that the basic idea behind your comment is stupid, Nate Silver has literally stated that it could go either way, you ignoramus.
1 MaleEnergy 2018-11-05
I agree that Nate Silver's right but I also enjoy the fact that he's become a funny looking punching bag for partisans on both sides. These are not mutually exclusive ideas, you should read more Nate Silver if you don't understand.
1 LordAndSaviorHaskell 2018-11-05
Well, if that's your take, alright, I agree. It is pretty funny, but at the same time somewhat bittersweet to me, because anti-intellectualism runs so rampant.
The initial comment about statisticians recovering just seemed like it was putting the blame on statistics and not on retards misunderstanding it, so I just assumed your comment was supposed to go in a similar direction, my bad.
1 solastsummer 2018-11-05
You’re being too reasonable for this sub.
1 bubastiscatmummy 2018-11-05
Shhh baby is ok
He uses the word "retard" in a derogatory manner or at all, so it passes the content filter. Barely.
1 Dildokin 2018-11-05
This guy is being eloquent, deports the mayo
1 siempreloco31 2018-11-05
I meant it in a way that retards are gonna retard. If the Republicans keep the house, anti-intellectualism will have won.
1 Watermark03 2018-11-05
Tbh nate silver has a much worse record with legislative elections than presidential ones.
1 youcanteatbullets 2018-11-05
85% != 100%. How is this a difficult concept?
1 timsboss 2018-11-05
When you roll a die are you guaranteed to not roll a 6?
1 E_G_Never 2018-11-05
Yes, if it's a d4
1 TehAlpacalypse 2018-11-05
There's a 5% chance of your child being autistic yet here you are
1 CompetitiveLoiterer 2018-11-05
Are people actually going to riot for real this time or are they just going to knit pink hats again.
1 Watermark03 2018-11-05
Antifa didn't exist basically before Trump, they really should thank him for giving their movement life.
1 CorporateAgitProp 2018-11-05
Uh wut?
1 911roofer 2018-11-05
Lame American Antifa. Real European Antifa predates Trump, and is superior in every way to the worthless larpers of America.
1 opi 2018-11-05
Truth. German Antifa has some roots/connections to football ultras firms, no LARP-ing when you streetfight weekly.
1 FaygoMakesMeGo 2018-11-05
You mean the fucks that terrorized Italy and formed east Germany, or the laughable idiots that filled Euro steaming sights for the last 10 years with videos of them starting shit and getting punched by skinheads?
1 seenten 2018-11-05
The WTO riots would like a word with you
1 Greatpointbut 2018-11-05
BlackBlock? More like Blacked.com
1 -absolutego- 2018-11-05
You know a bunch of people were arrested for rioting at the inauguration, right?
Unless shit really goes sideways the majority is hardly ever part of the riots, but people did riot for real last time.
1 CompetitiveLoiterer 2018-11-05
I was there. The people who were arrested had all their charges dropped. That "riot" was child's play.
I want another one where Koreans start walking around the roof of their stores with loaded guns.
1 -absolutego- 2018-11-05
lol I can only imagine the kinds of hysteria we'd get if Trump was forced to put DC under martial law.
1 positiveandmultiple 2018-11-05
I don't get this perspective. Fivethirtyeight put trump winning at 30%, as did the trump campaign itself. Now they have Repubs taking house at 1 in 7. Where did statisticians ever mess this up?
1 siempreloco31 2018-11-05
People have a tough time with probability and regress to binary thinking. A Republican win will solidify anti-science among a large portion of the country.
1 CannabisCumshot69 2018-11-05
yeah but trump 100% won, which means if you didn't guess 100% before then you're a retard
lmao learn statistics
1 allendrio 2018-11-05
Its pretty mind boggling how people dont understand the most basic statistics but then again that also explains their nonsensical beliefs.
1 FineLow 2018-11-05
I doubt they have issues more than the liberals having issues if that happens. Though the fact wall street is siding with democrats here, I think its pretty safe to say they are going to take the house.
1 uniqueguy263 2018-11-05
It’s pollster’s fault if that happens, the statisticians just interpret their data. Garbage in, garbage fault
1 BumwineBaudelaire 2018-11-05
pollers will keep getting the majority of their funding from political campaigns to totally not influence elections with their statistically improbably errors
1 pbjandahighfive 2018-11-05
Modern statisticians are basically useless because the vast majority of them are heavily biased and either use heavily flawed interpretations of statistical surveys or use heavily flawed statistical surveys themselves to push their chosen narrative. Basically every bit of "information" that every news source puts out ranges from half-truth to flat out lie on both sides of the American political spectrum.
1 tHeSiD 2018-11-05
It seems like they have realized the eventuality...
1 TuaTonguemybuttholea 2018-11-05
this kind of retarded shit makes it hard for me to embrace Democrats, I say this as a Trump-hating radical centrist. My God all I fucking want at this point is a President that doesn't call porn stars 'horse face' on twitter
1 Corporal-Hicks 2018-11-05
why would you want that? Shits hilarious
1 TuaTonguemybuttholea 2018-11-05
I do love drama yes but not at my own personal expense: AKA the president of my country being actually legitimately retarded. At this point it's just sad
1 Rosaarch 2018-11-05
It's only sad if you are retarded.
1 snallygaster 2018-11-05
It's sad if you would rather not watch your country fall apart and don't believe that the entertainment value of the government is worth the government ans its supporters slowly erode the country into what may eventually become a shithole on par with Brazil. The situation we're in is the result of America's worst cultural values and shoddy education system interacting with the internet. It's all downhill from here, and that's a bad thing.
1 Rosaarch 2018-11-05
I wish I could see the world with this theatrics.
1 snallygaster 2018-11-05
I'm not the one supporting an admin whose only redeeming quality is its theatrics.
If you think that it's "theatrics" to be ashamed that the country has come to a place where it's willing to elect a man who probably would have been dumped in a group home if he weren't born into wealth, for no other reason beyond 'it's different' or 'liberal tears' then you deserve to live in a country that makes decisions for those types of reasons.
1 Rosaarch 2018-11-05
Hypothetically if Trump wasn't born in wealth, he would be white trash like everyone else, that's why the country with the world's biggest economy is fucked.
1 ironicshitpostr 2018-11-05
wow snally way to go 1488 on us
1 ObnoxiousFactczecher 2018-11-05
Going 1492 on you might be even better.
1 911roofer 2018-11-05
Brazil is a shithole because of the Brazilians.
1 snallygaster 2018-11-05
And America is a shithole because of Americans.
1 kirukokujin1 2018-11-05
just move to cuba with the other CTH users
1 snallygaster 2018-11-05
Unlike the fentanyl Americans who've helped create the situation we're in now, I can easily move to a country that's actually good if shit hits the fan. Why would I go to Cuba?
Yes, I must be a commie because I understand that America is degrading into a shithole because our culture and widespread lack of education makes us extremely easy to exploit (as can be seen by the fact that a paint-licker was elected to the highest office for pirely emotional reasons)
1 kirukokujin1 2018-11-05
so you can laugh at chapocucks having to work for once
where else would you go anyways
1 SpiceAndEvNice 2018-11-05
Fall apart? On par with Brazil? Keep this fatalistic bullshit out of here tbqh. As a non burger you guys still have it best than most of the world. The idiot in chief will pass, you’ll get your Queen Yaaasss Democrat president in 2 or 6 years and life will keep on going as nice as it does for you people.
If you are seriously “afraid”, take your head out of whatever echo chamber you are in. Shit isn’t bad at all.
1 snallygaster 2018-11-05
Countries can rise and fall quickly (or slowly). Argentina was a powerhouse for a while and just look at it now. Plus the fact that the US isn't becoming Malawi doesn't mean that it isn't getting worse.
You don't understand- regardless of who's in office, the population is becoming increasingly radicalized, susceptible to propaganda, and conspiracy-minded. As long as this continues to be a problem (and it will), Americans will continue to vote for people who exploit them and in some cases erode the democratic system, e.g. the Georgia governer who will almost certainly be reelected. I'm phoneposting and can't elaborate much atm, but the roots of the current problem are decades old and only beginning to grow severe enough for the average person to notice them.
1 ioiidnsksi 2018-11-05
lmao saying burgerland getting fucked and becoming a shithole is a bad thing
1 I_DRINK_TO_FORGET 2018-11-05
Just accept that we are on track for a 2nd civil war in the next 50-100 years because the government we have is corrupt and the citizens are at each others throats because the left has moved too far left too fast and no longer can reconcile with the other side, which is why the democrats abandoned the working class and are attempting to quite literally replace them with foreigners.
Meanwhile voting for the right just further entrenches and rewards the corrupt republican party and the corporate pay to play in Washington DC.
1 Ed_ButteredToast 2018-11-05
BOTTOM TEXT
1 Hydrium 2018-11-05
Country is doing fine, go clutch pearls about something else.
1 Corporal-Hicks 2018-11-05
get a job you commie fuck
1 Googlaloo 2018-11-05
Imagine being this upset at Cheetos
1 Greatpointbut 2018-11-05
This derogatory degradation of a PoC has to stop now. It's 2018.
1 captainpriapism 2018-11-05
yeah he said retarded already
1 Fletch71011 2018-11-05
America is in great fucking shape right now. I thought a Trump presidency was going to be a disaster, but all indicators have the US kicking ass across the board. We might be succeeding in spite of him, but he hasn't caused any significant damage.
1 LBCdaze 2018-11-05
Years of shitty left wing policies and left wing corruption drove Brazil into the ground, so a pretty piss poor comparison at the highest degree on your part.
1 Alimentas 2018-11-05
And you call yourself a radical centrist? Neck yourself my dude.
1 muck4doo 2018-11-05
How did him calling her horse face come at your expense?
1 a_normal_human 2018-11-05
Maybe if the media environment didn't incentivize him calling a lying porn star a horse face he wouldn't have to? I mean, Trump has just been giving the media what they want, a 24/7 shitshow.
1 meatpuppet79 2018-11-05
An indelicate retard he may be, but he hasn't started any wars yet, no nuclear detonations, no economic collapse, no Armageddon, no wimmin and gays sent to internment camps, if he can just keep this up for a little longer he'll go down as one of the less destructive presidents in history.
1 Greatpointbut 2018-11-05
Careful, there's no way he isn't on par with Mao, Stalin and Hitler. I mean, Hitler didn't have as much time as the other 2, but Trump still has 6 more years to kick it up a /u/xnotch.
1 high_chew32 2018-11-05
You seem like a normie
1 Watermark03 2018-11-05
Put on your Hitler armband and your are a unique individual
1 high_chew32 2018-11-05
Yes you’d be unique in a country where your opinions are held by less than a percent of the population.
Go sniff some paint watermark
1 Watermark03 2018-11-05
Normie
1 kirukokujin1 2018-11-05
i wear a taisei yokusankai pin im already unique :)
1 cuteman 2018-11-05
You got to admit there's a greater than zero resemblance to a horse.
1 Watermark03 2018-11-05
And Trump looks like a human orange he had no place to talk
1 wewladin 2018-11-05
Orange man bad.
1 snallygaster 2018-11-05
If somebody used this meme within earshot of me it would give me cancer; it's beyond embarrassing
1 wewladin 2018-11-05
Thank god its an internet meme only and i use it ironically
1 I-need-MAYO 2018-11-05
yeah, but on what level of irony?
1 Greatpointbut 2018-11-05
NPCs gonna NPC.
1 cuteman 2018-11-05
He's the president. He has every place to talk.
Go bet on the horse races if you want...
Washed up porn star and her lawyer pay off 100,000:1.
1 TuaTonguemybuttholea 2018-11-05
When you're the president you're held to a higher standard and are expected to in a respectable manner that displays class and leadership. Not cyber bully random porn stars on twitter that you regret fucking.
1 Bigspartandaddy 2018-11-05
>Yeah, dude, Cheeto Drumpf doesn´t act presidential at all, he called some washed-up ugly pornstar horseface.
>Obama calling a respectable artist a Jackass? Classy move, my dude.
​
Neck yourself
1 TuaTonguemybuttholea 2018-11-05
Obama didn't rile up a fan base of uneducated retards by blaming the Mexicans and foreigners for all their shortcomings.
You can name one example ever of Obama calling someone a jackass ever, as if that excuses all the bullshit Trump pulls.
You know, there was a politician that recently lost an ugly race where his opponent ran a smear campaign. They were still going to have to work together after the election since both still held political positions. When asked if he was going to badmouth his opponent afterwards he said "no, were constituents now and there's no place for personal insults". And god damn was that refreshing to hear.
1 Bigspartandaddy 2018-11-05
Yeah, racyss whitey is the problem. Here's why that's a good thing.
Am I supposed to care that Trump called a rich ugly whore horseface?
Who?
1 Greatpointbut 2018-11-05
How rich can she be? Word on the street is that the sluts make $1000 a scene. Has she done 10000 scenes? cause a thousand scenes doesn't make one "rich"
1 captainpriapism 2018-11-05
yeah obama was known for having intellectual, knowledgeable fans
like black americans
1 froibo 2018-11-05
Lmao no one respects Kanye for his opinions.
1 Bigspartandaddy 2018-11-05
I respect Kanye's opinion when it comes to music and music videos. When he said Taylor Swift's video was shit, it's because it was trash.
They're not sending their best, folks.
1 froibo 2018-11-05
Obama would probably agree with you.
1 cuteman 2018-11-05
And yet... Orange man bad.
1 froibo 2018-11-05
Ayy orange man bad lmao
1 cuteman 2018-11-05
Surely not as bad as you purport
1 froibo 2018-11-05
K?
1 Pepperglue 2018-11-05
I'm sure that ship has sailed long ago. In my lifetime, Clinton's whole ordeal made it pretty clear.
1 bubastiscatmummy 2018-11-05
You get the elected representative you deserve in a representative democracy or democratic republic.
1 911roofer 2018-11-05
Clinton begs to differ.
1 TuaTonguemybuttholea 2018-11-05
At least he was charismatic enough to get a blowjob in the first place. Bill Clinton should be a mod here. He spent his time in the Oval Office smoking weed and getting his dick sucked
1 cuteman 2018-11-05
Somebody doesn't know the history of presidents.
1 TuaTonguemybuttholea 2018-11-05
Yes I know other presidents have acted crass before. But they can get away with it because they aren't fucking retarded
1 cuteman 2018-11-05
That's like, your opinion, man
1 Burnnoticelover 2018-11-05
If that is the case, he paid six figures to have sex with a horse.
1 cuteman 2018-11-05
Everyone has regrets.
1 CuriousKrow 2018-11-05
Vice article: Trump is technically a brony. Here's why that's a bad thing.
1 nanonan 2018-11-05
Imagine thinking horse faced whores are trustworthy just because you have been convinced that orange man is bad.
1 Osterion 2018-11-05
Just ignore all the personalities and vote for the party whose platform u like more.
1 SlackBabo 2018-11-05
Lol good one
1 Watermark03 2018-11-05
Wow a "centrist" struggling with supporting the center left, shocked I am
1 Tytos_Lannister 2018-11-05
1 TuaTonguemybuttholea 2018-11-05
1 Tytos_Lannister 2018-11-05
that ship has sailed lol
1 WeWuzKANG5 2018-11-05
I know right? Where was the bi-partisan outrage when Bill had his dick sucked by an intern and nutted on her dress?
1 Thatlookedlikeithurt 2018-11-05
Yeah that died when LBJ started waving his dick around the White House.
1 -absolutego- 2018-11-05
>implying we really need to care about the opinions of countries utterly dependent on us for either foreign aid or military protection.
1 TuaTonguemybuttholea 2018-11-05
If you think we're holding all the cards when it comes to foreign policy then you're more retarded than I thought. Goes to show how little MAGAtards understand about foreign policy.
1 -absolutego- 2018-11-05
>He thinks I'm a MAGAtard
Daddy's almost as dumb as his fanbase, this is one of the few issues I agree with him on
1 TuaTonguemybuttholea 2018-11-05
Foreign policy is much more complex than "DID WE WIN THIS SPECIFIC TRADE DEAL??"
Trump literally thinks a trade deficit means that we're losing money, because he's fucking retarded and doesn't understand foreign policy or economics or how trade works.
In 4 years when the next president is trying to negotiate trade deals, the other world leaders are going to be pissed at us and give us 0 leniency and not try to work with us for an advantageous deal on both sides. They aren't just going to forget that our country has been treating them like shit while Trump is in office.
Trump souring our relations with our allies could have terrible devastating long term effects. As well as his inexperienced yet hands-on approach to trade deficits & international economics.
1 -absolutego- 2018-11-05
I'm not that concerned about trade deals in particular (though I do think Free Trade is mostly just an excuse for multinationals to have unfettered access to the American market without reciprocity from other countries), I'm just sick to death of weaselly Europeans constantly browbeating us for whatever we do and then begging us to intervene when they fuck up (see: Libya).
Trump demanding NATO countries finally put in the 2% military spending the agreement stipulates was one of the few good things he's done.
1 911roofer 2018-11-05
China has been screwing us over and backstabbing us. 'Bout time those shifty-eyed yellow weasels were put in their place.
1 TuaTonguemybuttholea 2018-11-05
China has been pulling some shady tactics but that doesn't excuse Trump's behavior with our actual allies and doesn't mean his general view of trade is correct. It's like a 4 year going "DADA LOOK SKY IS BLUE" and then calling him a meteorologist for pointing out the obvious
1 Vegan_dogfucker 2018-11-05
Which party is running on the "mandatory abortion for white males" platform?
1 bubastiscatmummy 2018-11-05
embrace discordia tho
1 captainpriapism 2018-11-05
tbf she is kind of a horse face
1 FearOfBees 2018-11-05
Trump is basically the face of drama. Why would you not want that?
1 pbjandahighfive 2018-11-05
But it's funny.
1 FaygoMakesMeGo 2018-11-05
You mean starting drama?
1 Corporal-Hicks 2018-11-05
Prediction: this will not go well the dems
1 Watermark03 2018-11-05
K
1 ry8919 2018-11-05
RemindMe! 36 Hours
1 RemindMeBot 2018-11-05
I will be messaging you on 2018-11-07 05:00:38 UTC to remind you of this link.
CLICK THIS LINK to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam.
Parent commenter can delete this message to hide from others.
1 LongPostBot 2018-11-05
All those words won't bring daddy back.
I am a bot. Contact for questions
1 SpiceAndEvNice 2018-11-05
I can’t wait for the inevitable drama, whatever happens.
1 no___justno 2018-11-05
yeah, this election is win-win for /r/drama
thanks trump
1 Rosaarch 2018-11-05
Put down your fucking bets now, whose side's tears will we be drinking on Tuesday?
1 alot_the_murdered 2018-11-05
Both lol
1 Myrsephone 2018-11-05
Variety is the spice of drama
1 Van-Diemen 2018-11-05
This.
GOP senate, Dem house. Both sides claim victory despite the blue wave being more of a puddle, while everyone is secretly seething and pretending everything is going their way.
1 Burnnoticelover 2018-11-05
Dems will win the house by a big margin, but it won’t be enough for them, and they will cry that the senate was gerrymandered because they are morons.
1 jubbergun 2018-11-05
I don't think they will. I think we're going to see the end of a historical trend. Too many of the elections dems need to win are "too close to call." Because of the way most polls are conducted that probably means the republican leads by 2-to-3 points. That's still in the margin of error, but I'm seeing some anecdotal stuff that makes me think the democrats are going to lose. Republicans are fired up. They even outdid democrats in early voting in a lot of places.
1 Vladith 2018-11-05
Dems will win the house but lose seats in the Senate, causing both sides to celebrate.
Trump will make some comment about illegal votes and the media will freak out but nothing will happen
1 pbjandahighfive 2018-11-05
The media will go full-retard, as per the usual course.
1 FaygoMakesMeGo 2018-11-05
After Obama won, and all those GOP vids of people tearing up went live, I didn't think a larger group of babies existed.
But Trump made dramacoin great again. I'm not hedging my bets, all in on team orange.
1 regionalfire 2018-11-05
Will all the celebrities finally move to Canada like they promised back in 2016?
1 MacAndShits 2018-11-05
inb4 immigration website crashes again
1 MG87 2018-11-05
I'm still waiting on the Nuge to off himself like he promised
1 CarlosIIvonHabsburg 2018-11-05
No thanks, Canada has enough NPCs as it is.
1 Watermark03 2018-11-05
Nice
1 Tytos_Lannister 2018-11-05
what's funny is that if you look at it more closely gerrymandering is not even such a problem per se (and could even backfire if there is a wave on either side, though it makes for a compelling blame narrative for /r/politics), much bigger and deeper problem which democrats are afraid to admit are rurals, dems need to adress the rural question
1 accounttttttttttt 2018-11-05
but they did. the plan is for all of the hicks to move to the coast and get programming jobs.
1 Tytos_Lannister 2018-11-05
fuck that, if that's the plan they are going to be ungrateful and disloyal, you need to make them a permanent underclass instead
1 Thatlookedlikeithurt 2018-11-05
That’s their plan with illegal immigration, you can’t have to many underclasses, that way lies French Revolution.
1 Tytos_Lannister 2018-11-05
but undocumented immigrants (sry, a dem partisan) are on the democratic side, if you have underclasses that hate each other it cancels out
1 ObnoxiousFactczecher 2018-11-05
I though that was the plan with soy and corn subsidies?
1 seenten 2018-11-05
Coastal reeeelite here; I never agreed to this
1 accounttttttttttt 2018-11-05
but now you get to teach rails to pajeet AND cletus!
1 muck4doo 2018-11-05
"Selected not elected!"
"Rigged by diebold!"
"OMG Russians!"
Excited to see what the new one will be, but this isn't a Presidential race.
1 jubbergun 2018-11-05
Ezra Klein already came up with it. Apparently there is now a nationwide "popular vote" for House seats, LOL.
1 MG87 2018-11-05
Oh bullshit, maybe if Demmocrats would vote for once then this wouldn't be a concern.
1 Ardvarkeating101 2018-11-05
They seemed to vote in 2016, it just didn't help them.
1 error404brain 2018-11-05
It feels weird to agree with a r/politics poster.
1 I-need-MAYO 2018-11-05
And it's like the most upvoted comment. The fuck is going on over there.
1 error404brain 2018-11-05
Black magic bullshit.
1 WeWuzKANG5 2018-11-05
Imagine collectively screaming, covering and plugging your ears, and crying because you aren't getting your way on the world stage for everyone to see and remember for decades to come.
1 allendrio 2018-11-05
Depends if you count suppressing the non boomer mayo votes "cheating", just like im sure Republicans think democrats are cheating because they get all of the black vote just because they dont court racist boomers.
1 freet0 2018-11-05
Amazing to me how the same people can mock Trumpets for their ridiculous voter fraud conspiracy theories and then turn around have their own ridiculous voter fraud conspiracy theories.
1 pbjandahighfive 2018-11-05
/r/politics and /r/worldnews are too easy of a target anymore. They have become cultish havens for individuals with extra chromosomes and conspiracy theorists.
1 loli_esports 2018-11-05
I was watching the news today and yesterday and they only mentioned daylight savings once. I would hate to know how many minority and inner city voters get turned away because a republican policy tricked them into thinking they had an extra hour to vote. Everyone knows rich Rs have iphones, laptops, ect, so they don't need to turn back their clocks, but your average single mom working 2 jobs and raising a kid won't remember to turn back their old kitchen clocks. It's pretty bad we can't push off daylight savings till after the election, but that's gerrymandering lol