djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,481
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 2, 2016 19:55:40 GMT -5
Just remember, when worrying about Trump winning the nomination, A mind is a terrible thing to waste. I imagine the Clinton camp is happy and also scared to go against Trump this fall. Bill Clinton will be likely locked up somewhere out of public view, so as not to hurt Hillary. i don't know why they should be. all of the matchup polling shows that she beats him more easily than anyone else running. no, i think Clinton would be relieved to have such a weak target. Rubio would give her way more trouble.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 2, 2016 19:58:11 GMT -5
I didn't say I've been diligently reading your posts. I said you've been carrying on about Mr. Trump for 1,000 posts for three months. As for Mr. Trump: I don't know what you think. I can't reconcile "but the way Preibus is talking, he is going to follow Trump down the drain", "there is a good chance the nomination will hinge on the last primaries this year", "i don't know how he gets beaten", and "i think it is LIKELY [Trump will win]" into a single opinion. Can you see a path to him being beaten or not? Is he going down the drain or not? Is there a good chance he's going to cruise to victory, or is there a good chance it will all come down to the wire in the last primaries? You obviously don't have to commit to answers in the absolute, but it seems to me that there's a war in your mind between what you want to believe (that there's a chance Mr. Trump won't be the nominee) and what you know to be true (that the other candidates don't have a snowball's chance in hell at catching up to him now). i find him loathsome and dangerous, Virgil. if i carry on about it, it is because i think about it almost obsessively. do you think that is wrong? do you think i should apologize? and yes, i can see a path for him being beaten. i can see TWO, actually. ONE: the polling swings WILDLY toward Rubio in the next (2) weeks, and he wins Florida, and a whole string of later states. TWO: the polling dips slightly for Trump and he gets less than 1237 delegates. the likelihood of either of those would be greatly diminished if Trump wins both Ohio AND Florida. in fact, i probably would regard the chances of Trump losing so small at that point, that i would cease PUBLICLY stating that possibility. but that war in my mind would continue. the war against the absolute ABSURDITY that his candidacy represents. I don't think you should apologize. Just... shades of Paul from 2012. He wanted Mr. Romney to win sooooooooo badly. His optimism was painful to read at times. It was like watching a documentary on Christa McAuliffe. I'm getting the same vibe here.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 5, 2024 21:39:53 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2016 19:59:05 GMT -5
Richard....your post #540 attributed to me comments that had been posted by tallguy. Please be careful enough to differentiate and also please don't "quote" me again if it's something I never said...which you have done before. TYIA. My post #540 quotes (via the "Quote" button in the post) your post #538. Please don't accuse me of attributing incorrectly when I haven't.
|
|
Value Buy
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 17:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 18,680
Today's Mood: Getting better by the day!
Location: In the middle of enjoying retirement!
Favorite Drink: Zombie Dust from Three Floyd's brewery
Mini-Profile Name Color: e61975
Mini-Profile Text Color: 196ce6
|
Post by Value Buy on Mar 2, 2016 19:59:19 GMT -5
I know Rubio and Cruz both would give Hillary a hard time. I just do not believe either has a chance to beat her in the election. No one can underestimate Trump. Everyone that did is finished, including the people behind the curtain. I see a major Republican donor says he will pass on going after Trump.
|
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Mar 2, 2016 20:01:29 GMT -5
My post #540 quotes (via the "Quote" button in the post) your post #538. Please don't accuse me of attributing incorrectly when I haven't.
I simply reminded you that comments therein were from tallguy and asked for differentiation. As you have fake quoted me in the past I thought you could use the help. You attributed incorrectly by that lack of differentiation. I don't expect anything other than more of your usual so have at it.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,481
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 2, 2016 20:02:20 GMT -5
i find him loathsome and dangerous, Virgil. if i carry on about it, it is because i think about it almost obsessively. do you think that is wrong? do you think i should apologize? and yes, i can see a path for him being beaten. i can see TWO, actually. ONE: the polling swings WILDLY toward Rubio in the next (2) weeks, and he wins Florida, and a whole string of later states. TWO: the polling dips slightly for Trump and he gets less than 1237 delegates. the likelihood of either of those would be greatly diminished if Trump wins both Ohio AND Florida. in fact, i probably would regard the chances of Trump losing so small at that point, that i would cease PUBLICLY stating that possibility. but that war in my mind would continue. the war against the absolute ABSURDITY that his candidacy represents. I don't think you should apologize. Just... shades of Paul from 2012. He wanted Mr. Romney to win sooooooooo badly. His optimism was painful to read at times. It was like watching a documentary on Christa McAuliffe. I'm getting the same vibe here. i am going to try asking you one more time what you mean by that, before i give up. do you mean that i want Trump to lose in the same way that Paul wanted Obama to lose? i think that is completely FINE to want something that much. i commend ANYONE for that. now, if you are saying that it has utterly slain my rational mind, you are completely wrong. i think that Trump has about a 60% chance of winning the nomination, as of today. i think Cruz has about a 25% chance, Rubio a 10% chance, and Kasich a 5% chance. and i can articulate precisely what each candidate would need to do to get there. Trump's path is way easier.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,481
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 2, 2016 20:04:17 GMT -5
I know Rubio and Cruz both would give Hillary a hard time. I just do not believe either has a chance to beat her in the election. No one can underestimate Trump. Everyone that did is finished, including the people behind the curtain. I see a major Republican donor says he will pass on going after Trump. nobody can underestimate him, but everyone can overestimate him. i still think he is a Carnival Barker. he is a joke. but i no longer think that he is a joke that can't win.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 5, 2024 21:39:53 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2016 20:08:15 GMT -5
My post #540 quotes (via the "Quote" button in the post) your post #538. Please don't accuse me of attributing incorrectly when I haven't.
I simply reminded you that comments therein were from tallguy and asked for differentiation. As you have fake quoted me in the past I thought you could use the help. You attributed incorrectly by that lack of differentiation. I don't expect anything other than more of your usual so have at it. Ah. I see what you are referring to now. My apologies. I should have used "the" instead of "your"... that is my "bad" and I shall correct it. However, for the record, since you were replying to my post about tallguy's comment, and you both lack an avatar and write similarly, you should be able to see it was an honest mistake. Also I was replying to your criticism of my comment to HIS comment. ETA: and I have never "fake quoted" you. Just wanted to clarify that. I have used quotes to denote sarcasm relating to a feeling of a post by you... like "air quotes" around the word "improved" when speaking verbally to someone and referencing "improved" service by a company that's worse than before... If you wish to call that "fake quoting", be my guest... but you'd be wrong.
|
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Mar 2, 2016 20:17:05 GMT -5
Call your fake quoting whatever you want. You know you will.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 5, 2024 21:39:53 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2016 22:36:24 GMT -5
Call your fake quoting whatever you want. You know you will. I've never "fake [quoted]" you... so I can't call doing so, anything.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,481
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 2, 2016 23:36:41 GMT -5
|
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Mar 3, 2016 2:20:50 GMT -5
I've never "fake [quoted]" you... so I can't call doing so, anything.
Of course you did. Not only that you implied I had said things with a statement that just.weren't.there. I guess I suffer from hidden implication syndrome.
I'm moving on and I think it best you stop lying and drop the entire matter. Bye bye.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 3, 2016 4:52:08 GMT -5
I don't think you should apologize. Just... shades of Paul from 2012. He wanted Mr. Romney to win sooooooooo badly. His optimism was painful to read at times. It was like watching a documentary on Christa McAuliffe. I'm getting the same vibe here. i am going to try asking you one more time what you mean by that, before i give up. do you mean that i want Trump to lose in the same way that Paul wanted Obama to lose? i think that is completely FINE to want something that much. i commend ANYONE for that. now, if you are saying that it has utterly slain my rational mind, you are completely wrong. i think that Trump has about a 60% chance of winning the nomination, as of today. i think Cruz has about a 25% chance, Rubio a 10% chance, and Kasich a 5% chance. and i can articulate precisely what each candidate would need to do to get there. Trump's path is way easier. To answer your question: What I'm saying is what you think I'm saying. As for the percentages: 60% Trump winning vs. 40% losing is pretty close to a coin flip. I'm not convinced there's that much light at the end of the tunnel. Just as long as we don't see this:
|
|
Value Buy
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 17:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 18,680
Today's Mood: Getting better by the day!
Location: In the middle of enjoying retirement!
Favorite Drink: Zombie Dust from Three Floyd's brewery
Mini-Profile Name Color: e61975
Mini-Profile Text Color: 196ce6
|
Post by Value Buy on Mar 3, 2016 7:53:06 GMT -5
And today we have Mitt "The Mittmentumn" Romney who is going to publicly attack Trump.
Can't wait until we see how this hurts Trump. NOT! Now, if Mitt came out and announced he was entering the race and he could, since most west coast states are still allowing entrants to sign up, we could have a brokered convention. Unless the voters actually just fractionalize Cruz and Rubio's voters...........
|
|
Politically_Incorrect12
Senior Member
With a little faith, we can move a mountain; with a little help, we can change the world.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:42:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,763
|
Post by Politically_Incorrect12 on Mar 3, 2016 8:18:26 GMT -5
It's interesting that at this point, people are still on the attack of the frontrunner. Maybe Trump would cause both Republicans and Democrats in the House and Senate to have a common "enemy" if he were elected to the extent that they might actually start trying to work together.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 5, 2024 21:39:53 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 3, 2016 9:24:57 GMT -5
Predicting nomination is two fold. Predicting will he get the delegates to win and if he doesn't...
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Mar 3, 2016 9:51:18 GMT -5
You have to be kidding, Just what does the GOP establishment trying to do here?
Small hands, sweats to much, and Romney's comments, Don't they realize that the reason Trump is doing as well is because of the establishment attitude!
This looks like junior high school fights.
Attacks on one of your own does nothing good. Idiots!!
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 5, 2024 21:39:53 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 3, 2016 10:02:44 GMT -5
If they knew what the heck they were doing they might have predicted decades worth of fear and hate mongering would lead them here... So no, I'm not sure they know what they are doing.
|
|
Gardening Grandma
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:39:46 GMT -5
Posts: 17,962
|
Post by Gardening Grandma on Mar 3, 2016 10:07:12 GMT -5
The link opened for me, but there was no source cited for ANY of the charts. They get the data from the government. Which is increasingly fudging the data to make them look significantly better than they actually are. It's unusual that they don't include the source in the figures themselves, but it's undoubtedly because there are nine sandwiched together. Since no source is cited, how do you know the data comes from tne gov't? A credible citation gives the source in such a way that it can easily be verified.
|
|
Politically_Incorrect12
Senior Member
With a little faith, we can move a mountain; with a little help, we can change the world.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:42:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,763
|
Post by Politically_Incorrect12 on Mar 3, 2016 10:13:42 GMT -5
If they knew what the heck they were doing they might have predicted decades worth of fear and hate mongering would lead them here... So no, I'm not sure they know what they are doing. What exactly do you think democrats do?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 5, 2024 21:39:53 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 3, 2016 10:16:10 GMT -5
Did you read the article posted yesterday on authoritarianism? You should. It gave me a new understanding of what I have been trying to make say and make sense of on this matter.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 21,554
Member is Online
|
Post by happyhoix on Mar 3, 2016 10:23:38 GMT -5
for the record, i don't think anything is inevitable. perhaps tomorrow, a video tape of Trump having sex with a goat will surface. let's see the evangelicals vote for THAT. I posted an excerpt from an article billis cited in another thread: evangelicals are indifferent and church-goers are significantly opposed to him. Apparently his base is "authoritarian" voters, although they use a very behavioural-sciencey definition of "authoritarian" that doesn't mesh with the political definition. If Trump sinks, it will be because of a video surfaces of him shaking hands with the Ayatollah or something. I was reading an interesting article in the New Yorker about Trumps' strategy. At his stump speeches, he spends the first third talking about the poll numbers, and how he is winning, winning, winning. He spends the second third trashing the media (at his speeches, members of the media are fenced into an area at the back of the room, and he usually points at them and talks about how horrible they are and how, as POTUS, he's going to change the libel laws so he can sue the horrible media outlets for lying about him all the time.
During one of these rallies, the reporter talked to several Trump supporters who said they didn't believe anything anyone said about Trump - that they only believed what Trump said about Trump.
It's a brilliant strategy and Trump is doing an outstanding job with it - he's convinced his supporters nothing anyone else says about him is ever true. I saw a commercial this AM from some PAC talking about Trump University, interviewing people who got taken for tens of thousands of dollars by a fake college that didn't hand out degrees, and I thought to myself - I bet this will have zero effect because Trumps voters will assume it's all lies.
Say what you want about him, he's devised an infallible way to brainwash his followers into sticking with him.
|
|
Gardening Grandma
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:39:46 GMT -5
Posts: 17,962
|
Post by Gardening Grandma on Mar 3, 2016 10:26:23 GMT -5
Did you read the article posted yesterday on authoritarianism? You should. It gave me a new understanding of what I have been trying to make say and make sense of on this matter. I've read that article. It helped me wrap my head around Trump's support from the evangelicals - I get his support of the angry, white (mostly) males. But could not understand, for the life of me, his support by the religious.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,481
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 3, 2016 11:24:21 GMT -5
I posted an excerpt from an article billis cited in another thread: evangelicals are indifferent and church-goers are significantly opposed to him. Apparently his base is "authoritarian" voters, although they use a very behavioural-sciencey definition of "authoritarian" that doesn't mesh with the political definition. If Trump sinks, it will be because of a video surfaces of him shaking hands with the Ayatollah or something. I was reading an interesting article in the New Yorker about Trumps' strategy. At his stump speeches, he spends the first third talking about the poll numbers, and how he is winning, winning, winning. He spends the second third trashing the media (at his speeches, members of the media are fenced into an area at the back of the room, and he usually points at them and talks about how horrible they are and how, as POTUS, he's going to change the libel laws so he can sue the horrible media outlets for lying about him all the time.
During one of these rallies, the reporter talked to several Trump supporters who said they didn't believe anything anyone said about Trump - that they only believed what Trump said about Trump.
It's a brilliant strategy and Trump is doing an outstanding job with it - he's convinced his supporters nothing anyone else says about him is ever true. I saw a commercial this AM from some PAC talking about Trump University, interviewing people who got taken for tens of thousands of dollars by a fake college that didn't hand out degrees, and I thought to myself - I bet this will have zero effect because Trumps voters will assume it's all lies.
Say what you want about him, he's devised an infallible way to brainwash his followers into sticking with him.
he's a very dangerous fellow.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,481
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 3, 2016 11:31:04 GMT -5
i am going to try asking you one more time what you mean by that, before i give up. do you mean that i want Trump to lose in the same way that Paul wanted Obama to lose? i think that is completely FINE to want something that much. i commend ANYONE for that. now, if you are saying that it has utterly slain my rational mind, you are completely wrong. i think that Trump has about a 60% chance of winning the nomination, as of today. i think Cruz has about a 25% chance, Rubio a 10% chance, and Kasich a 5% chance. and i can articulate precisely what each candidate would need to do to get there. Trump's path is way easier. To answer your question: What I'm saying is what you think I'm saying. As for the percentages: 60% Trump winning vs. 40% losing is pretty close to a coin flip. I'm not convinced there's that much light at the end of the tunnel. the fact that you can't see any light at the end of the tunnel doesn't mean that there is none. the fact that i can see light at the end of the tunnel doesn't mean there is any. but your cursing at the end of a long string of optimism is totally not like me, Virgil. i am data driven. if Trump's odds of winning rise over time, as they have been, my estimation of him winning will ALSO rise over time. you are comparing me to people who are driven by belief rather than data. they were driven by the belief that polls didn't matter. i am NOT driven by that belief AT ALL. polls matter. data matters. and as the data increasingly shows Trump invincible, i will see less and less light- not more. edit: your graph is way off, btw. i was at 50%+ on December 10th, as post #65 in THIS THREAD shows. i would also add that your "reality" said that we would enter a second recession before the end of Obama's second term, that California would never balance their budget, at least not in the time i said it would, and that the dictionary meaning of terms doesn't reflect common usage. none of those things are, were, or will be "real".
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,481
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 3, 2016 11:32:30 GMT -5
It's interesting that at this point, people are still on the attack of the frontrunner. Maybe Trump would cause both Republicans and Democrats in the House and Senate to have a common "enemy" if he were elected to the extent that they might actually start trying to work together. no, it is not interesting at all. it makes perfect sense. it happens every election cycle.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,481
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 3, 2016 11:33:31 GMT -5
You have to be kidding, Just what does the GOP establishment trying to do here? Small hands, sweats to much, and Romney's comments, Don't they realize that the reason Trump is doing as well is because of the establishment attitude! This looks like junior high school fights. Attacks on one of your own does nothing good. Idiots!! they are throwing out their rule book and playing by Trump's rule book, of course. and it is entirely rational, since their rule book didn't dent his numbers.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 3, 2016 11:42:21 GMT -5
They get the data from the government. Which is increasingly fudging the data to make them look significantly better than they actually are. It's unusual that they don't include the source in the figures themselves, but it's undoubtedly because there are nine sandwiched together. Since no source is cited, how do you know the data comes from tne gov't? A credible citation gives the source in such a way that it can easily be verified. Because, as I said, they post these same charts at least once or twice a week with source explicitly indicated. Anybody who visits their site regularly is well aware of this. In this case, they've sandwiched 9 full-sized plots together into an image more than 3,000 pixels wide. Space is at a premium, hence no explicit indication of the source. I wouldn't even call it an "oversight" since the charts are supposed to be viewed in the context of ZH.com, where the readership is imminently aware of where the data comes from. Disregard if you want. No skin off my nose. But it doesn't change reality.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,481
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 3, 2016 11:47:56 GMT -5
Since no source is cited, how do you know the data comes from tne gov't? A credible citation gives the source in such a way that it can easily be verified. Because, as I said, they post these same charts at least once or twice a week with source explicitly indicated. Anybody who visits their site regularly is well aware of this. In this case, they've sandwiched 9 full-sized plots together into an image more than 3,000 pixels wide. Space is at a premium, hence no explicit indication of the source. I wouldn't even call it an "oversight" since the charts are supposed to be viewed in the context of ZH.com, where the readership is imminently aware of where the data comes from. Disregard if you want. No skin off my nose. But it doesn't change reality. reality?
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 3, 2016 11:54:50 GMT -5
Did you read the article posted yesterday on authoritarianism? You should. It gave me a new understanding of what I have been trying to make say and make sense of on this matter. I've read that article. It helped me wrap my head around Trump's support from the evangelicals - I get his support of the angry, white (mostly) males. But could not understand, for the life of me, his support by the religious. What part of and did you not understand? Do you just... find something you despise, like Mr. Trump, and a group you despise, like evangelicals and the religious, and warm the cockles of your heart imagining that the group necessarily loves the thing, based on no evidence whatsoever? Not only that, but you don't even bother to check if you're stepping in it before bashing white men, evangelicals, and the religious in public? I know a guy who runs around America bashing groups he despises whenever he wants, wherever he wants, and for whatever reason he can dream up. His name is Donald. You'd probably like him. You've got a lot in common.
|
|