Topic: The Liberals are digging themselves into a hole they will be buried in
Anonymous A started this discussion 6 years ago #90,451
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 3 minutes later[^] [v] #1,030,075
THE LIBERALS
tteh !MemesToDNA joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 3 minutes later, 6 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,030,076
> pjmedia
Retard.
Retard.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 6 years ago, 28 minutes later, 34 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,030,087
@previous (tteh !MemesToDNA)
How about the New York fucking Times, son.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/12/us/politics/assault-weapons-ban.html
How about the New York fucking Times, son.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/12/us/politics/assault-weapons-ban.html
tteh !MemesToDNA replied with this 6 years ago, 50 seconds later, 35 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,030,088
tteh !MemesToDNA double-posted this 6 years ago, 41 seconds later, 36 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,030,089
also I clicked neither link but I'm hoping by copying the domain name and calling you a rude word you'll concede the argument to me
tteh !MemesToDNA triple-posted this 6 years ago, 11 seconds later, 36 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,030,090
has it worked
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 6 years ago, 1 minute later, 37 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,030,091
@1,030,076 (tteh !MemesToDNA)
CAN YOU READ??
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/5087/text
CAN YOU READ??
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/5087/text
tteh !MemesToDNA replied with this 6 years ago, 29 seconds later, 38 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,030,092
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 6 years ago, 5 minutes later, 43 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,030,094
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 9 minutes later, 52 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,030,101
I always find it curious what conservatives think will doom liberals. 70 percent of Americans, including 55% of Republicans, support an assault weapons ban. Why would supporting something with 70% overall approval be bad for democrats? I'm moderately confused.
Limpnoodle Liberal (OP) replied with this 6 years ago, 10 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,030,111
No
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 6 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,030,113
@1,030,101 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
Are you saying Congress necessarily goes along with what 70% of Americans want?
Because 70% of Americans do NOT want open borders and the US Government funding Medicare for illegal immigrants.
Are you saying Congress necessarily goes along with what 70% of Americans want?
Because 70% of Americans do NOT want open borders and the US Government funding Medicare for illegal immigrants.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 6 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,030,115
@previous (A)
No, but generally the way this argument goes is something like:
1. If you do things people like, they will vote for you.
2. If you do things people don't like, they will vote against you
3. People don't like the Assault Weapons ban
4. Therefore people will vote against democrats.
At least, that's sort of what you're saying right?
But then polling shows 3 isn't true, and premises 1 and 2 are also pretty complicated (promising to do unpopular things that rile up your base in an election year vs. actually doing them while governing, etc.) This is just an asinine opinion, no offense.
No, but generally the way this argument goes is something like:
1. If you do things people like, they will vote for you.
2. If you do things people don't like, they will vote against you
3. People don't like the Assault Weapons ban
4. Therefore people will vote against democrats.
At least, that's sort of what you're saying right?
But then polling shows 3 isn't true, and premises 1 and 2 are also pretty complicated (promising to do unpopular things that rile up your base in an election year vs. actually doing them while governing, etc.) This is just an asinine opinion, no offense.
(Edited 15 seconds later.)
tteh !MemesToDNA replied with this 6 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,030,117
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 6 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,030,119
vocalon joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,030,120
OP is a loser
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 12 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,030,123
Meta !Sober//iZs joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 17 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,030,124
@1,030,101 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
The thing with guns though is it's like abortion where people really care about their 2nd amendment rights to the point of being almost single issue voters.
The thing with guns though is it's like abortion where people really care about their 2nd amendment rights to the point of being almost single issue voters.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 6 years ago, 12 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,030,132
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 6 years ago, 4 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,030,138
@1,030,124 (Meta !Sober//iZs)
Um no, second ammendment and illegal immigration and socialism and immorality and taxes and PC does not equal single issue voters
Maths 101
Um no, second ammendment and illegal immigration and socialism and immorality and taxes and PC does not equal single issue voters
Maths 101
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 6 years ago, 33 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,030,168
@1,030,124 (Meta !Sober//iZs)That's true but how many of those voters were going to vote D anyway? And at that point I'm not sure the turnout from people antigun vs the turnout from people who are progun is anything other than basically a wash. Also depends on how salient the 2nd amendment thing is during the campaign itself.
@1,030,132 (A)
Looks like it was off by about 1% overall, and it actually underestimated Clinton's vote total too! Those damn liberal pollsters always...sabotaging the Clinton campaign? Regardless, it's not like you have some alternative to polling that gets better results. Unless you do, in which case I'm happy to hear what information your knowledge of public opinion is based off of.
(Edited 19 seconds later.)
WSD !m2cp3rR5zw joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 43 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,030,190
Will this ban most every pistol?
Meta !Sober//iZs replied with this 6 years ago, 55 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,030,211
@1,030,168 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
Jesus that image gives me Syntax 2016 flashbacks ?
I think the main thing with the polls is, you saw predictions like Hillary has a 95% chance of winning. If it was presented more like "482 people plan to vote for Clinton vs 461 who plan to vote for Trump out of the 1,000 people we asked" I think it would have done a better job of communicating the true odds (ie that if eleven people out of a thousand change sides, it will change the outcome). When you say "95% chance of a Clinton victory" it gets translated to "a Clinton victory is absolutely 100% certain" in the human mind. I know Nate Silver and the rest of the pollsters have a lot of fancy math where they can accurately calculate the odds of things happening but that's not the way most people view probability. I mean not that you personally were saying "95% chance of a Clinton victory" but I saw it presented that way in lots of media.
You have to admit though, Trump did pretty damn good considering how deeply flawed he was (is) as a candidate. Even I think he's a C- at best.
> That's true but how many of those voters were going to vote D anyway?
I think this is what drives polarization. The Ds aren't going to vote for gun rights ever so just write them off entirely and make no effort to appeal to them. Same with Rs and abortion. The right to keep and bear arms is to Rs what abortion is to Ds.
Jesus that image gives me Syntax 2016 flashbacks ?
I think the main thing with the polls is, you saw predictions like Hillary has a 95% chance of winning. If it was presented more like "482 people plan to vote for Clinton vs 461 who plan to vote for Trump out of the 1,000 people we asked" I think it would have done a better job of communicating the true odds (ie that if eleven people out of a thousand change sides, it will change the outcome). When you say "95% chance of a Clinton victory" it gets translated to "a Clinton victory is absolutely 100% certain" in the human mind. I know Nate Silver and the rest of the pollsters have a lot of fancy math where they can accurately calculate the odds of things happening but that's not the way most people view probability. I mean not that you personally were saying "95% chance of a Clinton victory" but I saw it presented that way in lots of media.
You have to admit though, Trump did pretty damn good considering how deeply flawed he was (is) as a candidate. Even I think he's a C- at best.
> That's true but how many of those voters were going to vote D anyway?
I think this is what drives polarization. The Ds aren't going to vote for gun rights ever so just write them off entirely and make no effort to appeal to them. Same with Rs and abortion. The right to keep and bear arms is to Rs what abortion is to Ds.
(Edited 12 minutes later.)
Steve Jail joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 6 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,030,215
In the end there is a 50/50 chance Trump wins
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 6 years ago, 30 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,030,236
@1,030,211 (Meta !Sober//iZs)
> I think the main thing with the polls is, you saw predictions like Hillary has a 95% chance of winning. If it was presented more like "482 people plan to vote for Clinton vs 461 who plan to vote for Trump out of the 1,000 people we asked"
Different orgs had different odds. Clinton was probably a softer favorite than people at the time realized. Something like the Princeton Election Consortium which had her at 98% iirc was probably too high. Nate Silver at 70% seems more right, given the number of things that had to go right for Trump to win by essentially the thinnest possible margin. 200,000 votes out of 120 million+ go differently and she wins by 3% and like 70 EC votes. That's the amount that has to change between the current narrative and a solid Clinton win. Given that she led in in 90% of the polls, and that generally, the person who wins the popular vote wins the election, it was totally reasonable to have her as a solid favorite. What do you think the odds should have had her at?
> I think this is what drives polarization
I disagree a bit. I think this is the self-reinforcing aspect of polarization. I wouldn't say it's an independent cause of it. That has to do more with geographical and partisan sorting, (i.e. democrats are more liberal than republicans, and rural areas are more conservative than cities.) That's why when Trump wants to take the guns without due process, no one cares, even though if those exact words came out of Liz Warren/Bernie Sanders/Generic D candidate it would galvanize the right. It's not about the message, it's about the messenger.
> I think the main thing with the polls is, you saw predictions like Hillary has a 95% chance of winning. If it was presented more like "482 people plan to vote for Clinton vs 461 who plan to vote for Trump out of the 1,000 people we asked"
Different orgs had different odds. Clinton was probably a softer favorite than people at the time realized. Something like the Princeton Election Consortium which had her at 98% iirc was probably too high. Nate Silver at 70% seems more right, given the number of things that had to go right for Trump to win by essentially the thinnest possible margin. 200,000 votes out of 120 million+ go differently and she wins by 3% and like 70 EC votes. That's the amount that has to change between the current narrative and a solid Clinton win. Given that she led in in 90% of the polls, and that generally, the person who wins the popular vote wins the election, it was totally reasonable to have her as a solid favorite. What do you think the odds should have had her at?
> I think this is what drives polarization
I disagree a bit. I think this is the self-reinforcing aspect of polarization. I wouldn't say it's an independent cause of it. That has to do more with geographical and partisan sorting, (i.e. democrats are more liberal than republicans, and rural areas are more conservative than cities.) That's why when Trump wants to take the guns without due process, no one cares, even though if those exact words came out of Liz Warren/Bernie Sanders/Generic D candidate it would galvanize the right. It's not about the message, it's about the messenger.
Anonymous J joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 14 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,030,247
Well that's not good.Meta !Sober//iZs replied with this 6 years ago, 51 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,030,258
@1,030,236 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)> Given that she led in in 90% of the polls, and that generally, the person who wins the popular vote wins the election, it was totally reasonable to have her as a solid favorite. What do you think the odds should have had her at?
My disagreement with the way it was presented isn't with the chance of winning (which I am honestly not remotely mathematically qualified to talk about) but more the way the message was communicated. I think it would have been better if the message was more "Clinton's likely to win but this is gonna be damn close and there's no margin for error at all''. When non-sophisticated people see 90+% chance of a Clinton victory, it will make them think it's already won and the election is just a formality. I don't have any idea what role complacency may or may not have played in terms of people staying home or voting for Jill Stein, but it seems like it could be a thing.
I guess what I would have done is present the ratio of likely Trump vs Clinton voters instead of a "X% chance of winning"
> Clinton was probably a softer favorite than people at the time realized.
I think percentages like the image attached made it look like it was impossible for Trump to win, instead of like a razor-thin "200,000 people in the Rust Belt will decide who the next president is" situation. If it were just the popular vote then I totally would have agreed with a near-certainty of a Clinton victory. I forget the exact number she won by in the popular vote but it was something like 4 million votes. I think the electoral college was a neat idea and probably a pretty good way of electing in 1789 but we need to get rid of it. It's totally wrong that someone in Ohio has a vote worth like 10000 votes in California, in terms of electing the president.
I guess the other thing to consider is that unlikely things do happen sometimes. Something with a 5% chance of happening will happen one in twenty times which is unlikely but not insane odds.
> I disagree a bit. I think this is the self-reinforcing aspect of polarization. I wouldn't say it's an independent cause of it. That has to do more with geographical and partisan sorting, (i.e. democrats are more liberal than republicans, and rural areas are more conservative than cities.) That's why when Trump wants to take the guns without due process, no one cares, even though if those exact words came out of Liz Warren/Bernie Sanders/Generic D candidate it would galvanize the right. It's not about the message, it's about the messenger.
I think this is driven by the fact that Trump is seen as generally pro-gun while Warren, Sanders, et al, are seen as generally anti-gun. So the perception is "Trump is trying to solve the problem of mass shootings in a sensible way" vs. "this is another step on the way to total gun confiscation".
I've been thinking of gun restriction, and I think something that might work is if Democrats and Republicans could get together and work out a solution, but with the condition that there are no further federal gun laws for a long period (like 20-50 years). So you can get red flag flaws, ban high capacity magazines or whatever, but that's it for 20 years. I don't think there's any actual enforceable way to do that, but I think it would go a long way.
Anonymous K joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 22 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,030,260
Every vote not made in favor of Vermin Supreme, is a vote wasted by an uneducated voter. Thanks.
Right to Pony, 2020!
Right to Pony, 2020!
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 6 years ago, 18 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,030,264
Anonymous B replied with this 6 years ago, 20 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,030,265
@1,030,113 (A)
Open borders is a dumb myth made up by Republicans and conspiracy theorists to scare people. Find me any Democrat saying they want to open the border, you moron.
Open borders is a dumb myth made up by Republicans and conspiracy theorists to scare people. Find me any Democrat saying they want to open the border, you moron.
(Edited 37 seconds later.)
Anonymous J replied with this 6 years ago, 1 minute later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,030,266
@1,030,258 (Meta !Sober//iZs)
> I think percentages like the image attached made it look like it was impossible for Trump to win
Well, popular media pretty much never handles complexity or nuance. When it tries to, people get bored and go look at something else. I'm not shocked that they handled it poorly in 2016, and I doubt they will change anytime soon.
> instead of like a razor-thin "200,000 people in the Rust Belt will decide who the next president is" situation.
You would think after the two squeaky Bush elections, we would be primed for a handful of people in Ohio or Florida or wherever to be the deciding factor.
> I think percentages like the image attached made it look like it was impossible for Trump to win
Well, popular media pretty much never handles complexity or nuance. When it tries to, people get bored and go look at something else. I'm not shocked that they handled it poorly in 2016, and I doubt they will change anytime soon.
> instead of like a razor-thin "200,000 people in the Rust Belt will decide who the next president is" situation.
You would think after the two squeaky Bush elections, we would be primed for a handful of people in Ohio or Florida or wherever to be the deciding factor.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 6 years ago, 7 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,030,267
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 6 years ago, 29 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,030,274
@1,030,258 (Meta !Sober//iZs)
> I think it would have been better if the message was more "Clinton's likely to win but this is gonna be damn close and there's no margin for error at all''
I wouldn't say there's no margin for error at all. She got somewhere close to the worst possible outcome and still barely lost. If you run this election 10 times she probably wins more than she loses, it's just that very small differences shape entire narratives. Hell if Huma Abedin broke up with Anthony Weiner we're probably talking about how Barack Obama is the most significant president since Reagan, and how the Republican party is doomed to political irrelevancy for the next decade (wouldn't be true but it would be said). It's not so much that she had no margin for error as it is she overshot her margin of error by the tiniest amount. Shit happens
> I guess what I would have done is present the ratio of likely Trump vs Clinton voters instead of a "X% chance of winning"
All polls do that though don't they? X% plan to vote for Clinton, Y% for Trump. The X% chance of winning comes from aggregating polling ratios and assigning a probability to it. It's just a higher level (conceptually) analysis of the situation.
> I think the electoral college was a neat idea and probably a pretty good way of electing in 1789 but we need to get rid of it. It's totally wrong that someone in Ohio has a vote worth like 10000 votes in California, in terms of electing the president.
I don't think it was ever good. There were a bunch of competing proposals: Congress appoints the President (at the time referred to as the "Chief Magistrate"), state Governors vote for the President, or popular vote. It's actually kind of interesting to read their concerns (they thought people would only vote for candidates from their own state, or that people would only vote for a member of their "faction" i.e. party). As a sort of compromise between these two, they voted for electors who would meet and debate among themselves who the President should be. Essentially, a one-time, single-issue "congress" to decide who the next President would be. This isn't what ended up happening of course. There is no debate among electors. If the founders knew this would be the outcome, they would have set it up differently.
> I think this is driven by the fact that Trump is seen as generally pro-gun while Warren, Sanders, et al, are seen as generally anti-gun. So the perception is "Trump is trying to solve the problem of mass shootings in a sensible way" vs. "this is another step on the way to total gun confiscation".
This is true but also sort of a bad way the American public thinks about politics. Even if somehow the democrats took back the presidency and senate, held the house AND eliminated the filibuster, they'd be extremely constrained by SCOTUS on what sorts of gun control they could implement. They'd also be constrained by public opinion. The absolute most I could see happening would be like, Assault Weapons Ban, expanded background checks, maybe some voluntary gun buybacks. And that's assuming Dems make guns their first priority, which they almost certainly won't. It'll be some combination of healthcare reform/voting rights reform/taxing the rich more.
> I've been thinking of gun restriction, and I think something that might work is if Democrats and Republicans could get together and work out a solution, but with the condition that there are no further federal gun laws for a long period (like 20-50 years). So you can get red flag flaws, ban high capacity magazines or whatever, but that's it for 20 years. I don't think there's any actual enforceable way to do that, but I think it would go a long way.
There is no legally binding way to make this happen, and I don't see Dems agreeing to hamstring themselves like that anyway. The only way I could see the Dems doing that would be if they got almost everything they wanted, because the status quo on gun laws is so unconscionable to them.
> I think it would have been better if the message was more "Clinton's likely to win but this is gonna be damn close and there's no margin for error at all''
I wouldn't say there's no margin for error at all. She got somewhere close to the worst possible outcome and still barely lost. If you run this election 10 times she probably wins more than she loses, it's just that very small differences shape entire narratives. Hell if Huma Abedin broke up with Anthony Weiner we're probably talking about how Barack Obama is the most significant president since Reagan, and how the Republican party is doomed to political irrelevancy for the next decade (wouldn't be true but it would be said). It's not so much that she had no margin for error as it is she overshot her margin of error by the tiniest amount. Shit happens
> I guess what I would have done is present the ratio of likely Trump vs Clinton voters instead of a "X% chance of winning"
All polls do that though don't they? X% plan to vote for Clinton, Y% for Trump. The X% chance of winning comes from aggregating polling ratios and assigning a probability to it. It's just a higher level (conceptually) analysis of the situation.
> I think the electoral college was a neat idea and probably a pretty good way of electing in 1789 but we need to get rid of it. It's totally wrong that someone in Ohio has a vote worth like 10000 votes in California, in terms of electing the president.
I don't think it was ever good. There were a bunch of competing proposals: Congress appoints the President (at the time referred to as the "Chief Magistrate"), state Governors vote for the President, or popular vote. It's actually kind of interesting to read their concerns (they thought people would only vote for candidates from their own state, or that people would only vote for a member of their "faction" i.e. party). As a sort of compromise between these two, they voted for electors who would meet and debate among themselves who the President should be. Essentially, a one-time, single-issue "congress" to decide who the next President would be. This isn't what ended up happening of course. There is no debate among electors. If the founders knew this would be the outcome, they would have set it up differently.
> I think this is driven by the fact that Trump is seen as generally pro-gun while Warren, Sanders, et al, are seen as generally anti-gun. So the perception is "Trump is trying to solve the problem of mass shootings in a sensible way" vs. "this is another step on the way to total gun confiscation".
This is true but also sort of a bad way the American public thinks about politics. Even if somehow the democrats took back the presidency and senate, held the house AND eliminated the filibuster, they'd be extremely constrained by SCOTUS on what sorts of gun control they could implement. They'd also be constrained by public opinion. The absolute most I could see happening would be like, Assault Weapons Ban, expanded background checks, maybe some voluntary gun buybacks. And that's assuming Dems make guns their first priority, which they almost certainly won't. It'll be some combination of healthcare reform/voting rights reform/taxing the rich more.
> I've been thinking of gun restriction, and I think something that might work is if Democrats and Republicans could get together and work out a solution, but with the condition that there are no further federal gun laws for a long period (like 20-50 years). So you can get red flag flaws, ban high capacity magazines or whatever, but that's it for 20 years. I don't think there's any actual enforceable way to do that, but I think it would go a long way.
There is no legally binding way to make this happen, and I don't see Dems agreeing to hamstring themselves like that anyway. The only way I could see the Dems doing that would be if they got almost everything they wanted, because the status quo on gun laws is so unconscionable to them.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 6 years ago, 6 hours later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,030,328
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
> and I don't see Dems agreeing to hamstring themselves like that anyway
Based on the candidates and their ridiculous performances this go around the should be pictures of them next to the word hamstrung in the dictionary.
> and I don't see Dems agreeing to hamstring themselves like that anyway
Based on the candidates and their ridiculous performances this go around the should be pictures of them next to the word hamstrung in the dictionary.
Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 6 minutes later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,030,329
@1,030,087 (A)
> How about the New York f*cking Times, son.
>
> https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/12/us/politics/assault-weapons-ban.html
President Trump says we shouldn't believe a word the New York Times says.
> How about the New York f*cking Times, son.
>
> https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/12/us/politics/assault-weapons-ban.html
President Trump says we shouldn't believe a word the New York Times says.