Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Election watch: 2020 Edition

Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Donít they only force religious groups to do that if theyíre taking money from the government?
    They speak in bulletpointese leftist nutjob drivel. It doesn't matter. Nothing is as great a motivator as the chance to truly be free.
    -Mr. Raceboy

    Comment


    • Originally posted by skooly View Post

      How nice of you to put me on blast for not knowing your position on abortion when you don't even know it yourself.

      I don't think there's anything wrong with being uncertain about it, but next time, maybe try not getting swept up in Steve's mindless troll jobs.
      I wasn't talking about my position on abortion, I was responding to Steve. I "put you on blast" because of your comment (below), which is pretty typical coming from you. It was obviously an attempt to associate libertarians with conservatives. I feel you intentionally misunderstand positions and that's where my animosity comes from.

      Originally posted by skooly View Post
      skooly (finds his libertarian friends oddly silent when it comes to freedoms other than money or guns)
      Last edited by Jesse; 04-17-2019, 12:00 AM.
      DEEZ NUTS FOR PRESIDENT!!

      Comment


      • skoolyíís just stoking up good conversation Jesse! (Smirk).

        Iím not trying to conflate libertarians with conservatives, Iíd like to distinguish them, but thatís why your comment (followed by Peteís and HFMs) prompted me.

        I donít know a lot of libertarians who think abortion is murder and want it punished as such. The only people Iíve heard of who ascribe to that, are radical pro-life conservatives. More mainstream pro-life conservatives want abortion severely restricted or illegal but usually punishable as something less than murder. Many in the pro-life movement may believe it to be morally akin to murder, and many call it murder for political purposes, but at the end of the day even a lot of those folks stop short of calling for life imprisonment or the death penalty for women who get abortions, which in practice is what it means when the law makes it murder.

        Pete and HFM and that dude in the article skooly linked all say that there isnít a split among libertarians, that essentially no libertarians would criminalize abortion let alone to define it legally as murder.

        Do you really know a lot of libertarians who believe otherwise? If so, what do we make of this? Is there a split among libertarians, which other libertarians refuse to acknowledge? Or are there just a lot of people out there who conflate themselves as if they were libertarians, who call themselves libertarians, but who are not libertarian? That they conflate libertarianism with conservatism? And so they self- misidentify as libertarian?

        I suspect this latter is the case. I also suspect this has occurred because of a long history of the GOP conflating these ideologies, selling a kind of branded libertarianism* and drawing popularity by pretending to libertarian ideals, when in practice their policy and governance has been very largely anti-libertarian.

        dusty (thinks everyone wants to be libertarian when they are not thinking about their exceptions)
        Last edited by dusty; 04-17-2019, 12:31 AM.
        For every ailment under the sun - There is a remedy, or there is none;
        If there be one, try to find it; If there be none, never mind it. -- Mother Goose

        "We've always assumed that you can't bring back the dead. But it's a matter of when you pickle the cells." -- Peter Rhee

        Comment


        • Originally posted by skooly View Post
          Pardon me, but I'm supposed to assume what your position on abortion is?

          A topic that is frankly hardly ever discussed on this forum. Show me the links to all the topics and posts about it to show that it's so widely discussed I should know better.

          A topic that splits the libertarian party itself. https://www.lp.org/blogs-staff-lp-ch...dual-choice-0/

          A topic that Jessie himself doesn't seem entirely sure about.

          Yet I'm supposed to know exactly where the libertarians stand on it? It's so obvious right?
          Foul, red card. "Show me the links" not allowed at the new jerryrigged JP!

          I've got no links for you but a quick searchbar search for "abortion" came up with ten pages of puts going back to 2012. I highly doubt the search is returning all prior content. Still, scanning through confirms my memory: clearly pete's and raceboy's positions have been known and repeated since at least 2015.

          Would you believe, we discussed it in the "2016 election watch" thread?

          dusty (knows an election wedge issue when he sees one)
          For every ailment under the sun - There is a remedy, or there is none;
          If there be one, try to find it; If there be none, never mind it. -- Mother Goose

          "We've always assumed that you can't bring back the dead. But it's a matter of when you pickle the cells." -- Peter Rhee

          Comment


          • post 138 was from iphone via safari app; post 139 via google chrome on mac pc.
            When viewing back both on chrome it appears in post 138 that apostrophes -- 's -- were converted into a funky spacing tic.
            unintentional, folks!
            For every ailment under the sun - There is a remedy, or there is none;
            If there be one, try to find it; If there be none, never mind it. -- Mother Goose

            "We've always assumed that you can't bring back the dead. But it's a matter of when you pickle the cells." -- Peter Rhee

            Comment


            • Originally posted by dusty View Post
              dusty (thinks everyone wants to be libertarian when they are not thinking about their exceptions)
              I used to think that, but I'm increasingly seeing people want to be led by authoritarians.

              Pete (is really at a low point in his perception of humanity from a political standpoint)

              Comment


              • Originally posted by dusty View Post
                post 138 was from iphone via safari app; post 139 via google chrome on mac pc.
                When viewing back both on chrome it appears in post 138 that apostrophes -- 's -- were converted into a funky spacing tic.
                unintentional, folks!
                They go away when you refresh. Accordingly, it's annoying but not enough for me to figure out how to fix it.

                Pete (wishes he was better at this)

                Comment


                • Dusty's article posted in the Electoral College thread prompts me to post this analysis here. As a reminder:

                  https://www.theblaze.com/news/popula...ral-new-mexico

                  New Mexico Democrat Gov signs national popular vote bill

                  New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham, a Democrat, signed into law this week a bill allocating her state's five votes to whomever wins the most individual votes nationwide, bypassing the electoral college system.
                  I'm not sure exactly how to present this, so I'm going to start with my conclusion:

                  One possible future is that Donald Trump wins the 2020 election with 488 electoral votes.

                  Here's the reasoning:

                  14 states (CA, NY, IL, WA, CO, DE, NJ, MA, RI, MD, VT, NM, HI, DC) comprising 189 electoral votes have enacted legislation to assign their electoral votes in the 2020 election to the winner of the popular vote. All of them are blue states which Trump had zero chance of winning anyway.

                  Accordingly, the only practical effect this could possibly have is to let Trump win 189 electoral votes he otherwise couldn't. If the Democrat wins the popular vote, nothing changes. If Trump wins, the swing is 378 electoral votes.

                  Democrats are of course enacting these changes because they are dead sure they will win the popular vote. I'm not, for the following reasons:

                  1. Trump is the incumbent.
                  The incumbent seeking reelection almost always overperforms. Recall the last time when George W. Bush was seeking reelection after losing the popular vote...he coasted to a comfortable popular vote win. Despite all the insane efforts to unseat Obama in 2012, he won comfortably. Even Jimmy Carter in a loss outperformed pre-election polling.

                  2. The Democrats are still divided.
                  The 2016 election was decided primarily by divisions in the Democratic party. Those divisions haven't gone away. It remains to be seen what turnout will be like in 2020, but considering the early success of Democratic party hardliners, this time around it might be the "Clinton Democrats" who don't turn out. Worse, when the "Bernie Democrats" revolt, they just stay home. Some more moderate Clinton Democrats might even vote for Trump.

                  3. It's the economy, stupid.
                  Whether or not you think Trump has anything to do with it, the country's doing pretty well right now. Assuming the economy doesn't tank before election day 2020 (like it did for John McCain) people are likely to want to keep it going.

                  4. The Democratic Candidate.
                  The wild card here is the Democratic candidate. Everyone knows they hate Trump. Everyone knows they want to vote against him. Who are they going to have to vote for? If it's someone safe (Bernie and Biden have been well-vetted) then that doesn't change things much, but if the candidate is a newcomer like Kamela Harris or Beto O'Rourke...what we learn about them, what they might say, what they might do might swing this election. There are a lot of crappy candidates in this field, and the Democrats right now seem poised to select a Trump of their own.

                  The bottom line is this: The Democrats ABSOLUTELY HAVE TO win the popular vote in 2020. They have no choice. If they don't, there's a good chance they'll end up with fewer than 50 electors. If they do, well they still have to worry about Michigan, Wisconsin, Arizona, Florida, and Pennsylvania.

                  It's not very likely, but if Trump manages to win the popular vote, the electoral tally will 488-49. If he doesn't, he's still got a decent shot to be reelected.

                  Pete (thinks this move by the Democrats is idiotic, and is predicated on the belief that they cannot possibly lose the popular vote)
                  Last edited by Plezercruz; 04-17-2019, 11:01 AM.

                  Comment


                  • In support of that last post, I offer this otherwise meaningless poll:

                    http://emersonpolling.com/2019/04/15...e-on-the-move/

                    National popular vote:

                    Biden 53%, Trump 47%
                    Sanders 51%, Trump 48%
                    OíRourke 51%, Trump 49%
                    Harris 50%, Trump 50%
                    Buttigieg 49%, Trump 51%
                    Warren 48%, Trump 52%

                    You will note that Trump loses most of these matchups. You should note he doesn't lose them by very much. Certainly not by enough of a margin to be the whole damn farm on, as the Democrats have with their popular vote nonsense.

                    Pete (notes that Biden was over 10 points up on Trump in polling before his hands-on fiasco)


                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Plezercruz View Post
                      Dusty's article posted in the Electoral College thread prompts me to post this analysis here. As a reminder:

                      https://www.theblaze.com/news/popula...ral-new-mexico



                      I'm not sure exactly how to present this, so I'm going to start with my conclusion:

                      One possible future is that Donald Trump wins the 2020 election with 488 electoral votes.

                      Here's the reasoning:

                      14 states (CA, NY, IL, WA, CO, DE, NJ, MA, RI, MD, VT, NM, HI, DC) comprising 189 electoral votes have enacted legislation to assign their electoral votes in the 2020 election to the winner of the popular vote. All of them are blue states which Trump had zero chance of winning anyway.

                      Accordingly, the only practical effect this could possibly have is to let Trump win 189 electoral votes he otherwise couldn't. If the Democrat wins the popular vote, nothing changes. If Trump wins, the swing is 378 electoral votes.

                      Democrats are of course enacting these changes because they are dead sure they will win the popular vote. I'm not, for the following reasons:

                      1. Trump is the incumbent.
                      The incumbent seeking reelection almost always overperforms. Recall the last time when George W. Bush was seeking reelection after losing the popular vote...he coasted to a comfortable popular vote win. Despite all the insane efforts to unseat Obama in 2012, he won comfortably. Even Jimmy Carter in a loss outperformed pre-election polling.

                      2. The Democrats are still divided.
                      The 2016 election was decided primarily by divisions in the Democratic party. Those divisions haven't gone away. It remains to be seen what turnout will be like in 2020, but considering the early success of Democratic party hardliners, this time around it might be the "Clinton Democrats" who don't turn out. Worse, when the "Bernie Democrats" revolt, they just stay home. Some more moderate Clinton Democrats might even vote for Trump.

                      3. It's the economy, stupid.
                      Whether or not you think Trump has anything to do with it, the country's doing pretty well right now. Assuming the economy doesn't tank before election day 2020 (like it did for John McCain) people are likely to want to keep it going.

                      4. The Democratic Candidate.
                      The wild card here is the Democratic candidate. Everyone knows they hate Trump. Everyone knows they want to vote against him. Who are they going to have to vote for? If it's someone safe (Bernie and Biden have been well-vetted) then that doesn't change things much, but if the candidate is a newcomer like Kamela Harris or Beto O'Rourke...what we learn about them, what they might say, what they might do might swing this election. There are a lot of crappy candidates in this field, and the Democrats right now seem poised to select a Trump of their own.

                      The bottom line is this: The Democrats ABSOLUTELY HAVE TO win the popular vote in 2020. They have no choice. If they don't, there's a good chance they'll end up with fewer than 50 electors. If they do, well they still have to worry about Michigan, Wisconsin, Arizona, Florida, and Pennsylvania.

                      It's not very likely, but if Trump manages to win the popular vote, the electoral tally will 488-49. If he doesn't, he's still got a decent shot to be reelected.

                      Pete (thinks this move by the Democrats is idiotic, and is predicated on the belief that they cannot possibly lose the popular vote)
                      Good post Pete but a subtle point - this legislation actually isnít in effect. All these States pledge to allocate their votes to the popular vote but only when there are enough reciprocal states so pledging that it would necessarily tip the electoral college to adopt the national popular vote. Thatís both he clever and the tenuous part of the way they are doing it.

                      From your article:

                      To take effect the compact requires 270 electoral votes.
                      For every ailment under the sun - There is a remedy, or there is none;
                      If there be one, try to find it; If there be none, never mind it. -- Mother Goose

                      "We've always assumed that you can't bring back the dead. But it's a matter of when you pickle the cells." -- Peter Rhee

                      Comment


                      • I totally missed that!

                        Pete (supposes reading is a skill he should work on)

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by dusty View Post

                          Foul, red card. "Show me the links" not allowed at the new jerryrigged JP!

                          I've got no links for you but a quick searchbar search for "abortion" came up with ten pages of puts going back to 2012. I highly doubt the search is returning all prior content. Still, scanning through confirms my memory: clearly pete's and raceboy's positions have been known and repeated since at least 2015.

                          Would you believe, we discussed it in the "2016 election watch" thread?

                          dusty (knows an election wedge issue when he sees one)
                          Guess what, I searched balls and found 10 pages of results going back to 2012. I searched ass and found 34 pages of results going back to 2013. I guess balls and ass really dominates our discussion around here!

                          Clearly, your search results are meaningless unless you can compare them relative to our discussion about guns and money. Going a bit further, how many of the abortion search results were even about abortion? I found only 9 pages of results, not 10, and almost 1 entire page of them was from this very thread. Many results came up that didn't even have the term highlighted--after spot checking, I saw some of these posts did contain the term and some did not, but I have neither the time nor interest to check them all. Of those that found the term, how many were bona fide discussions about the importance of the right rather than dicta dropped along in the service of a different point, or a different topic, or just Steve using it as an insult? Just because somebody drops the term doesn't mean it's a bona fide discussion of this issue. Unless you want to conduct a full blown statistical analysis of bona fide abortion discussion relative to guns and money discussion, all we are really left with is an impression. My impression, as an OG member, is that guns and money dominate the discussions... and abortion as a topic pales in comparison. If you have a different impression, good for you, but I don't think it's accurate. This thread is the most involved discussion that I recall seeing about it since 2016.

                          The issue isn't whether Steve, Pete or anyone else hasn't mentioned it before; the issue is how much they discuss it relative to guns and money. There is no comparison. I know their positions on guns because we've discussed it ad naseum; I can't say that about abortion prior to this thread. If that upsets a couple of people when I point it out, then sorry not sorry. I stand by the thrust of my original comment.

                          skooly (is done with the discussion to the extent it digresses from abortion... and will let you nit pick and otherwise have the last word on who said what and when)
                          "I guess I just hate the fact there is public property at all." - Mr. Raceboy.

                          Comment


                          • I care about guns and abortion about equally (i.e. not very much). I only talk about guns a lot because y'all love to talk about them (particularly Jon and skooly, on opposite sides of the issue). As there is nobody else on the site who gets up in arms whenever there is an abortion issue, I don't talk about that as much.

                            Pete (cares about money/economics significantly more than he does about guns/abortion)

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by skooly View Post

                              Guess what, I searched balls and found 10 pages of results going back to 2012. I searched ass and found 34 pages of results going back to 2013. I guess balls and ass really dominates our discussion around here!

                              Clearly, your search results are meaningless unless you can compare them relative to our discussion about guns and money. Going a bit further, how many of the abortion search results were even about abortion? I found only 9 pages of results, not 10, and almost 1 entire page of them was from this very thread. Many results came up that didn't even have the term highlighted--after spot checking, I saw some of these posts did contain the term and some did not, but I have neither the time nor interest to check them all. Of those that found the term, how many were bona fide discussions about the importance of the right rather than dicta dropped along in the service of a different point, or a different topic, or just Steve using it as an insult? Just because somebody drops the term doesn't mean it's a bona fide discussion of this issue. Unless you want to conduct a full blown statistical analysis of bona fide abortion discussion relative to guns and money discussion, all we are really left with is an impression. My impression, as an OG member, is that guns and money dominate the discussions... and abortion as a topic pales in comparison. If you have a different impression, good for you, but I don't think it's accurate. This thread is the most involved discussion that I recall seeing about it since 2016.

                              The issue isn't whether Steve, Pete or anyone else hasn't mentioned it before; the issue is how much they discuss it relative to guns and money. There is no comparison. I know their positions on guns because we've discussed it ad naseum; I can't say that about abortion prior to this thread. If that upsets a couple of people when I point it out, then sorry not sorry. I stand by the thrust of my original comment.

                              skooly (is done with the discussion to the extent it digresses from abortion... and will let you nit pick and otherwise have the last word on who said what and when)
                              What dominates or doesn’t dominate the conversation is not the point. The question wasn’t what dominates the conversations here, the question is whether you should have known Steve’s position on abortion already.

                              Raceboy’s criticism of you in this thread, and Jesse’s as well, is on point. I’ve described similar criticism as you often give appearance that, although you are active in conversations, it’s like you nevertheless don’t pay enough attention to the details of the conversation and the points of the others putters with which you engage. It’s pretty apparent, putters with pretty different political and ideological outlooks have noticed.

                              If you had had been paying more attention, you surely would have known Steve’s position on abortion before you asked him incredulously how you were supposed to know what it was.
                              For every ailment under the sun - There is a remedy, or there is none;
                              If there be one, try to find it; If there be none, never mind it. -- Mother Goose

                              "We've always assumed that you can't bring back the dead. But it's a matter of when you pickle the cells." -- Peter Rhee

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Plezercruz View Post
                                I used to think that, but I'm increasingly seeing people want to be led by authoritarians.

                                Pete (is really at a low point in his perception of humanity from a political standpoint)
                                People love dictators. They only care when it's not their guy doing the dictating.
                                "Democracy is a form of worship. It is the worship of jackals by jackasses." H.L. Mencken

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X