Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Monday, June 12, 2017

OTP 12 June 2017: McCain Stays Up Late to Watch Baseball

The obvious baseball/politics tie-in of the week:

Arizona Sen. John McCain is blaming his convoluted line of questioning at Thursday’s James Comey testimony on his decision to stay up late the night before to watch a baseball game.

Many on Twitter were left scratching their heads after the 80-year-old Republican senator grilled Comey during the hearing about why the FBI closed its investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server, while continuing its probe of the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia.

McCain responded by releasing a statement that read: “I get the sense from Twitter that my line of questioning today went over people’s heads. Maybe going forward I shouldn’t stay up late watching the Diamondbacks night games.

I just see this as McCain setting good priorities.  Prepare to investigate threats to our democratic way of life, or watch baseball?  Seems like one of the easier choices a politician could face.

(As always, views expressed in the article lede and comments are the views of the individual commenters and the submitter of the article and do not represent the views of Baseball Think Factory or its owner.)

 

BDC Posted: June 12, 2017 at 06:08 AM | 1635 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: diamondbacks, politics, why are nl west games on so late

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 16 of 17 pages ‹ First  < 14 15 16 17 > 
   1501. Rickey! the first of his name Posted: June 18, 2017 at 04:16 PM (#5478329)
USA Today:

Navy halts search for missing sailors after bodies found


Well, yeah. They're not *missing* any more, dipshits.
   1502. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: June 18, 2017 at 04:42 PM (#5478342)
The new Rasmussen Poll, one of the most accurate in the 2016 Election, just out with a Trump 50% Approval Rating.That's higher than O's #'s!


Here's another one from the moron in chief:

"The Fake News Media hates when I use what has turned out to be my very powerful Social Media - over 100 million people! I can go around them,"


Leaving aside for a moment the number of fake accounts he has following him, by some accounts over 16 mil on his personal twitter account alone, the only way he approaches 100 million is to double, triple, and even quadruple count followers from all his different platforms and accounts. His personal twitter account is about 35 million. His @POTUS account is about 18 million. Those aren't two independent groups you idiot. The vast majority of (real or fake) people following the POTUS account follow the personal one as well. Then he counts followers from other platforms, again, treating them as yet another independent group.

Remember during the primaries when he couldn't stop talking about the size of his dick? He never really stopped that, did he?
   1503. BrianBrianson Posted: June 18, 2017 at 06:08 PM (#5478359)
Rasmussen had Obama at 55% in mid-June 2009.


In June 2009, Obama's biggest scandal was ordering a hot dog and asking for a Dijon mustard on it (and people were right to criticise him for it. While American mustard is awful, French mustard is pretenious and lousy. English or Chinese mustards are far superior).

Meanwhile, in June 2009, it looks like Trump's ... well, it's not the American remake of House of Cards liberals feared. More like the American remake of The Thick of It.
   1504. Ray (RDP) Posted: June 18, 2017 at 06:31 PM (#5478363)
It's just that it's so ridiculous for the TDSers to keep citing "polls." There was only one poll that mattered; it was on November 8th. And yet the TDSers don't seem to understand that.

Cite this poll, cite that one. It's all meaningless, except to the extent it pulls the curtain back on your deep seated derangement.
   1505. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: June 18, 2017 at 06:35 PM (#5478365)
Ray, do you realize this is a response to Donald Trump citing a poll?

He's a chump, again. And so are you with this imbecilic "TDS, TDS, TDS" tic.
   1506. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: June 18, 2017 at 06:35 PM (#5478366)
It's just that it's so ridiculous for the TDSers to keep citing "polls." There was only one poll that mattered; it was on November 8th.


That was the poll that showed he was the second most popular presidential candidate in the election.
   1507. Ray (RDP) Posted: June 18, 2017 at 06:42 PM (#5478370)
A small irony of the final national 4-way polls was that the most inaccurate one of them all (the LA Times) was also the only one that projected Trump's victory. Of course the skunk in the woodpile was that all of those polls were projecting the popular vote and not the electoral college.


Yes, who could have ever imagined that the electoral college is what mattered.

I remember all of the mockery directed at the LA Times pre-election. Odd that the mockery would continue post-election.
   1508. Ray (RDP) Posted: June 18, 2017 at 06:44 PM (#5478371)
We already know these things. What November proved to us, that we should note this Father's Day, is that 60 million Americans aren't smart enough to be allowed to raise children.


65,853,516 million, but who's counting?
   1509. Rickey! the first of his name Posted: June 18, 2017 at 06:48 PM (#5478372)
And every last one of them has disqualified themselves from being taken seriously in public discourse going forward. They are on the record as being utter ####### morons. Real Americans can work on finding ways around the stupors.
   1510. Ray (RDP) Posted: June 18, 2017 at 06:50 PM (#5478373)
Glad to see Sam agrees with which set of voters are the morons who shouldn't be allowed to raise children.
   1511. Rickey! the first of his name Posted: June 18, 2017 at 06:51 PM (#5478374)
Trump voters should be sterilized. Any existing children should be taken into custody for their own good.
   1512. Swoboda is freedom Posted: June 18, 2017 at 06:52 PM (#5478375)
In June 2009, Obama's biggest scandal was ordering a hot dog and asking for a Dijon mustard on it (and people were right to criticise him for it. While American mustard is awful, French mustard is pretenious and lousy. English or Chinese mustards are far superior).

It was a hamburger and he asked for spicy mustard, like a Dijon. He was attacked for being elitist.
   1513. Rickey! the first of his name Posted: June 18, 2017 at 06:53 PM (#5478376)
Oh. I see. This is what passes for clever in Trump cockholster land?
   1514. Ray (RDP) Posted: June 18, 2017 at 07:01 PM (#5478380)
Oh. I see. This is what passes for clever in Trump cockholster land?


No, it's what passes for derangement in TDS land. I never thought it was clever; never expected you to fall into it.

Bottom line: She had 48.2% of the vote. He had 46.1%. We're talking about 2.1% of the vote, some 2.9 million votes out of 128.8 million cast. To claim some moral high ground from that, out of a virtual tie in a fictitious non-existent "popular vote," as if the 63 million people are morons while the 65.8 million people are not, is what is truly the stuff of derangement.

I realize Hillary was foolishly going for the non-existent "popular vote." But Trump wasn't. He was smarter than that.

And note: "smarter than that" doesn't necessarily mean "smart." It just means "smarter than that." Any moron could have understood not to go for the popular vote per se. But not Hillary Clinton, or the people she hand picked to run her campaign.
   1515. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: June 18, 2017 at 07:11 PM (#5478382)
Bottom line: She had 48.2% of the vote. He had 46.1%.


So she won the poll.
   1516. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: June 18, 2017 at 07:14 PM (#5478383)
Ray, #1507:
I remember all of the mockery directed at the LA Times pre-election. Odd that the mockery would continue post-election.


I remember more diagnostic skepticism than mockery, although either can turn into the other.

The L.A. Times poll used an atypical yearlong "Nielsen family" system in which they picked an original group of 3,000+ respondents and then repeatedly polled the exact same people, over and over and over. Their group's estimate differed from the election result by 5.3%. That represents a narrowing; just two days earlier, the poll's percentage had been off by 7.8%. The L.A. Times poll in no way reflected the electoral college or any strategies regarding it.

Try running a polling company whose results are 5-8% off, and see what kind of longterm success you have.

The man who ran the LA Times poll (a native Dutchman) took his polling system to the Netherlands. A day before their election, the methodology showed far-right Geert Wilders and his party with the best chance to win a majority of parliament seats. The next day, Wilders' party finished more than 8% behind the winner, in a three-way parliamentary tie with two other parties.
   1517. Joe Bivens Will Take a Steaming Dump Posted: June 18, 2017 at 07:20 PM (#5478385)
If you think Trump had a hand in campaign strategizing than you really are a cockholster. He won in spite of himself.
   1518. Joe Bivens Will Take a Steaming Dump Posted: June 18, 2017 at 07:21 PM (#5478387)
Politicians generally don't ask for recounts after a 2% defeat.
   1519. Rickey! the first of his name Posted: June 18, 2017 at 07:31 PM (#5478389)
Bottom line: She had 48.2% of the vote. He had 46.1%. We're talking about 2.1% of the vote, some 2.9 million votes out of 128.8 million cast. To claim some moral high ground from that,


Not really sure what you're talking about. I'm not claiming any moral high ground over the 3 million votes she won the popular election by. It's hardly relevant that 3 million more voters didn't choose the candidate who literally requires you to have brain damage to support him. Some 60+ million people voted for Donald Trump. Those people have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are incapable of making adult decisions. They're idiots and morons. They should be treated like felons for their willful assault on the Republic.
   1520. Fernigal McGunnigle Posted: June 18, 2017 at 07:39 PM (#5478390)
For the record, that LA Times poll was the one where one 19-year-old African-American who supported Trump was enough to swing their entire projection by a percentage point.
   1521. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: June 18, 2017 at 07:49 PM (#5478394)
I realize Hillary was foolishly going for the non-existent "popular vote." But Trump wasn't. He was smarter than that.
False. He was going for the popular vote; he just wasn't any good at it. As I've already explained to you ad nauseam, he wasn't pitching to the score.

(Not, to be sure, that Hillary was good at it either; she was just better than him.)
   1522. Ray (RDP) Posted: June 18, 2017 at 08:01 PM (#5478398)
I recall people smarter-than-thou who turned out to be wrong about everything mocking Sbb for citing the La Tjmes polling.

Anyway the election was a flat footed tie. Had trump gotten 6 million votes you might be free to mock without sounding insane. As it turned out... not so much.
   1523. Ray (RDP) Posted: June 18, 2017 at 08:06 PM (#5478402)
David: Hillary was trying to run up the score. Thus she was trying to widen the gap in blue states and she was trying to steal red states that were beyond her reach. That part is established. Do try to keep up.

You can't just say "she was better at it than trump" and expect to be believed. She was better than trump at going for popular votes that weren't going to do diddly squat to win her the electoral college. If that's what you mean when you say she was better... fair enough but it's a rather pointless point.

Trump was smart enough not to do that. As any sixth grader would be.
   1524. Rickey! the first of his name Posted: June 18, 2017 at 08:55 PM (#5478416)
I recall people smarter-than-thou who turned out to be wrong about everything mocking Sbb for citing the La Tjmes polling.


That's because people with a working frontal cortex mock SBB. Much like how people with half a synapse functioning in their higher reasoning brain pans don't support Donald Trump. Only idiots and morons support Donald Trump. And fascists, but I repeat myself. You purposefully and willfully align with these cromagnon #########. That's on you.
   1525. BurlyBuehrle Posted: June 18, 2017 at 09:20 PM (#5478421)
It's just that it's so ridiculous for the TDSers to keep citing "polls." There was only one poll that mattered; it was on November 8th. And yet the TDSers don't seem to understand that.

Cite this poll, cite that one. It's all meaningless, except to the extent it pulls the curtain back on your deep seated derangement.


I assume you reject all forms of analysis concerning, say, baseball. Excepting, of course, the final score of the game. That's the only stat that matters, amiright? To continue citing "stats" would be proof positive of derangement.

   1526. McCoy Posted: June 18, 2017 at 09:27 PM (#5478422)

I assume you reject all forms of analysis concerning, say, baseball. Excepting, of course, the final score of the game. That's the only stat that matters, amiright? To continue citing "stats" would be proof positive of derangement.


Um, you're talking to Ray.
   1527. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: June 18, 2017 at 09:46 PM (#5478427)

Van strikes crowd outside mosque in London; one person is arrested

LONDON — Police said early Monday that there were “a number of casualties” and that one person was arrested after a van struck a crowd of pedestrians in London.

The incident occurred just after midnight in the northern part of the city, near the Finsbury Park Mosque. Police said they had closed the adjacent roadway in both directions and were dealing with “a major incident.”

Early witness reports suggested that pedestrians had been struck as they left late-night prayers for the holy month of Ramadan.

Video posted on social media showed people screaming as bystanders performed chest compressions on one of the injured, and another man held a bloody cloth to his head.

Helicopters buzzed overhead, and ambulances and police cars raced to the scene. ...

CNN LIVE COVERAGE
   1528. Jay Z Posted: June 18, 2017 at 09:50 PM (#5478429)
Um, you're talking to Ray.


Talking to Ray is only one degree of separation from idiocy. It really isn't necessary.
   1529. Ray (RDP) Posted: June 18, 2017 at 10:17 PM (#5478433)
People keep trumpeting that she won the popular vote. What they never seem to understand is that her winning the popular vote while losing the electoral college is an INDICTMENT of her strategy.
   1530. Howie Menckel Posted: June 18, 2017 at 10:54 PM (#5478440)
hyperbole alert

guys.
it's. one. race.

and not everyone voting gives a crap either way about Donald Trump so much. there ARE local issues in every race, and not every candidate is generic.

so whether you are lefty or righty, don't get all lathered up this week if your candidate wins (or at least covers the spread).

it's. one. race.

"The hard-fought battle for Mr. Price’s seat in Atlanta’s northern reaches has not only become a financial arms race — by far the most expensive House contest in history — it has evolved into one of the most consequential special elections in decades.

Republicans, weighed down by Mr. Trump’s growing unpopularity, must demonstrate they can separate themselves from the president enough to hold suburban districts that only now are becoming battlegrounds.

And Democrats, facing a restive base hungry for victory after disappointing losses in Montana and Kansas, are under pressure to show they can notch something more than a moral victory in the sort of affluent seat they will need in order to take back the House majority."
   1531. McCoy Posted: June 18, 2017 at 11:15 PM (#5478446)
Yes, no Democrat has ever lamented at Hillary's lack of ability of getting the Presidency last November. Right.
   1532. Random Transaction Generator Posted: June 18, 2017 at 11:43 PM (#5478448)
There was only one poll that mattered; it was on November 8th.


Ding!

Set the counter back to "0" for "Days since Ray mentioned the election!"
   1533. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: June 19, 2017 at 12:13 AM (#5478451)
99% of climate scientists and 99% of nations say that global warming is real = fake, unhinged, and silly!

46% of voters allow Donald Trump to finesse a victory = impregnable math and strategic virtuosity!
   1534. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: June 19, 2017 at 12:29 AM (#5478454)
99% of climate scientists and 99% of nations say that global warming is real = fake, unhinged, and silly!

46% of voters allow Donald Trump to finesse a victory = impregnable math and strategic virtuosity!


It's been a long time coming, but its time has come:

1529. Ray (RDP) Posted: June 18, 2017 at 10:17 PM (#5478433)
[ Ignored Comment ]


He has contributed nothing but dreck for quite a while.
   1535. Ray (RDP) Posted: June 19, 2017 at 12:46 AM (#5478457)
99% of climate scientists and 99% of nations say that global warming is real = fake, unhinged, and silly!

46% of voters allow Donald Trump to finesse a victory = impregnable math and strategic virtuosity!


It's been a long time coming, but its time has come:

1529. Ray (RDP) Posted: June 18, 2017 at 10:17 PM (#5478433)
[ Ignored Comment ]


Weird, you posted something I didn't write and then ignored me for it.

Good riddance. Please keep me on ignore.
   1536. Ray (RDP) Posted: June 19, 2017 at 12:58 AM (#5478458)
Dershowitz explains that Trump is within his power to fire Mueller. As I've said I would _not_ support such a move, I'm just pointing out the mechanics of how this works:

OPINION: Firing Mueller may be legal, but it would not be right
BY ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR - 06/13/17 07:30 PM EDT

...Although such an act might be legal, it would be a terrible mistake.

To be sure, as the head of the executive branch, it is within the president’s constitutional authority to fire the special counsel. He retains the authority to instruct the attorney general (or in this case the Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, as Jeff Sessions has recused himself from all matters concerning the Russia investigation) to take such action.

If Rosenstein refused to do so or resigned, Trump could order that the procedures setting out the appointment of a special counsel be rescinded, and fire Mueller himself under his executive authority.
But just because he may have the authority to do something doesn’t mean that it is right to do it. Most Republicans — including many Trump allies — have said that firing Mueller now would suggest that the president had something to hide and would be a political disaster.

To date, I have seen no evidence of any violation of federal criminal statutes by Trump. The president did not obstruct justice when he fired FBI Director James Comey.

Trump also had the constitutional authority to order Comey to end the investigation of Flynn. He could have pardoned Flynn, as the first President Bush pardoned Caspar Weinberger, thus ending the Flynn investigation, as Bush ended the Iran-contra investigation. Likewise, it may well be within the president’s constitutional authority to fire Mueller, although in my view, this would constitute a conflict of interest and would be wrong.

It is clear that there is a problem with regard to the president’s authority to fire people who are investigating him. While a president cannot, as a matter of constitutional law, be guilty of obstructing justice by merely exercising his constitutional prerogative to stop an investigation or to fire the FBI director or a prosecutor, this is not necessarily a good thing as a matter of policy. No president should fire an official who is investigating him or his staff.
   1537. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: June 19, 2017 at 04:12 AM (#5478470)
Trump was smart enough not to do that. As any sixth grader would be.
Please stop with this utterly retarded argument. Both sides were trying to maximize their votes. Period. Nobody runs for president any other way. Trump just wasn't very good at it. Note that even Trump doesn't try to make this completely dishonest claim that you do. Trump is so obsessed with his perceived illegitimacy that he has claimed that he really won the popular vote, but that millions of illegals voted. And yet he doesn't try to claim that she only got more votes because he was so much smarter than her that he didn't try to maximize his vote total while she unstrategically did.
   1538. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: June 19, 2017 at 07:24 AM (#5478473)

The election was seven months ago, but this was last night:

Van strikes crowd near London mosques in what police are calling ‘terrorist attack’

LONDON — A van plowed into a group of Muslim worshipers as they were leaving prayers at a pair of north London mosques early Monday, leaving one person dead and injuring 10 others in what is being called a “terrorist attack.”

Witnesses said the driver of the vehicle was heard shouting that he wanted to kill Muslims.

“This is being treated as a terrorist attack,” said Metropolitan Police Deputy Assistant Commissioner Neil Basu told reporters. He added that the driver of the van was arrested on suspicion of murder.

Prime Minister Theresa May confirmed the incident was being treated as a “potential” terrorist incident and that she would chair an emergency meeting later on Monday.

Police commended locals for their bravery and restraint in detaining the driver.

Hussain Ali, 28, told the Press Association, a British wire agency, that the leader of the mosque told the crowd “do not touch him” as they waited for the police to arrive.

Basu said that police were keeping an “open mind” on the motivations behind the attack, but “given the methodology and given what was occurring and what’s happened, the tragic incidents across the country, this had all the hallmarks of a terrorist incident.” ...

London Mayor Sadiq Khan, the city’s first Muslim mayor, called the incident a “horrific terrorist attack,” which was “clearly a deliberate attack on innocent Londoners, many of whom were finishing prayers during the holy month of Ramadan.”

“While this appears to be an attack on a particular community, like the terrible attacks in Manchester, Westminster and London Bridge it is also an assault on all our shared values of tolerance, freedom and respect,” he said in a statement. ...
   1539. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: June 19, 2017 at 07:30 AM (#5478474)
I submitted a new week's thread, so keep an eye out for it.

As a side note I do like that Ray will always have November 2016 to look back on. Trump did win and I hear that is all that matters. Which is, of course, exactly what Ray was saying about Obama in 2009 and again in 2013. I remember it well, Ray telling all the Obama haters to chill out, because the people had spoken. Remember that?
   1540. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: June 19, 2017 at 07:32 AM (#5478475)

London Mosque attack: Did Trump’s Tweets embolden Bigots?

Whoever the murderous bigot is that carried out this cold-blooded murder has fallen for ISIL’s (ISIS, Daesh) strategy, which is to polarize people of Christian and Muslim heritage and create hatred and insecurity between them. ISIL, which is rapidly losing its territory in Iraq and Syria, hopes to come west and embed itself in European and American Muslim communities. The problem for Muslim extremism is that very, very few Western Muslims are interested in extremism. Almost all of them appreciate the benefits of Western democracy and ways of life.

So ISIL does not have much hope of recruiting more than a handful of marginal personalities– petty thieves and losers. (For some reason it also only has any success in getting a few troubled young men of the second immigrant generation to join up. First generation and third generation immigrants are not interested. Apparently being in between worlds is alienating).

So what ISIL wants to do instead is to recruit white people of Christian heritage to beat up Muslims and terrify them and make them insecure. And then ISIL thinks its recruiters can show up in Muslim communities and promise people protection and security. This modus operandi was typical of how they took over so much of Sunni Iraq. They had been hitting Shiites with terrorist attacks and provoking Shiites to lash out at Sunnis.

Britain, a country of 65 million, has some 3 million Muslims, and it would be a very, very bad mistake to fall into ISIL’s trap.

ISIL and other extremists want us to be afraid. The only proper response is to refuse to be afraid.

ISIL and other extremists want us to hate. The only proper response is instead to love.

ISIL and other extremists want us to lash out violently. The only proper response is nonviolence.

When ISIL attacks, people of Christian and Jewish heritage should find a Muslim and be spontaneously nice to them.

Studies show that Muslims in the West who attend mosque are much less likely ever to become radicals. Attacking mosque congregations is an attempt to undo that good work.

So we come to the question in my headline. Donald J. Trump is one of the chief dupes of ISIL strategy, and his election as president last November gave him a very loud megaphone with which to broadcast hate and polarization. He is aided in this by the worst person in the world, alt-Neo-Nazi Steve Bannon, the chief White House strategist, who is working toward Catholic-Muslim polarization of a sort some fear could lead to blood in the streets.

During his campaign, Trump whipped up irrational hatred of Muslims, which some call Islamophobia. He said “I think Islam hates us.” He announced that he wanted to ban Muslims from entering the United States.

After the London Bridge attack at the beginning of June, Trump tweeted that it vindicated his Muslim ban. It did no such thing, since you can’t blame all the Muslims in 6 countries for crimes committed by one or two people from that country. Besides, many acts of terrorism are committed by citizens, as was true of the one today.

Then Trump accused London mayor Sadiq Khan of playing down the seriousness of the attacks, as a person of Muslim heritage. The mayor in fact had simply said that there would be extra police on the streets of London and that the public should not be alarmed by their presence. Trump twisted his words to imply he wasn’t taking the attack seriously.

Trump has admirers in the fringe British Islamophobic groups, including in UKIP, and his demonization of all Muslims for the acts of a few has emboldened militant bigots on both sides of the Atlantic.

Trump and Bannon are not savvy, strong Western politicians bravely standing up to the threat of “radical Islamic terrorism.” They are behaving precisely as the radicals want. They are dupes.

And they are making other people dupes.

This polarization strategy, and the people that fall for it, leads to catastrophe, as we saw with ISIL in Iraq and Syria.

Don’t go down that path.
   1541. Lassus Posted: June 19, 2017 at 07:46 AM (#5478477)
I'm just pointing out the mechanics of how this works:

You're actually just pointing out Dershowitz's opinion on how it works.
   1542. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: June 19, 2017 at 07:54 AM (#5478478)
You're actually just pointing out Dershowitz's opinion on how it works.


The whole thing is silly anyway. Plenty of legal things are political disasters. And I do love that the Trumpkins are forced to go with ... "But this one famous lawyer says what Trump did was legal!" as if that solved everything.
   1543. manchestermets Posted: June 19, 2017 at 08:32 AM (#5478485)
Please stop with this utterly retarded argument. Both sides were trying to maximize their votes. Period. Nobody runs for president any other way. Trump just wasn't very good at it. Note that even Trump doesn't try to make this completely dishonest claim that you do.


He does, in fact, make that exact completely dishonest claim.
   1544. Zonk Tormundbane Posted: June 19, 2017 at 08:44 AM (#5478487)
"But this one famous lawyer says what Trump did was legal!"


Sounds like someone is spitballing midterm campaign themes!
   1545. Swoboda is freedom Posted: June 19, 2017 at 08:48 AM (#5478488)
Please stop with this utterly retarded argument. Both sides were trying to maximize their votes. Period. Nobody runs for president any other way. Trump just wasn't very good at it. Note that even Trump doesn't try to make this completely dishonest claim that you do.

They both campaigned in pretty mush the same way. He made 106 campaign stops (rallies, fundraisers and in-person media appearances) from Sept. 1 through Nov. 8 — Clinton made only 70). But they were mostly in the same states (PA, FL, VA, NC, NH, OH) All of the battleground states.
Link to 538
   1546. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: June 19, 2017 at 08:51 AM (#5478489)
He does, in fact, make that exact completely dishonest claim.
Ok. Missed that one (though I do remember the other one referenced in that link, that he spent less money than Hillary to beat her) -- it's impossible to keep track of all of Trump's tweets, especially since half of them contradict the other half -- but I retract that argument, then.

ETA: That is, I retract the argument that Trump never made that claim; I certainly don't retract the argument that the claim is false.
   1547. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: June 19, 2017 at 08:58 AM (#5478491)
London Mosque attack: Did Trump’s Tweets embolden Bigots?
No. That's stupid.
   1548. Swoboda is freedom Posted: June 19, 2017 at 09:08 AM (#5478493)
London Mosque attack: Did Trump’s Tweets embolden Bigots?

Why would Brits be looking at what Trump had to say?
   1549. Zonk Tormundbane Posted: June 19, 2017 at 09:22 AM (#5478495)
Elites being mean, Part I

Donald Trump Is Proving Too Stupid to Be President

I'm starting to suspect that Donald Trump may not have been right when he said, “You know, I’m like a smart person.” The evidence continues to mount that he is far from smart — so far, in fact, that he may not be capable of carrying out his duties as president.
* * *
Why does he know so little? Because he doesn’t read books or even long articles. “I never have,” he proudly told a reporter last year. “I’m always busy doing a lot.” As president, Trump’s intelligence briefings have been dumbed down, denuded of nuance, and larded with maps and pictures because he can’t be bothered to read a lot of words. He’d rather play golf.

The surest indication of how not smart Trump is that he thinks his inability or lack of interest in acquiring knowledge doesn’t matter. He said last year that he reaches the right decisions “with very little knowledge other than the knowledge I [already] had, plus the words ‘common sense,’ because I have a lot of common sense and I have a lot of business ability.”

How’s that working out?


Elites being Mean Part II

Donald Trump’s need for flattery is trashing reputations


AS A rule, it is not ideal for a presidential administration to remind onlookers of a feuding, villain-haunted Shakespearean tragedy. Yet that was a widely shared reaction when the first full meeting of President Donald Trump’s cabinet, on June 12th, began with an extended flattery contest.

* * *
But Mr Trump is no King Lear, whose choleric old age was preceded by a long and fruitful reign. Nor is he a Julius Caesar, whose grandeur renders him incautious around flatterers: just before his assassins strike, Caesar sniffs that he is unmoved by their “base spaniel fawning”. Instead Mr Trump is a boastful, thin-skinned praise-addict. Lacking a governing record after squandering the start of his presidency, he used his first full cabinet meeting to stage a televised display of loyalty. He knew full well that the powerful men and women in the room were flattering him—and relished their humiliation. He is more bully than tragic hero.
* * *
The fact that Mr Trump is a smaller, shallower figure than most Shakespearean heroes (or villains, come to that) makes the craven behaviour of his cabinet secretaries and other Republican enablers even harder to explain. Unlike courtiers in a Jacobean tragedy, they risk neither execution nor banishment. No invading army or witches’ curse impels so many members of Team Trump to sell their reputations and dignity cheap: merely ambition, and the comforting fiction that they are indispensable. Serving Mr Trump is a modest test of character, by Shakespearean standards. It is one which too many underlings are failing.

   1550. Rickey! the first of his name Posted: June 19, 2017 at 09:47 AM (#5478501)
Donald Trump Is Proving Too Stupid to Be President


Man, who could have seen that coming? I mean, what a shock, that a categorically stupid man whose only dominant character traits are vanity and venality mixed in equal measure might turn out to be too stupid to be President? No one could have guessed it would come to this.
   1551. Greg K Posted: June 19, 2017 at 09:58 AM (#5478507)
But Mr Trump is no King Lear, whose choleric old age was preceded by a long and fruitful reign. Nor is he a Julius Caesar, whose grandeur renders him incautious around flatterers: just before his assassins strike, Caesar sniffs that he is unmoved by their “base spaniel fawning”. Instead Mr Trump is a boastful, thin-skinned praise-addict. Lacking a governing record after squandering the start of his presidency, he used his first full cabinet meeting to stage a televised display of loyalty. He knew full well that the powerful men and women in the room were flattering him—and relished their humiliation. He is more bully than tragic hero.

Sounds like Selina Meyer.
   1552. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: June 19, 2017 at 10:18 AM (#5478513)
London Mosque attack: Did Trump’s Tweets embolden Bigots?

No. That's stupid.


It's not stupid at all, unless you think that attacks like this exist in a vacuum, that hateful rhetoric is consequence-free, that Trump's rhetoric is known only to Americans, and that British hate groups, like American hate groups, don't see Trump as a major ideological ally.

It's no more stupid that imagining that incidents like the London Bridge or Paris terror attacks weren't in part spurred by the hate propaganda spread by ISIS. As a once-famous conservative writer put it over half a century ago: Ideas have consequences.

That article doesn't say that Trump's tweets were the direct cause of this attempted murder of Muslim worshipers. It says that Trump is among those whose prominent public positions enable hatred of Muslims to be spread from one continent to another. He's hardly the only one, but given his platform he's right up there with Farage and Le Pen.
   1553. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: June 19, 2017 at 10:22 AM (#5478514)
Why would Brits be looking at what Trump had to say?

Well, why would Nigel Farage have been one of the first foreign leaders Trump decided to meet, just 4 days after his election, in what amounted to a mutual lovefest? Skunks of a feather flock together.
   1554. manchestermets Posted: June 19, 2017 at 10:37 AM (#5478524)
Well, why would Nigel Farage have been one of the first foreign leaders Trump decided to meet, just 4 days after his election, in what amounted to a mutual lovefest? Skunks of a feather flock together.


Because he got there first. Leaders have things to do, they can't just drop everything and race to have their photo taken in a golden elevator. Farage isn't a leader, he's a rabble rouser. Does anyone actually think Trump knows who Farage is, beyond being one of the guys who was queuing up to have his photo taken with Trump after the election? There was an excited story coming from Farage's UK cronies after the meeting, about Trump's reaction when he saw Farage, which was along the lines of pointing at him and exclaiming "There he is!" The crony seemed to think that was some kind of sign of recognition by Trump, when it's actually exactly the kind of thing you'd say when someone you didn't know came into the room but you had a vague idea it might be worth keeping him onside.
   1555. PepTech Posted: June 19, 2017 at 11:11 AM (#5478553)
London Mosque attack: Did Trump’s Tweets embolden Bigots?

No. That's stupid.

It's not stupid at all...
What he said. I'd say there's as much reason to speculate that the Pulse Orlando event was "triggered by ISIS" as "Trump's Tweets embolden Bigots". Which is to say, probably not a heck of a lot *directly*, but enough to consider *as a factor* Or that Bernie Sanders' rhetoric "caused" the Scalise shooting.
   1556. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: June 19, 2017 at 11:15 AM (#5478559)
Well, why would Nigel Farage have been one of the first foreign leaders Trump decided to meet, just 4 days after his election, in what amounted to a mutual lovefest? Skunks of a feather flock together.

Because he got there first. Leaders have things to do, they can't just drop everything and race to have their photo taken in a golden elevator. Farage isn't a leader, he's a rabble rouser. Does anyone actually think Trump knows who Farage is, beyond being one of the guys who was queuing up to have his photo taken with Trump after the election? There was an excited story coming from Farage's UK cronies after the meeting, about Trump's reaction when he saw Farage, which was along the lines of pointing at him and exclaiming "There he is!" The crony seemed to think that was some kind of sign of recognition by Trump, when it's actually exactly the kind of thing you'd say when someone you didn't know came into the room but you had a vague idea it might be worth keeping him onside.


Given Trump's enthusiastic support for Brexit, it's hard to imagine that he'd never heard of Nigel Farage. When it comes to their key selling point, xenophobia combined with mindless nationalism, they and Le Pen are 100% soulmates.

Farage isn't a leader, he's a rabble rouser.

Which is essentially all that Trump is, minus his formal job title. Not that you don't know that.
   1557. Ray (RDP) Posted: June 19, 2017 at 11:21 AM (#5478561)
Trump was smart enough not to do that. As any sixth grader would be.

Please stop with this utterly retarded argument. Both sides were trying to maximize their votes. Period. Nobody runs for president any other way. Trump just wasn't very good at it. Note that even Trump doesn't try to make this completely dishonest claim that you do. Trump is so obsessed with his perceived illegitimacy that he has claimed that he really won the popular vote, but that millions of illegals voted. And yet he doesn't try to claim that she only got more votes because he was so much smarter than her that he didn't try to maximize his vote total while she unstrategically did.


? Yes, Trump does make the same claim.
   1558. Richard Posted: June 19, 2017 at 11:29 AM (#5478569)
Very few people in the UK take anything Trump says even semi-seriously.
   1559. Rickey! the first of his name Posted: June 19, 2017 at 11:31 AM (#5478571)
Trump does make the same claim.


Which would strongly indicate the claim is bullshit.
   1560. Ray (RDP) Posted: June 19, 2017 at 11:33 AM (#5478574)
Also, David, you can call my thesis retarded and dishonest, but there's no support for those labels and as such it just makes you look like you're wholly incapable of analyzing this beyond your already ingrained notions.

See this, for example, from the NY Times's story about Shattered:

After a planned appearance in Green Bay with President Obama was postponed, the authors write, Clinton never set foot in Wisconsin, a key state. In fact, they suggest, the campaign tended to take battleground states like Wisconsin and Michigan (the very states that would help hand the presidency to Trump) for granted until it was too late, and instead looked at expanding the electoral map beyond Democratic-held turf and traditional swing states to places like Arizona.


You really appear not to be familiar with the strategy her campaign employed. There were numerous news reports about this at the time, that they were trying to run up the score by flipping solid traditional red states blue.
   1561. Ray (RDP) Posted: June 19, 2017 at 11:50 AM (#5478587)
Also, David, please explain/reconcile this post of yours from after the election where you seem to agree with the exact point I'm making here:

1599. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: November 21, 2016 at 09:14 AM (#5356025)
...and I accidentally – though presciently – predicted that Hillary would screw up by trying to run up the score in the wrong states rather than aiming for swing states.


Can anyone here reconcile David's above post from November 21 with the "retarded" and "dishonest" comments he's making now -- indeed with the position he takes now? On November 21 he seems to take the exact position that I have.
   1562. Zonk Tormundbane Posted: June 19, 2017 at 11:50 AM (#5478588)
Very few people in the UK take anything Trump says even semi-seriously.


Ironically, it's the same in US... even his defenders :-)

They've gotten very good at pretending Trump does not exist as a person who says and does things and instead, that he exists as more of a theory or hypothetical.
   1563. madvillain Posted: June 19, 2017 at 12:07 PM (#5478595)
Holy #### how are you not tired of Hillary yet, ray? Secret crush? This isn't the Hillary campaign autopsy for the next 4 years thread is it?
   1564. Rickey! the first of his name Posted: June 19, 2017 at 12:08 PM (#5478598)
Holy #### how are you not tired of Hillary yet, ray?


It allows him to avoid looking directly at the guy he has supported for over a year now.
   1565. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: June 19, 2017 at 12:21 PM (#5478603)
Very few people in the UK take anything Trump says even semi-seriously.

Really? On what grounds? That he has no power? That he doesn't have millions of supporters? That he's a buffoon? Did they feel the same way about Farage before Brexit?

But of course the point isn't how many Brits take Trump seriously. It's the cumulative influence that Trump has on likeminded xenophobes and fanatics all over the western world, some of whom not only take him very seriously but also look upon him as an inspiration. Farage and Le Pen may be more important within the UK and France, but on a worldwide scale Trump is the biggest and most influential poisoner of the well.
   1566. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: June 19, 2017 at 12:29 PM (#5478606)
Given Trump's enthusiastic support for Brexit, it's hard to imagine that he'd never heard of Nigel Farage.
No, it's not. He went to visit Scotland right after the vote and congratulated them on the result (both orally, and, of course on Twitter), even though Scotland was strongly opposed to Brexit. There's no reason to believe he would know Nigel Farage from Nigel Wilson.
   1567. Jay Z Posted: June 19, 2017 at 12:29 PM (#5478607)
Ray (RDP) Posted: June 19, 2017 at 11:50 AM (#5478587)
[ Ignored Comment ]


Join the club! Make OTP Great Again!
   1568. The Yankee Clapper Posted: June 19, 2017 at 12:32 PM (#5478608)
It's not stupid at all, unless you think that attacks like this exist in a vacuum, that hateful rhetoric is consequence-free, that Trump's rhetoric is known only to Americans, and that British hate groups, like American hate groups, don't see Trump as a major ideological ally.

I seem to have missed Andy's post blaming his colleagues on the left for James Hodgkinson's actions, but that must have been my oversight, eh?
   1569. Zonk Tormundbane Posted: June 19, 2017 at 12:38 PM (#5478611)
There's no reason to believe he would know Nigel Farage from Nigel Wilson.


He's only making plans... for Nigel.
   1570. madvillain Posted: June 19, 2017 at 12:40 PM (#5478612)
No, it's not. He went to visit Scotland right after the vote and congratulated them on the result (both orally, and, of course on Twitter), even though Scotland was strongly opposed to Brexit. There's no reason to believe he would know Nigel Farage from Nigel Wilson.


Steven Bannon knows he he is, and thus, Trump does.
   1571. Ray (RDP) Posted: June 19, 2017 at 12:40 PM (#5478614)
1563. madvillain Posted: June 19, 2017 at 12:07 PM (#5478595)

Holy #### how are you not tired of Hillary yet, ray? Secret crush? This isn't the Hillary campaign autopsy for the next 4 years thread is it?

564. Rickey! No. You move. Posted: June 19, 2017 at 12:08 PM (#5478598)

Holy #### how are you not tired of Hillary yet, ray?

It allows him to avoid looking directly at the guy he has supported for over a year now.


Concession accepted that last November David took the exact same position that he calls me retarded and dishonest for holding now.

He said last November that Hillary had screwed up by trying to run up the score in the wrong states rather than aiming for swing states. That's exactly what I'm saying now.

As David is now saying that maximizing popular vote totals is the only strategy then that would necessarily imply that Hillary going for popular votes in Arizona was just as effective as going for them in Wisconsin. But of course nobody believes that -- and David didn't, last November. There's no way to reconcile his two positions, last November and now. They are diametrically opposed to each other.
   1572. Zonk Tormundbane Posted: June 19, 2017 at 12:44 PM (#5478617)
There's no way to reconcile his two positions, last November and now. They are diametrically opposed to each other.


So you're saying David has positioned himself perfectly for a primary challenge to Trump?
   1573. madvillain Posted: June 19, 2017 at 12:46 PM (#5478619)
As David is now saying that maximizing popular vote totals is the only strategy then that would necessarily imply that Hillary going for popular votes in Arizona was just as effective as going for them in Wisconsin. But of course nobody believes that -- and David didn't, last November. There's no way to reconcile his two positions, last November and now. They are diametrically opposed to each other.


You should write a book for the fellow autists on the right still laser been focused on a private citizen. I really don't remember endlessly discussing Mitt Romney or John McCain. (Remember when John McCain picked Sarah Palin!).
   1574. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: June 19, 2017 at 12:50 PM (#5478622)
Given Trump's enthusiastic support for Brexit, it's hard to imagine that he'd never heard of Nigel Farage.

No, it's not. He went to visit Scotland right after the vote and congratulated them on the result (both orally, and, of course on Twitter), even though Scotland was strongly opposed to Brexit. There's no reason to believe he would know Nigel Farage from Nigel Wilson.


Look, if nothing else, Trump would've heard of Farage from Bannon. [EDIT: coke to madvillain] I'm not saying that either of them influenced the other, but they feed out of the same trough, and more to the point, many if not most of the xenophobic elements in the UK are well aware of Trump, and see him as a kindred spirit.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's not stupid at all, unless you think that attacks like this exist in a vacuum, that hateful rhetoric is consequence-free, that Trump's rhetoric is known only to Americans, and that British hate groups, like American hate groups, don't see Trump as a major ideological ally.

I seem to have missed Andy's post blaming his colleagues on the left for James Hodgkinson's actions, but that must have been my oversight, eh?


To the extent that my "colleagues" on the left were engaging in the sort of open encouragement of violence and group targeting that Trump has, of course I'd condemn them.** Are you willing to make the same condemnation of Trump's rhetoric?

** I've made many a comment denouncing the BernieBot crowd, which has been the source of most of the left wing apocalyptic rhetoric. But the difference is that while Sanders himself has been unequivocally condemnatory of their inflammatory speech, Trump has openly encouraged by example the sort of rhetoric we see coming out of the alt-right groups.
   1575. Rickey! the first of his name Posted: June 19, 2017 at 12:51 PM (#5478623)
Concession accepted that last November David took the exact same position that he calls me retarded and dishonest for holding now.


The #### would I be conceding anything for David? I'm not David. My point is that you continue to autistically focus on last November, election strategies, and Hillary Clinton, because it allows you to continue looking past the fact that you're deeply compromised with supporting a ####### moron shitbag who has no business being within 1000 miles of the Oval Office.
   1576. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: June 19, 2017 at 12:51 PM (#5478626)
It's not stupid at all, unless you think that attacks like this exist in a vacuum, that hateful rhetoric is consequence-free,
So you do agree that Bernie Sanders is to blame for Scalise's shooting?

There was a terrorist attack just last week in which ISIS agents rammed a truck into a bunch of London pedestrians. The odds that a mirror image attack in London has to do with something Trump said, rather than this recent attack, are tiny.
   1577. Rickey! the first of his name Posted: June 19, 2017 at 12:53 PM (#5478627)
I really don't remember endlessly discussing Mitt Romney or John McCain. (Remember when John McCain picked Sarah Palin!).


That's because Obama was actually interested in some sort of positive program of governance. Trump and his acolytes have no definition outside of their seething hatred of liberals and Hillary Clinton.
   1578. Ray (RDP) Posted: June 19, 2017 at 12:53 PM (#5478628)
I seem to have missed Andy's post blaming his colleagues on the left for James Hodgkinson's actions, but that must have been my oversight, eh?

To the extent that my "colleagues" on the left were engaging in the sort of open encouragement of violence and group targeting that Trump has, of course I'd condemn them.** Are you willing to make the same condemnation of Trump's rhetoric?

** I've made many a comment denouncing the BernieBot crowd, which has been the source of most of the left wing apocalyptic rhetoric. But the difference is that while Sanders himself has been unequivocally condemnatory of their inflammatory speech, Trump has openly encouraged by example the sort of rhetoric we see coming out of the alt-right groups.


Does your your back hurt yet from these gynmnastics?

I didn't blame people on the left for the Scalise shooting. I see no reason to blame people on the right for this latest attack. Those who take inconsistent positions on this are easily seen through; they're hopelessly biased.
   1579. Rickey! the first of his name Posted: June 19, 2017 at 12:54 PM (#5478629)
So you do agree that Bernie Sanders is to blame for Scalise's shooting?


Then Bernie really needs to improve his rhetoric's focus. It was clearly off target.
   1580. madvillain Posted: June 19, 2017 at 12:57 PM (#5478630)
That's because Obama was actually interested in some sort of positive program of governance. Trump and his acolytes have no definition outside of their seething hatred of liberals and Hillary Clinton.


You're right about that.
   1581. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: June 19, 2017 at 12:59 PM (#5478632)
It's not stupid at all, unless you think that attacks like this exist in a vacuum, that hateful rhetoric is consequence-free,

So you do agree that Bernie Sanders is to blame for Scalise's shooting?

There was a terrorist attack just last week in which ISIS agents rammed a truck into a bunch of London pedestrians. The odds that a mirror image attack in London has to do with something Trump said, rather than this recent attack, are tiny.


David, stop being obtuse. I'm not saying that Trump was directly responsible for last night's incident, any more than I've said that he was coordinating with Putin to throw the election to Clinton. But what we can say is that Trump's rhetoric has been a major contributor to the overall escalation of violence, specifically against Muslims.
   1582. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: June 19, 2017 at 01:01 PM (#5478634)
Concession accepted that last November David took the exact same position that he calls me retarded and dishonest for holding now.
No. There is not one word in that link about the popular vote.

I have not argued that Hillary used optimal Electoral College strategy. (Though, as I have noted on several occasions since November, the evidence does not seem to suggest that this mattered much. She didn't spend much effort on Michigan or Wisconsin and lost those states, but she spent a lot of effort on Pennsylvania and lost that one, too.) What I have argued is that no candidate punts on the popular vote. If Trump could've gotten 69 million votes, he would've. He failed to get more popular votes than her not because of some clever Electoral College strategy, but because he wasn't popular.


You really appear not to be familiar with the strategy her campaign employed. There were numerous news reports about this at the time, that they were trying to run up the score by flipping solid traditional red states blue.
As with my November post that you cite, that's talking about the Electoral College, not the popular vote.
   1583. PepTech Posted: June 19, 2017 at 01:06 PM (#5478638)
It's just that it's so ridiculous for the TDSers to keep citing "polls." There was only one poll that mattered; it was on November 8th. And yet the TDSers don't seem to understand that.

Cite this poll, cite that one. It's all meaningless, except to the extent it pulls the curtain back on your deep seated derangement.
Ray, your bizarre insistence on reliving November 8th outweighs the merits of your arguments on any topic. The message quoted here is yet another in your repeated litany of attacks on "TDSers". It is Trump, himself, who cited the poll. When this was mocked, you mocked the mockers for the very thing you mock, and twisted it into an election strategy subthread - seemingly only make yourself look like some sort of injured party.

Poor, misunderstood, prescient Ray, who achieves victory after victory over pedantic matters (see #1369) but refuses to engage on substance when challenged intellectually (see any of the responses to #1384) - then just can't get why people don't appreciate him.
   1584. dlf Posted: June 19, 2017 at 01:09 PM (#5478639)
I mentioned previously that Pam Patenaube, DJT's nominee to be the #2 at HUD - and effectively the #1 with Ben Carson giving pointless off topic speeches - was a great pick. Completeness suggests that I point out the story in the NYDN that Trump is now about to nominate a person to run the federal housing programs for all of NY and NJ whose previous credentials are being an event planner for the rich and famous (including Eric T's wedding) as well as serving on Eric Trump's charity. Link to a Housing Wire article discussing the potential selection. Seems like another 'Great job Brownie' choice if it goes through.
   1585. The Yankee Clapper Posted: June 19, 2017 at 01:10 PM (#5478640)
Today, the Supreme Court, once again, held that the 1st Amendment protects speech that may be offensive or even hateful:
And the justices made clear that speech that some view as racially offensive is protected not just against outright prohibition but also against lesser restrictions. In Matal, the government refused to register “The Slants” as a band’s trademark, on the ground that the name might be seen as demeaning to Asian Americans. The government wasn’t trying to forbid the band from using the mark; it was just denying it certain protections that trademarks get against unauthorized use by third parties. But even in this sort of program, the court held, viewpoint discrimination — including against allegedly racially offensive viewpoints — is unconstitutional. And this no-viewpoint-discrimination principle has long been seen as applying to exclusion of speakers from universities, denial of tax exemptions to nonprofits, and much more.

Unanimous decision - those trying to prevent others from speaking won't have much luck using the government in their efforts.
   1586. Ray (RDP) Posted: June 19, 2017 at 01:11 PM (#5478641)
Concession accepted that last November David took the exact same position that he calls me retarded and dishonest for holding now.

No. There is not one word in that link about the popular vote.


Your comments then and now are not reconcilable as regards to the popular vote. As I explained above:

He said last November that Hillary had screwed up by trying to run up the score in the wrong states rather than aiming for swing states. That's exactly what I'm saying now.

As David is now saying that maximizing popular vote totals is the only strategy then that would necessarily imply that Hillary going for popular votes in Arizona was just as effective as going for them in Wisconsin. But of course nobody believes that -- and David didn't, last November. There's no way to reconcile his two positions, last November and now. They are diametrically opposed to each other.


I have not argued that Hillary used optimal Electoral College strategy. (Though, as I have noted on several occasions since November, the evidence does not seem to suggest that this mattered much. She didn't spend much effort on Michigan or Wisconsin and lost those states, but she spent a lot of effort on Pennsylvania and lost that one, too.) What I have argued is that no candidate punts on the popular vote. If Trump could've gotten 69 million votes, he would've. He failed to get more popular votes than her not because of some Electoral College strategy, but because he wasn't popular.


1. I think it's reasonable to argue that in the current media-saturation era including social media that targeting specific states doesn't get you much further if at all. But that's quite a different thing from saying that targeting places like *Arizona* (for her) is a productive strategy. A vote in Arizona is worth nothing to Wisconsin.

2. So what if she lost PA despite targeting it? The proper metric is not win/loss, it's how many votes you got. She lost PA by some 68,000 votes. Maybe she'd have lost it by 120,000 if she hadn't targeted it. Your analysis is simply flawed for not acknowledging that.

3. A candidate "punts" on the popular vote by not going into states that the candidate has no prayer of flipping, because if those states flip then it's such a decisive victory that you didn't need them anyway.
   1587. Eddo Posted: June 19, 2017 at 01:13 PM (#5478642)
Today, the Supreme Court, once again, held that the 1st Amendment protects speech that may be offensive or even hateful

I agree with the decision, but "Yay, we can say hateful things!" in kind of a stupid thing to celebrate.
   1588. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: June 19, 2017 at 01:16 PM (#5478643)
I agree with the decision, but "Yay, we can say hateful things!" in kind of a stupid thing to celebrate.


I disagree, because I think "Yay, we can say even things some people find hateful" makes perfect sense.
   1589. madvillain Posted: June 19, 2017 at 01:19 PM (#5478646)
I agree with the decision, but "Yay, we can say hateful things!" in kind of a stupid thing to celebrate.


Look at what they want to talk about and push. It's telling. Ray wants to talk about Hillary. YC wants to talk about cakes and hate speech as protected rights.
   1590. Rickey! the first of his name Posted: June 19, 2017 at 01:22 PM (#5478648)
Unanimous decision - those trying to prevent others from speaking won't have much luck using the government in their efforts.


Says the whiny little preening ##### who complains that people aren't civil to him these days. #### off.
   1591. Rickey! the first of his name Posted: June 19, 2017 at 01:23 PM (#5478651)
The proper metric is not win/loss, it's how many votes you got.


The terrible part is how much of this obvious irony is lost on Ray himself.
   1592. Eddo Posted: June 19, 2017 at 01:28 PM (#5478654)
I disagree, because I think "Yay, we can say even things some people find hateful" makes perfect sense.

I said "celebrate". I'm glad there are no legal repercussions to saying something nasty or offensive to someone, that doesn't mean I should feel good about myself for saying it, though.
   1593. The Yankee Clapper Posted: June 19, 2017 at 01:30 PM (#5478656)
I agree with the decision, but "Yay, we can say hateful things!" in kind of a stupid thing to celebrate.

Once you cross the threshold to allowing viewpoint discrimination, free speech is lost - the only question is what speech is suppressed and how far those efforts go. And the answer is always likely to be more extensive censorship as time goes on. So, yes, it is worth noting that the Court got this one right, which FWIW, isn't the same as celebrating the speech at issue. Strange that the distinction could be lost on anyone.
   1594. Rickey! the first of his name Posted: June 19, 2017 at 01:32 PM (#5478657)
I'm glad there are no legal repercussions to saying something nasty or offensive to someone,


Unless you text your boyfriend telling him to off himself. Then you get convicted of manslaughter, apparently.
   1595. Morty Causa Posted: June 19, 2017 at 01:36 PM (#5478663)
I agree with the decision, but "Yay, we can say hateful things!" in kind of a stupid thing to celebrate.

Yeah, it does seem so on first impression, but that may be because we don't see ourselves as ever losing it and indulging in intemperance that someone else may be offended by. Hey, according to an NPR interview I was listening to recently, we're at the point where the Siamese cats in Disney's Lady and the Tramp are offensive to some.
   1596. Lassus Posted: June 19, 2017 at 01:37 PM (#5478665)
Unless you text your boyfriend telling him to off himself. Then you get convicted of manslaughter, apparently.

I posted that earlier, before the conviction, even. It is pretty fascinating.
   1597. Ray (RDP) Posted: June 19, 2017 at 01:40 PM (#5478667)
You really appear not to be familiar with the strategy her campaign employed. There were numerous news reports about this at the time, that they were trying to run up the score by flipping solid traditional red states blue.

As with my November post that you cite, that's talking about the Electoral College, not the popular vote.


This discussion necessarily includes them both.

   1598. Rickey! the first of his name Posted: June 19, 2017 at 01:43 PM (#5478669)
I posted that earlier, before the conviction, even. It is pretty fascinating.


Seems pretty much dead wrong to me.
   1599. Ray (RDP) Posted: June 19, 2017 at 01:43 PM (#5478670)
The proper metric is not win/loss, it's how many votes you got.

The terrible part is how much of this obvious irony is lost on Ray himself.


This gotcha attempt is silly. We're talking about whether targeting a state more is effective. The test for that is not win/loss, but is whether targeting the state nets you votes that you wouldn't otherwise have gotten.
   1600. Rickey! the first of his name Posted: June 19, 2017 at 01:45 PM (#5478671)
This gotcha attempt is silly.


Silly is literally the least offensive term I could think of to describe your posting history since November.
Page 16 of 17 pages ‹ First  < 14 15 16 17 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

News

All News | Prime News

Old-School Newsstand


BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
1k5v3L
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogAstros' Justin Verlander named ALCS MVP after two dominant starts vs. Yankees
(56 - 1:55am, Oct 24)
Last: Wahoo Sam

NewsblogDodgers, Astros renew rivalry in World Series | MLB.com
(51 - 1:09am, Oct 24)
Last: Joyful Calculus Instructor

NewsblogOT - 2017 NFL thread
(164 - 12:48am, Oct 24)
Last: Dr. Vaux

NewsblogOT - NBA 2017-2018 Tip-off Thread
(496 - 12:29am, Oct 24)
Last: Gold Star - just Gold Star

NewsblogAaron Judge Named Sporting News AL Rookie Of The Year
(8 - 12:17am, Oct 24)
Last: David Nieporent (now, with children)

NewsblogOT - October 2017 College Football thread
(90 - 11:50pm, Oct 23)
Last: don't ask 57i66135; he wants to hang them all

NewsblogOTP 23 October 2017: Dave Zirin discusses how race, politics, culture impact sports
(192 - 11:34pm, Oct 23)
Last: Gonfalon Bubble

NewsblogLooking Back At Five Great Baseball Moments At RFK Stadium
(15 - 11:20pm, Oct 23)
Last: ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick

Gonfalon CubsLooking to next year
(8 - 10:51pm, Oct 23)
Last: Zonk Tormundbane

NewsblogCubs Fire Bosio
(32 - 10:41pm, Oct 23)
Last: Zonk Tormundbane

NewsblogWaPo: d MLB’s newest managers are Red Sox’s Alex Cora and Mets’ Mickey Callaway
(27 - 10:13pm, Oct 23)
Last: Lars6788

NewsblogOT: Wrestling Thread November 2014
(2087 - 10:10pm, Oct 23)
Last: Man o' Schwar

NewsblogWorld Series 2017: The inside story of how the Houston Astros won the American League
(16 - 8:48pm, Oct 23)
Last: ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick

NewsblogScioscia says '88 World Series team was special — and so are these Dodgers - LA Times
(22 - 8:28pm, Oct 23)
Last: Tin Angel

Gonfalon CubsFive minute Los Angeles Dodgers Preview
(101 - 7:36pm, Oct 23)
Last: Andere Richtingen

Page rendered in 1.0984 seconds
47 querie(s) executed