Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Sheriff Belor Hemolock

Scott Betts's page

Goblin Squad Member. 7,201 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 7,201 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

berserker444 wrote:
What I was disputing was that you couldn’t, honestly, simply point a finger at any particular group and label it without sense or reason.

The strawman you're trying to pull apart here is still closer to the truth than your preferred false equivalency that both sides of the political aisle are equally senseless.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hitdice wrote:
Sorry, I got over-excited by Scott Betts linked transcript and omitted my thesis statement; whenever Trump gives a minority outreach speech, he gives it in a town with a high population of low income minority residents, but he always gives it to an audience of middle class white people who live in the suburbs surrounding the local center of urban blight. That junk bums me out.

Trump is pioneering the new Republican minority out-of-reach strategy!


3 people marked this as a favorite.

That speech, though.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Fergie wrote:
Krensky wrote:

Also, it's not like Bill and Hillary are taking money out of the Foundation.

...

The Daily Kos“It seems like the Clinton Foundation operates as a slush fund for the Clintons,” said Bill Allison, a senior fellow at the Sunlight Foundation, a government watchdog group once run by leading progressive Democrat and Fordham Law professor Zephyr Teachout. …

The Clinton family’s mega-charity took in more than $140 million in grants and pledges in 2013 but spent just $9 million on direct aid. …"

More here:Between 2009 and 2012, the Clinton Foundation raised over $500 million dollars according to a review of IRS documents by The Federalist (2012, 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008). A measly 15 percent of that, or $75 million, went towards programmatic grants. More than $25 million went to fund travel expenses. Nearly $110 million went toward employee salaries and benefits. And a whopping $290 million during that period — nearly 60 percent of all money raised — was classified merely as “other expenses.”

So, Fergie, what you just posted is a combination of a lie and misinformation. We need to have a chat about that. Ignoring, for the moment, how terrible your source (and yes, there is only one source between those two links) is, anyone who tells you that the remaining $290 million of their 2009-2012 fundraising was simply classified as "other expenses" is either lying to you or has been lied to themselves. The Clinton Foundation's tax returns are available to the public on their website. They outline the organization's finances, including expenditures, as well as provide information on programs in which the organization is involved. Unlike the vast majority of charities, the Clinton Foundation spends most of its program money on its own programs. They run a number of enormous initiatives themselves, instead of writing the majority of their fundraising out as grants.

Here is Politifact talking about Priebus' false claim that the Clinton Foundation spends most of its money on overhead.

Here is Politifact talking about Limbaugh's mostly false claim that the Clinton Foundation spends only 15% of its funds on charity.

Here is FactCheck discussing how criticisms leveled at the Clinton Foundation are based on a fundamental misunderstanding of how charities work.

You are being manipulated because you a) do not have the level of knowledge of non-profit work required to know when someone is lying to you, and b) have a personal, emotional interest in these stories being true, which causes you to skip over the critical thought with which you might otherwise treat dubious claims like these.

Again, you are being manipulated, and are contributing to a culture of disinformation.

Please stop. You know better.


The fact that a subset of Republican voters/pundits (see: Eric Bolling) believes the lie is sort of the point. It's just barely plausible enough that people who really need to believe it can point to it and say, "Yeah, we've got a shot." The rest of the world - independents, Democrats, and most level-headed Republicans - sees it as unsubstantiated wishful thinking.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

In their defense (not that they deserve one), it's basically a cardinal rule of campaigning that you cannot appear to anticipate anything other than a victory. I'm sure they don't believe it, but they absolutely must come up with a rationalization that allows them to behave outwardly as though they are winning, while facing polling numbers that make it clear that the race is basically unwinnable.

Last election it was "The polls are skewed, the unskewed polls show that we're winning." This election it's "The polls are wrong, because a lot of our voters are scared to admit they support Trump." It's nonsense, they know it's nonsense, we know it's nonsense, most of the world at large knows it's nonsense, but it's infinitely preferable to, "Yeah, we're getting destroyed."


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Fergie wrote:
I may well be wrong, (and dear god help me, I'm reading cnn) but it sure sounds like these are new emails that have not been gone over by anyone.

Nope. These are old emails that the FBI has been in possession of for a while, now.

A non-story, per usual. How many of these are people going to read before they stop leaping to, "Surely, THIS will be the story that actually leads to something incriminating!"

It isn't happening. It wasn't happening any of the hundreds of times people posted clickbait email scandal articles months and months ago, and it isn't going to happen at some point in the future.

But surely, THIS will be the one!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rednal wrote:
Aside from the Trump campaign's releases - including an obviously false assessment of Trump's own health

For those who haven't seen it, I really strongly encourage you to read the assessment in question, and a doctor's analysis of its contents. You can find them both here.

I mean, daaaaaaaaaamn.


captain yesterday wrote:
Just going to leave this here

Clinton is more than twice as likely to win Texas than Trump is to win the election.

I'll repeat - Trump winning the election would be way more surprising than a Democrat winning the state of Texas.

Yee haw.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kryzbyn wrote:

Penn Jillette's thoughts on throwing his vote away:

** spoiler omitted **

Hear it in his voice!

Penn Jillette is an angry libertarian with some fringe beliefs, and that isn't a rationale or defense of voting third party so much as it's a protest against being told what to do.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Lou Diamond wrote:

Since my last post I was watching the Olympics and sleeping because I am on pain meds because had a tooth extracted today.

I was just watching one of the members of the house oversight committee and he said that there were at least 22 emails that were SAP that the committee has not been able to see since they were almost completely redacted.

Perhaps a select Committee of the house and senate intelligence committees and the heads of the house and senate oversight
committees should be formed to look at the e-mail issue and lay it to rest once and for all. IMO if those SAP emails were on the server HRC should be forced to withdraw from the race by the democrats and put Bernie on the ticket.

Oh, look. Another hit and run post that drops a rumor, suggests insane consequences, and does nothing to address the criticism his last post received.

Shocking.


That's what we call hit-and-run behavior. Low effort posts containing misinformation, and he never returns to defend his claims. It's just on to the next imagined scandal or controversy. It isn't about what's right, what's true, or what's defensible. It's about forcing reactions.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Lou Diamond, you're running on less than zero credibility at the moment. Maybe take a break from spreading misinformation, and engage in some meaningful conversation on this topic instead. Your last two noteworthy contributions to the topic of politics here were victim-blaming protestors for being the targets of violence, and claiming that the Clinton Foundation's tax returns were never released.


GreyWolfLord wrote:
From what I've learned from friends who have clearances...and from cases I've worked on in regards to clearance problems occasionally...

You are clearly not a legal professional.

Quote:
1) In order to get clearance, you are briefed several times on what is or is not classified. The idea that Clinton didn't know what was or was not classified is a bunch of BS, since every Classified item has the words of it's classification on it supposedly.

Nope.

Quote:
2: And Clinton destroyed HOW MANY EMAILS and claimed they couldn't retrieve them, and even the ones they turned over they didn't until they had time to get rid of a LOT of emails that no one has seen. That's destroying a LOT more than just a computer.

And none of that is improper - to say nothing of whether they're illegal - if the emails were personal in nature.

Quote:
3 - The ONLY reason Clinton was not charged was because they said she had no intent. No intent to do what? She willingly SENT those emails with classified information on them to other people on an UNSECURE server. That's not selling, that's actually GIVING away the information.

If you have to ask the question "No intent to do what?", you are not properly equipped to have this discussion.

Quote:
If any of my friends had done anything close to what she had done, they'd have gotten FAR worse punishments.

No, they wouldn't have.

Quote:
Anyone in the community that I've met who have talked about the classified information have hated what Clinton got a pass on, simply because if it had been ANYONE among them, they'd have several years of prison time at a minimum.

No, they wouldn't have.

Quote:
I read this case and felt it actually DOES point out that they treated Clinton a LOT differently then they would anyone else with a classified clearance.

Your reading of the case and your feelings do not match reality.


Lou Diamond wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner, HRC has not released any of the Clinton Foundations tax returns its expenses or who has donated to it. HRC and Bill have released their personal tax returns not their foundations.

This is kind of a weird thing for you to claim, Lou Diamond, given that the Clinton Foundation is a registered 501(c)(3) organization, and as such its tax returns are a matter of public record. You literally could find them at the top of a Google search.

Were you simply mistaken about this? Or was this an attempt on your part to dishonestly smear Clinton?


Rednal wrote:

So, let's see what fresh material we have from Trump today! Just lemme hop over to Google News, and... ooh, this one might be fun.

"And once I get in, I will do my thing that I do very well. And I figure it is probably, maybe the only way I'm going to get to heaven. So I better do a good job." - Trump, to evangelical leaders in Orlando

I like how he didn't actually say what it is he does.

"The life I have led up to this point has probably earned me eternal damnation, but everyone knows that the best way to turn a bad person into a good person is to give them the most powerful position on the planet!"


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Irontruth wrote:
It's more likely that a 2008 Clinton campaign staffer is the source of the birther theory, since it arose during the 2008 primaries.

I'd like to see this particular bit of misinformation wither and die. Neither Clinton, nor her campaign, nor any staffer associated with her campaign ever advanced - much less started - the birther rumors or movement. Per Politifact:

Politifact wrote:
There is no record that Clinton herself or anyone within her campaign ever advanced the charge that Obama was not born in the United States. A review by our fellow fact-checkers at Factcheck.org reported that no journalist who investigated this ever found a connection to anyone in the Clinton organization.

The earliest record of the rumors appears to have come from a random Clinton supporter (i.e., not someone affiliated with her campaign in any way), but even then it was just a forwarded email.


Kryzbyn wrote:
There's a lot of people that could beat Hillary, I imagine. Thing is, if they swap candidates, how much does that screw up HRC's campaign? If she's spending money on anti-Trump adds (not that she has to, that man is a poster child for bizzaro world), how does that mess up things? Would she have any recourse?

She's reserving ad time/space. She can choose what ads appear later.

Doesn't matter though. I can't imagine them ditching Trump at this point. That ship has sailed.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
captain yesterday wrote:
Babies, I tell ya,

Sounds like Trump is the right candidate for the job, then! No one stands up to babies like he does! No one!


thejeff wrote:

I love the exaggeration. It's not just "violent protesters", it's "paid protesters", "rent a mob protesters", etc.

And I'm supposed to be able to tell they're paid from footage from the San Jose Rally?

I'll freely admit some protests have been more disruptive than I like. Some have even been violent. I didn't None of that changes the responsibilities of the guy on stage inciting more violence. A line which the Donald has come very close to.

I'd prefer not to deliberately hold back on judgment, here. Trump has very clearly crossed that line on a few occasions. It's okay to say so.


9 people marked this as a favorite.
Lou Diamond wrote:
theJeff, Republicans that go to Trump Rallies have been repeatedly attacked by paid protesters from SEIU, LaRaza and MECHA and other Soros funded groups. So if these rent a mob protesters are counterattacked by people attending Trump rallies that is just the risk that these rent a mob protesters take to earn their money.

Not only is this utter tripe, the latter bit is a disgusting attempt at justification of violence.


CBDunkerson wrote:
Krensky wrote:
There is nothing really damming or embarrassing in those emails.

Well...

They show clear evidence of bias and open communication of such.

They show clear evidence of a scant handful of occasions of bias. That's really nothing. It certainly isn't indicative of the sort of institutional bias that would stand any chance of skewing an election. At most, it's evidence that no one within the organization was actively policing bias.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

More than anything, it smacks of an, "I haven't died yet, therefore I am invincible!" mentality. Which is forgivable in a naive teenager. Less so in a nation hundreds of years old.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Turin the Mad wrote:
Edit: regarding voters in primaries for 2012, looks like 15.9%. 2008 was 30.3%, just short of the record set in 1972 @ 30.9%.

Different figures. That's the number who voted, total. Orfamay Quest was referring to the number who voted for the eventual nominee.

For those curious about how the primary stacks up in this regard to the last couple of cycles, enjoy: (per /u/GeorgeWTrudeau on reddit)

General Figures

Percentage of Americans Eligible to Vote: 68.6%

Percentage of Americans Registered to Vote: 45.9%

---

Percentage of Americans Who Voted in 2008 Primary: 18.2%

Percentage of Americans Who Nominated Obama in 2008: 5.85%

Percentage of Americans Who Nominated McCain in 2008: 3.3%

Percentage of Americans Who Voted in 2008 Election: 42.61%

Percentage of Americans Who Voted for Obama in 2008: 22.9%

Percentage of Americans Who Voted for McCain in 2008: 19.7%

---

Percentage of Americans Who Voted in 2012 Primary: 9.9%

Percentage of Americans Who Nominated Obama in 2012: 1.9%

Percentage of Americans Who Nominated Romney in 2012: 3.1%

Percentage of Americans Who Voted in 2012 Election: 39.8%

Percentage of Americans Who Voted for Obama in 2012: 20.7%

Percentage of Americans Who Voted for Romney in 2012: 19.1%

---

Percentage of Americans Who Voted in 2016 Primary: 18%

Percentage of Americans Who Nominated Clinton in 2016: 5.3%

Percentage of Americans Who Nominated Trump in 2016: 4.4%

Percentage of Americans Who Nominated Johnson in 2016: .006%

Percentage of Americans Who Nominated Stein in 2016: .004%


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hitdice wrote:
I'm gonna wait, like, another 85 days or so to even begin posting on this thread, and probably won't really start giving my opinion on what happened until we're staring down the barrel of the 2020 primary. :P

If you haven't already decided who you're voting for in 2024, you're behind the times.


Kobold Cleaver wrote:

There's really not that much infighting. The vocal minority of Bernie supporters still causing real trouble are a tiny fraction of actual Bernie supporters. They're mainly the ones who were just in it because they hated Clinton and didn't really care about the movement. The rest of us know it's time to move on.

Barack Obama's speech was lovely. The man speaks very much good! And while I don't agree with all of their policies, the palpable love between President Obama and Vice President Biden is just flipping beautiful. I'm going to miss that bond. I'm going to miss a lot of things from this POTUS.

Obama is going to be around for a long while, yet. I expect some of his most important, meaningful work will be done after he leaves office. The guy is going to have a hell of a legacy.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
GreyWolfLord wrote:
I personally know a few that did things FAR less than Clinton (and one who did something VERY similar, but they didn't send emails out with the information on it, so actually LESS than what Clinton did...that guy lost rank, clearance, and faced the threat of prison time) and got punished via criminal and military justice systems.

How strange. The FBI said, explicitly, that they were unable to find any comparable cases that resulted in charges being filed.

Are you more familiar with the details of the cases in question than the FBI? Or is Director Comey in bed with the Clintons, now?


Digitalelf wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
The private server thing is a complete non issue.
And if Russia DOES provide emails originating from her account?

Then Trump will really regret this morning's press conference.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Digitalelf wrote:
And yet if you or I (or anyone else on these boards), were as "negligent" with top level security as Mrs. Clinton, we'd have been thrown into the deepest, darkest of prisons before you could say "scandal"!p

I'm so sick of hearing this. No, you would not. If you had done what Clinton did, you absolutely would not be "thrown into the deepest, darkest of prisons." That's insane. No one actually familiar with the law believes this. It's only angry, woke-as-all-hell laypeople who believe they understand how the world works. They get it.

You would probably receive some form of administrative sanction if it ever came to public light. Security leakage happens. The only reason you would suffer anything more extensive - like a congressional investigation leading to an FBI inquiry - is if you're a powerful enough political figure to have made enemies out of the entire Republican Party.

Quote:
her account is said to have been hacked by Russia!

Trump is saying that. The only real suspicion by security experts is that Russia hacked the DNC.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

A Presidential candidate providing public support for a foreign government's cyber espionage efforts against his own country is a huge issue. There is no way around this. There is no room for meaningful debate. This is a very, very real problem.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
RainyDayNinja wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:

Donald Trump literally just told Russia to hack a former Secretary of State in order to obtain what he hopes is classified information, and promised they'd be rewarded for doing so.

That actually just happened.

And yet his numbers won't take a hit. Just goes to show that his supporters don't actually care about little things like the law.

Or, you know, that some people can recognize an obvious joke.

The fact that the media is presenting an obvious joke like this as a serious proposal is exactly why Trump's supporters don't care what the media says about him.

It wasn't a joke. Obvious or otherwise. He was serious.

When you start using the same talking points as /r/The_Donald, it's time to reconsider what you're saying.

I love that we're now dealing with the political equivalent of, "It was just a prank, bro!"


Donald Trump literally just told Russia to hack a former Secretary of State in order to obtain what he hopes is classified information, and promised they'd be rewarded for doing so.

That actually just happened.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thegreenteagamer wrote:
Why bother to allow voting for primaries at all then? Why put up the pretext that the people even matter if it's inevitably to be decided by leadership?

Because it isn't inevitably decided by leadership. You haven't internalized what you were just told.

The original purpose of superdelegates wasn't so that the party leadership would always decide the nominee. It was as a safeguard against particularly extreme candidates being advanced by a combined effort of the far-left wing of the party and a coalition of non-Democrat independents. To date, the people have always decided the nominee.


thejeff wrote:

Except, from what I can see in the historical market data, there really wasn't much swinginess. I guess it depends on when you mean by "as the field consolidated". On a different site that gives a little more control, Trump was clearly one of the main contenders by December. And clearly the leading contender by January. That's by the earliest actual voting. Only a couple spikes after that - one in February where he and Rubio swapped places and one in April where Cruz almost caught up. Other than that a clear lead all through this year. Even while the pundits were still talking up other candidates.

What I mean by swinginess is that candidates experience massive rises and falls in polling and in chances of nomination. This chart demonstrates what I'm talking about. While Trump may have experienced a steady rise, save for a couple of sharp drops, many other candidates bounced all over the place. Look at Walker. Look at Rubio. Look at Jeb Bush. You would never see that level of vacillation in the general election.


Turin the Mad wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Edit: Also Johnson doesn't have a 15% chance of success. He's polling at 15%. There's a big difference. He's got approximately 0% chance of actually winning. He'd need to be polling at least 30 to have a noticeable chance and then only if he was pulling heavily from both candidates - just a few points of difference in polling make a huge swing in odds of winning. A 55/45 race is nearly a sure thing, not a 55% chance of the leader winning.
Repeating this, because it's an important lesson in election polling and statistics. The proportion of people who support you isn't the same as the chance of you winning the election. At all. Trump and Clinton are polling very close to one another, nationally, but election forecasts and betting markets give Clinton a much better chance of winning than Trump. Johnson is sitting at 0.4% on the betting markets - lower than Sanders. And you can expect that figure to drop as the race progresses.
One wonders what the betting markets' odds were for Trump obtaining the nomination. ;)

I get that you're trying to make a point, here, but I think you're going to have some trouble with it. Primaries are inherently less stable and harder to predict than the general election. Party identity carries a lot of weight, and history and demographics alone can be used to (fairly reliably) predict how most states will vote in a Presidential general election. Primaries, on the other hand, have no party identity demarcations to distinguish candidates from one another - all Democrats run against all Democrats, and all Republicans run against all Republicans. It's therefore very difficult to predict the outcome early on in the primary process, especially when the field is very full and a strong narrative around a candidate hasn't been established. Primaries are also vulnerable to massive support swings, as voters rally behind new narratives, jump on gaffes as campaign-enders, and shift preference en masse as trailing candidates suspend their campaigns. Swings in general election support are much more muted.

As thejeff notes, as the field consolidated, crowd wisdom clearly indicated Trump as the winner very quickly.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Feral wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
There doesn't appear to be anything significant. A handful of people at the DNC had a favored candidate. Shock.

I agree the bulk of the leaked communications are fairly harmless but there's some fairly damning stuff in there.

"Let's get this around without attribution" in regards to a news article about Sander's supporters turning violent.

"It might may no difference but for KY and WVA can we get someone to ask his belief. Does he believe in a God. He had skated on saying he has a Jewish heritage. I think I read he is an atheist. This could make several points difference with my peeps. My Southern Baptist peeps would draw a big difference between a Jew and an atheist."

If that isn't a targeted attempt to ruin Sander's campaign I don't know what is.

I don't see either of those things as damning, at all. Inappropriate, perhaps, but absolutely not indicative of fraud, widespread deceit, or even extreme bias.

If a treasure trove of internal communications are leaked and the most damning evidence that comes out of it is "We want to leak a story," and "We want someone to ask Sanders a question about religion," (that appears to have fizzled on the launch pad), it actually paints a picture of a remarkably cleanly run party.

Can you imagine what a similarly sourced and sized collection of RNC emails would look like, from this cycle?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
GM_Beernorg wrote:

That is a rather harsh and unfounded response to my post, as I never wrote anything close to "both parties are the exact same". I am more than intelligent enough to tell the difference in the two parties' stance, and I would take it as a kindness if you avoided telling me what I think, and why.

It is simply my perspective that both options are sub optimal, though for vastly different reasons.

I welcome discourse, I do not welcome being insulted.

Recycling "giant douche or turd sandwich" is discourse? To a lot of people, that sounds like the speaker believes that both choices are equally awful.

I'm not here to insult you, but if you don't want your words to be labeled as reductionist, it may be worth considering that posting reductionist drivel isn't the best way to go about that.

Even if you think the parties are both "sub optimal", you need to be able to judge which is the two is more optimal than the other. One of them is. I think you probably know which.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Pillbug Toenibbler wrote:
Franken seemed a bit flat, and the repartee with Silverman seemed overly-rehearsed, but they accomplished their goal. I enjoyed Silverman's passionate pro-Sanders stumping and her bringing it around to full support for Clinton. I loved her adlib, "Can I just say: To the 'Bernie or Bust' people, you're being ridiculous."

The Sanders folk got full helpings of this kind of patronisation from the DNC and others throughout the entire primary process. Whoever thought that this would be better received because Silverman had been an outspoken Bernie supporter, needs to go soak their head in a bucket until the rest of their dumb ideas wash away. The last thing that the Sanders crowd needed was yet another voice of dismissal.

So I'd say to Silverman right back. "You should know why they're here. And even if the game was rigged from the start, they were far from ridiculous in what they were fighting for."

I don't know, dismissal seems to be working pretty well. Only 10% of them are still holding out.

Regardless, the primary was not "rigged from the start." You guys lost.

All of this just sounds a lot like a bunch of people who can't handle level-headed women criticizing their behavior.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pan wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
GM_Beernorg wrote:

Giant douche or turd sandwich, you gotta pick one Stan!

I used to find this funny, now, I find it terrifying.

Watch the speeches from the RNC, then watch the speeches from the DNC. And come back here and tell me you don't see a meaningful difference between the two parties and the two candidates. You're buying into a cynical, fashionable view that the two are interchangeable that has zero basis in reality. It's reductionist, and harmful to discourse and democracy.
Tell me about it. I got an office full of....(not sure what you call folks who think Trump and Clinton are working together for a Clinton presidency) but anyways they say third party is the only choice because the rest is a set up...../facepalm

On the bright side, it shouldn't be tough to earn merit-based promotion in an office filled with people like that.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
GM_Beernorg wrote:

Giant douche or turd sandwich, you gotta pick one Stan!

I used to find this funny, now, I find it terrifying.

Watch the speeches from the RNC, then watch the speeches from the DNC. And come back here and tell me you don't see a meaningful difference between the two parties and the two candidates. You're buying into a cynical, fashionable view that the two are interchangeable that has zero basis in reality. It's reductionist, and harmful to discourse and democracy.


thejeff wrote:
Edit: Also Johnson doesn't have a 15% chance of success. He's polling at 15%. There's a big difference. He's got approximately 0% chance of actually winning. He'd need to be polling at least 30 to have a noticeable chance and then only if he was pulling heavily from both candidates - just a few points of difference in polling make a huge swing in odds of winning. A 55/45 race is nearly a sure thing, not a 55% chance of the leader winning.

Repeating this, because it's an important lesson in election polling and statistics. The proportion of people who support you isn't the same as the chance of you winning the election. At all. Trump and Clinton are polling very close to one another, nationally, but election forecasts and betting markets give Clinton a much better chance of winning than Trump. Johnson is sitting at 0.4% on the betting markets - lower than Sanders. And you can expect that figure to drop as the race progresses.


thejeff wrote:
It's only a handful of deadenders and a lot of concern trolls still fighting the primary wars.

Per a Pew poll out this morning, 90% of his supporters have converted to Clinton since April. The holdouts are now a tiny, very vocal minority.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Quark Blast wrote:
It'll be fun to read back through this thread in four years.

It was awesome reading back on the 2012 election thread last year. What a trip.


Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Given that we have had TWO resignations over the WikkiLeaks material, Something has to be there... and a decent amount of it, even if it's just confirmation of what we had suspected all along.

There doesn't appear to be anything significant. A handful of people at the DNC had a favored candidate. Shock.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Turin the Mad wrote:
That her party leadership attempted to rig things so blatantly in her favor is not going to help

No one rigged anything. You guys need to stop bandying this myth about. Here's Sanders' own former press secretary saying, this afternoon, that no one rigged anything, they just lost.

Jesus, guys, own it for once. You lost a primary. Almost everyone loses the primary. That's the point. It isn't a huge deal. Move on, we have bigger fish to fry.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:

Bernie Bros were a very real thing, but that's probably because this election was post...well, I'm not supposed to talk about that, but this election has been the first major one of its kind since the "online hatemob" techniques really got perfected. It wasn't Bernie's fault, but it was real and distinct all the same. "Bernie Bros", as the media dubbed them (the media loved to paint Sanders as the "white dude" candidate, as opposed to the "young people" candidate), were actually doxxing superdelegates. They were based on the uglier corners of Reddit and 4Chan, and referred to him as a "cuck" the moment he dared endorse Hillary. It wasn't the same magnitude as the "Obama Boys".

I didn't like how much focus Bernie Bros got compared to the problems in Clinton's campaign, which, as we've known for a while, also employed plenty of unpleasant measures, but it also bugs me when people act like the Bernie Bros were just "politics as usual". Bernie has acquired some seriously s*$$ty followers.

I would not self-identify as a Bernie Bro so easily, Belulzebub. They're asshats.

The accepted term for this subgroup of people is the alt-right.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Belulzebub wrote:
I mean us 'Bernie Bros' did just get a pretty huge email leak confirming that the suspicions of corruption and election rigging were true

No, you didn't. You got a scant handful of bits and pieces of evidence that certain people within the party might have personally favored one candidate over the other (SHOCK), but nothing that indicates actual election rigging.

You guys just really, really want to find something external to blame your loss on. You lost because your candidate's campaign wasn't popular enough. That's all. Learn from it and move on, and vote like a responsible adult.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Does anyone actually know a hillary supporter? It's kinda weird.

There are multiple Clinton supporters in this thread.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Redneckdevil wrote:
From the wiki links showing the polls scandles,

Didn't happen.

Quote:
to Bernie never having a chance,

He had a chance. He just lost.

Quote:
.....to how the AG has handle the case,

The AG didn't handle the case - it deferred to the judgment of the FBI.

Quote:
to her supporting TPP until it showed it was hurting her and she flipped on it but then has a VP who is in support of it it seems....

Kaine previously was in support of the TPP, but has recently agreed to oppose it.

And, seriously, why would you criticize a politician for changing their stance on something in the face of public opposition? Their job is to represent the people. If you get upset when politicians adopt a stance you want them to adopt, you're not giving them any incentive to change.

Quote:
I'm just disgusted at both sides candiadates. Both of them are equally horrendous in different ways.

Oh come on.

Quote:
I'd like to vote for Gary Johnson because he's the only one who I can feel morally okay with voting but the way it is right now neck to neck, tbh I feel like I'm just throwing my vote in the trash. Sigh.

If you vote third party, you are.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
The former Bush II voter railing against third party voters sixteen years later? Still ironic.

Twelve years ago. I wasn't of age for the 2000 election. But thanks so much for remembering!

1 to 50 of 7,201 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2016 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.