Mark Thomas 66 RPG Superstar 2009 Top 16 |
4 people marked this as a favorite. |
In the debate, Trump tried to claim that other wealthy individuals, like Warren Buffet, took the kinds of deductions he did.
My favorite quote from one of his fello billionaires
"Throughout his career, Trump has left behind a well-documented record of bankruptcies, thousands of lawsuits, angry shareholders and contractors who feel cheated, and disillusioned customers who feel ripped off," Bloomberg said. "Trump says he wants to run the nation like he's run his business. God help us." -Mike Bloomberg
Vidmaster7 |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Vidmaster7 wrote:Why do I get more interesting info about politics out of gaming forums then the news?Not to be rude or harsh, but because you need to diversify where you get your news from and how to do research on topics you hear about?
I like using the AP website and checking the raw news. 90% of news media is based off of AP reports so you get closer to the source that way.
BBC is another main source site as they also still have a world wide reporting netword; NPR is a good third.
Next you want a good aggregation site (strangely I like Fark.com) and several professional industry level news services.
Double check ownerships and track media corporation relationships (for example clearwater and iheart radio are huge and diverse in the stations they own and a bit chummy with each other).
It was really more of a joke then a real questions kind of rhetorical.
thejeff |
Increasing voter turnout only makes sure that the choice is more representative of the populace. It doesn't make sure that Trump doesn't happen, because those added votes might be Trump votes.
In theory they might be, but in general higher turnout benefits Republicans. Their voters tend to be more reliable. Democratic leaning ones tend to less so. Essentially the set of non-voters (or not reliable voters) doesn't resemble the set of voters. It skews poor, urban and minority. Towards people who vote Democratic when they vote.
Higher turnout even as a random sample of the non-voting population benefits Democrats because there are more Democrats not voting.Orfamay Quest |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Samy wrote:Increasing voter turnout only makes sure that the choice is more representative of the populace. It doesn't make sure that Trump doesn't happen, because those added votes might be Trump votes.In theory they might be, but in general higher turnout benefits Republicans.
You probably thought this more correctly than you typed it. Lower turnout benefits Republicans, precisely because their voters are the ones that will come out in any weather, rain or shine, et cetera.
Their voters tend to be more reliable. Democratic leaning ones tend to less so. Essentially the set of non-voters (or not reliable voters) doesn't resemble the set of voters. It skews poor, urban and minority. Towards people who vote Democratic when they vote.
Higher turnout even as a random sample of the non-voting population benefits Democrats because there are more Democrats not voting.
Higher turnout benefits Democrats, yes.
Irontruth |
3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hillary won the (sniff) debate because she's (sniff)doping on something (sniff)
Okay, before I thought it was just a joke that he was using cocaine. Now that he's accusing her of taking something before the debate, that basically guarantees that he's been taking something before the debates. It's a pattern with him, if he accuses someone of something it means he's done it, because he isn't imaginative enough to accuse people of things he hasn't done.
Pillbug Toenibbler |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
BigNorseWolf wrote:Okay, before I thought it was just a joke that he was using cocaine. Now that he's accusing her of taking something before the debate, that basically guarantees that he's been taking something before the debates. It's a pattern with him, if he accuses someone of something it means he's done it, because he isn't imaginative enough to accuse people of things he hasn't done.Hillary won the (sniff) debate because she's (sniff)doping on something (sniff)
Trump's Mirror
Abraham spalding |
...how much more rope is Trump going to call for to hang himself? That was quite a boneheaded step for him--the easiest thing for Hillary to do to counter that would be to agree to it, and insist that he do the same.
I think he's trying to get enough rope to touch the ground instead of hanging.
The problem being is he doesn't realize just how long of a drop it is going to be.
Irontruth |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's a textbook pattern with Republican strategists these days. Rove was a master. Accuse your enemies of whatever it is you're doing.
Which probably has me more worried than I should be about Trump's talk of rigged elections. What's he got planned?
Honestly, I don't think Trump is a master tactician at all. I think he's actually below average in intelligence. He doesn't try to deflect away from himself, he just can't imagine anyone is capable of doing something he hasn't thought of or done himself.
Over the past year, I've seen a lot of theories on why Trump does this or that, what his master plan is with the election. I no longer believe any of it. I think his mind is incredibly dull, his behavior predictable and he utterly lacks imagination.
The Raven Black |
thejeff wrote:It's a textbook pattern with Republican strategists these days. Rove was a master. Accuse your enemies of whatever it is you're doing.
Which probably has me more worried than I should be about Trump's talk of rigged elections. What's he got planned?
Honestly, I don't think Trump is a master tactician at all. I think he's actually below average in intelligence. He doesn't try to deflect away from himself, he just can't imagine anyone is capable of doing something he hasn't thought of or done himself.
Over the past year, I've seen a lot of theories on why Trump does this or that, what his master plan is with the election. I no longer believe any of it. I think his mind is incredibly dull, his behavior predictable and he utterly lacks imagination.
I think what he has is Ego, Wealth and Nothing to lose. Might be a frightening combination
Orfamay Quest |
3 people marked this as a favorite. |
He's the delusional cult leader that fights to the death.
Except he doesn't. If you look at his business history, he's always the first one out with as much money as he can grab, leading other holding the bag for all the losses. He even bragged as much to the New York Times when they were investigating his real estate investments and discovered that only 1/3 of them had actually made money -- he pointed out, with unwarranted pride, that he had always made money, because he made his money up front from renting his name, and not from actually operating the place.
Thomas Seitz |
No, no, Trump's the DM.
If he is, he's the lousiest DM ever in the history of roleplaying...
Set |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's a textbook pattern with Republican strategists these days. Rove was a master. Accuse your enemies of whatever it is you're doing.
Yeah, 'getting ahead of the story.' Find out that your guy's 10 year old sex scandal is about to come to light? Manufacture an accusation of the same thing against his rival, so that when your story does break, it looks like the rival is just going 'Me too!'
This way, your candidate looks active and aggressive, not reactive or defensive or weak.
Everybody remembers the first shot fired.
Also related to 'poisoning the well.' Discredit the enemy *before* he reveals something unsavory about your candidate.
CBDunkerson |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No, no, Trump's the DM.
Before game: "This will be great! I have all the best monsters! You're going to love it!"
After game: "Wasn't that a great total party kill? The Donald always wins! Oh, stop complaining. 'Ancient dragons against 1st level PCs! Not fair! Boo hoo!' You're a bunch of low stamina losers!"
Scythia |
My worst case scenario is: Trump wins an overwhelming victory (48 or more states, by 25 point margins), then world leaders declare that they're joining the winning team and the Trump empire is formed. Trump is also declared the messiah fulfilling all world faiths. Thus the world enters into a dark era of legally protected/societally encouraged discrimination, worshipping money, and all bowing before the god king Trump.
Snowblind |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Scythia,
No that's when you have Bill Gates running things. :p :)
Also I do worry about Farael's scenario. But I keep hoping if the defeat is flattening enough, that will ensure Trump's supporters go "Huh?"
The flattening defeat will be proof of a democratic conspiracy. Hillary and her corporate puppet masters are using their vast wealth and power to keep the country out of the hands of the most honest, down-to-earth, in-touch-with-the-people, blue-collar, humble, generous, business savvy POTUS candidate to date.
I speak of course about everyone's favorite multi-billion dollar fortune inheriting, tax evading, business ruining playboy/accused sexual predator who sits on a literal golden throne at the top of a giant tower with his name emblazoned on the side, eating pizza with a knife and fork.
Ah, you can almost taste the doublethink.
You can't win with these people. You just can't. They have already decided their opinion based on their "feels", and in the face of cognitive dissonance they will adjust their worldview in whatever way necessary to discredit evidence that contradicts their beliefs. As well they should, too. After all, information from biased sources is questionable at best, and Reality has a well-known liberal bias.
Vidmaster7 |
Scythia,
No that's when you have Bill Gates running things. :p :)
Also I do worry about Farael's scenario. But I keep hoping if the defeat is flattening enough, that will ensure Trump's supporters go "Huh?"
hey hey bill gates has donated 28 billion to charity. He also takes great care of his workers.
thejeff |
4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I'm sort of hoping I can still consider myself an Independent after all of this, since I like the idea of there being two reasonable choices to consider. XD; (The best way to summarize my basic view is probably "Keep what works, change what doesn't, and be decent to other people.")
I also like the idea of there being two reasonable choices. Sadly we don't have them now. IMO, we really haven't for most of my lifetime.
That's a bad thing. We need a sane opposition party. We don't want a one party state. We certainly don't want the craziness that is the modern Republican party running things.