the politics of fucking little girls: roy moore, the next GOP senator from alabama

will you vote for roy moore, the nazi pedophile?

  • yes, MAGA!

  • no

Results are only viewable after voting.
3.5 LMBS

3.5 LMBS

Member
Jesus Christ, at least someone has some decency down there. We all know it wasn't the zealots from the church, whom 9/10 said they believed Moore in the exit polls. Did those shitheads not get an education or what:-|

I guess because there wasn't a third candidate everyone could figure it out:hump:...my only ? is did this happen because Moore is a sexual predator of children, serial it sounds btw. Or have the average Jane & John Doe started to have enough of the golden rapist in the white house?
If Moore was solid and not a loser piece of GOP trash we would have better titties, i mean a better idea, of course.
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
3.5 LMBS said:
Jesus Christ, at least someone has some decency down there. We all know it wasn't the zealots from the church, whom 9/10 said they believed Moore in the exit polls. Did those shitheads not get an education or what:-|

I guess because there wasn't a third candidate everyone could figure it out:hump:...my only ? is did this happen because Moore is a sexual predator of children, serial it sounds btw. Or have the average Jane & John Doe started to have enough of the golden rapist in the white house?
If Moore was solid and not a loser piece of GOP trash we would have better titties, i mean a better idea, of course.
Click to expand...
A southerner's morality is exactly skin deep.
 
travisw

travisw

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
Straight up lie

Sanders receives his strongest support from African American voters



Why do you need to lie to make your point?
Click to expand...
Given that Bernie's actual approval rating is 50%, and not 57, one could ask you the same question. You are using the results from April, it's December. Here are the 11 people the poll focused on.

Bernie Sanders 994 50%
Mike Pence 809 41%
Donald Trump 773 39%
Elizabeth Warren 705 35%
Hillary Clinton 692 35%
Robert Mueller 681 34%
Paul Ryan 619 31%
Nancy Pelosi 557 28%
Chuck Schumer 510 26%
Jeff Sessions 423 21%
Mitch McConnell 353 18%

This survey was conducted online within the United States between November 08-11, 2017 among 1,989 registered voters by The Harris Poll.

http://harvardharrispoll.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Final-HHP-December_Registered-Voters_Topline-Memo.pdf
 
3.5 LMBS

3.5 LMBS

Member
ttystikk said:
A southerner's morality is exactly skin deep.
Click to expand...
Well apparently if you're a white God-fearing man even your balls are a paragon of morality for the Evangelicals these days...However I'm sure if we could ask some slaves they'd gladly agree with you and say it both started and ended with their skin and its colour.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
ttystikk said:
A southerner's morality is exactly skin deep.
Click to expand...
You are being very consistent in your view of the South.

Isn't it more like: "a southern white conservative's morality is exactly skin deep"?

Almost half of the population of Alabama and practically all the eligible black voters in Alabama voted for Jones. In an interview with NPR, one of the black activists behind that result gave her reasons why there was such a good turnout among black voters. Her reasons were political and economic, not moral. One more time we have an example of a berner overlooking black people and their issues.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
Straight up lie

Sanders receives his strongest support from African American voters



Why do you need to lie to make your point?
Click to expand...
I'm not accusing you of lying, I'm accusing you of only seeing what you want to see.

What you said to travis:
"Straight up lie

Sanders receives his strongest support from African American voters"

Take another look at that chart. Sanders receives his highest approval ratings from Democrats.

Democrats give high approval ratings to Sanders. Approval is not the same as support. Sanders had high approval ratings when he lost to Clinton in 2016 too.

Just chill out a moment and realize that the people you most strongly vilify view your guy favorably. The only question remaining is: will they vote for him if he runs again in 2020? Your survey doesn't answer that question.
 
3.5 LMBS

3.5 LMBS

Member
Well there's denying how well running as a Dem worked out for him in 2016 and denying the fact that it pissed rich donors like that Cloobeck guy right off. I know, pages and pages of mystery about who he could be talking about right!

Don't get me wrong, i adore the ideas that Bernie espouses. But there is a reality, and that reality clearly demonstrates some other shit.

There's no denying the fact the Sanders fucked up and kind of fucked things up in 2016. The math doesn't lie. America has a pig in charge because of it:spew:
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
3.5 LMBS said:
Well there's denying how well running as a Dem worked out for him in 2016 and denying the fact that it pissed rich donors like that Cloobeck guy right off. I know, pages and pages of mystery about who he could be talking about right!

Don't get me wrong, i adore the ideas that Bernie espouses. But there is a reality, and that reality clearly demonstrates some other shit.

There's no denying the fact the Sanders fucked up and kind of fucked things up in 2016. The math doesn't lie. America has a pig in charge because of it:spew:
Click to expand...
I'm curious about the "math doesn't lie" statement. What math are you talking about?

Of voters in the General election, only something like 11% of berners voted for Trump, a relatively low proportion of crossover votes. It's not as if this really small group of crossover voters (1.4 million nationwide) were important in the result. Yes, a strict view of the number could allow one to make a case except for all the assumptions one would have to put in front of that conclusion.

Democratic voters staying home had more of an effect on the result. Both did poorly but Trump did better in getting a turnout than Clinton. It's possible that the negative attention drawn by butt hurt berners is a reason but more likely, the years of negative and mostly false stories heaped upon Clinton was the cause of that. So, yes and no, berners affected the election.

Yes, some voted for Trump, which hurts,

Yes, berners added to an already deplorable and mostly false story about Clinton that affected turnout and gave Trump an advantage.

But no to the idea that they had a large effect on the election.

The largest effect on the election was sexism against Clinton and Trump's rhetoric that attracted racist and sexist leaning white people in rural and lower populated areas which biased the Electoral College. The fact remains that Clinton won the majority by a spanking large margin. It was the Electoral College that gave the minority president the edge.
 
Last edited:
3.5 LMBS

3.5 LMBS

Member
@Fogdog,

Sanders -> Trump voters
Wi 51K
Mi 47K
Pa 116K

Trump Margin of victory
Wi 22K
Mi 10K
Pa 44K

Science doesn't lie. Except climate change, that's a giant hoax!

I agree there are several caveats to consider, however the numbers are the numbers.

How would you comprehend what I've posted above? To myself it seems as though that small percentage, as you put it, was plenty enough....just IMO, as always;-)
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
3.5 LMBS said:
@Fogdog,

Sanders -> Trump voters
Wi 51K
Mi 47K
Pa 116K

Trump Margin of victory
Wi 22K
Mi 10K
Pa 44K

Science doesn't lie. Except climate change, that's a giant hoax!

I agree there are several caveats to consider, however the numbers are the numbers.

How would you comprehend what I've posted above? To myself it seems as though that small percentage, as you put it, was plenty enough....just IMO, as always;-)
Click to expand...
Source?

Still, you say exactly what I'm saying. In elections where millions voted you focus on a few tens of thousands as if they were the most important. Of course you can do that but you are spinning a story that ignores other important facets too. Such as the lower turnout for Democrats that was far and away larger in effect than the 10,000 Sanders crossovers.

What you are doing is working from a pre-conceived notion and looking for facts to back it up. False logic.

Very similar to false logic behind science denial regarding global warming.
 
Last edited:
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Just heading off some more faux logic from @3.5 LMBS (by the way which is it? 1.5 arms or 1.5 legs? Or is it half a brain?)

Anyway, there is this:
https://www.npr.org/2017/08/24/545812242/1-in-10-sanders-primary-voters-ended-up-supporting-trump-survey-finds

Schaffner's numbers show that after a bitter Democratic primary, more than 1 in 10 of those who voted in the primaries for the very progressive Sanders ended up voting for the Republican in the general election, rather than for the Democratic candidate, Hillary Clinton.

The article pretty well proves that the people who flipped from Sanders to Trump were Republicans at heart and might not have even voted for Sanders if he had won the primary. So there is another assumption needed to make your case that Sanders voters in fact turned the election.

Then there is this in the conclusions:

To answer the question that many Clinton supporters may be asking: By this data, yes — there are enough of those Sanders-Trump voters who could have potentially swung the election toward Clinton and away from Trump.

Specifically, if the Sanders-Trump voters in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania had voted for Clinton, or even stayed home on Election Day, those states would have swung to Clinton, and she would have won 46 more electoral votes, putting her at 278 — enough to win, in other words.

I can guess what you are thinking, half a whatever, "I win". Well,not really. Not unless you are happy with a trophy for showing up. The above proves nothing.

The article ends with this:

But then, it's not as simple as that. First off, this counterfactual world in which these voters didn't vote for Trump rests on a few ifs. If the Sanders-Trump voters in these three states had defected and if nothing else had happened to somehow take electoral votes from Clinton elsewhere and if this survey is correct ... then yes, Clinton would have won. (Some would also argue that if Clinton had campaigned more in the so-called "blue wall" states, she also could have picked up more votes.)

Bottom line: all those numbers you and NPR cited prove nothing. They kinda sorta show that in an alternate reality Clinton could have won, BUT IF ONLY and so forth. The millions who voted for Trump were far more important than the few Sanders crossovers.

Here is your medal for showing up,
upload_2017-12-14_15-51-26.jpeg
 
3.5 LMBS

3.5 LMBS

Member
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/08/24/did-enough-bernie-sanders-supporters-vote-for-trump-to-cost-clinton-the-election/?utm_term=.58f89344309e

https://www.npr.org/2017/08/24/545812242/1-in-10-sanders-primary-voters-ended-up-supporting-trump-survey-finds

http://www.newsweek.com/bernie-sanders-trump-2016-election-654320

They use some of this guy's data
https://twitter.com/gelliottmorris

I did not say that Bernie was the only reason that she lost. I don't believe that to be true.

The sex card works both ways, most likely against her; please understand that it is not a common theme of women who have overcome gender barriers to lead any of the G7 Nations to focus on the fact that they are women.
-find me an example of Theresa May asking for votes because she is a woman. One will do
-Angela Merkel is an even better example, she's always avoided bringing her gender up and has gone to great lengths to avoid it becoming a campaign issue whatsoever.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-sh/angela_merkel

So when you speak of "spinning a story that ignores" you're talking about you not mentioning the numbers that I posted aren't you? Do you remember "the math doesn't lie"? Have I fulfilled that curiousity yet?

I am not saying what you are. I am saying that election with a millions of voters, outcomes can come down to a couple thousand vote difference. If that. Those are the votes that pick winners.
You seem preoccupied, mentioning about why everyone voted and for whom and why. I am unsure as to why you would bring up the popular vote, we both know that doesn't elect Presidents, silly:mrgreen:

Back to what i thought we were talking about.
I am saying that some basic math shows how Bernie voters affected the outcome in the swing states. Are you doubting that, looking at those numbers?
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
3.5 LMBS said:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/08/24/did-enough-bernie-sanders-supporters-vote-for-trump-to-cost-clinton-the-election/?utm_term=.58f89344309e

https://www.npr.org/2017/08/24/545812242/1-in-10-sanders-primary-voters-ended-up-supporting-trump-survey-finds

http://www.newsweek.com/bernie-sanders-trump-2016-election-654320

They use some of this guy's data
https://twitter.com/gelliottmorris

I did not say that Bernie was the only reason that she lost. I don't believe that to be true.

The sex card works both ways, most likely against her; please understand that it is not a common theme of women who have overcome gender barriers to lead any of the G7 Nations to focus on the fact that they are women.
-find me an example of Theresa May asking for votes because she is a woman. One will do
-Angela Merkel is an even better example, she's always avoided bringing her gender up and has gone to great lengths to avoid it becoming a campaign issue whatsoever.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-sh/angela_merkel

So when you speak of "spinning a story that ignores" you're talking about you not mentioning the numbers that I posted aren't you? Do you remember "the math doesn't lie"? Have I fulfilled that curiousity yet?

I am not saying what you are. I am saying that election with a millions of voters, outcomes can come down to a couple thousand vote difference. If that. Those are the votes that pick winners.
You seem preoccupied, mentioning about why everyone voted and for whom and why. I am unsure as to why you would bring up the popular vote, we both know that doesn't elect Presidents, silly:mrgreen:

Back to what i thought we were talking about.
I am saying that some basic math shows how Bernie voters affected the outcome in the swing states. Are you doubting that, looking at those numbers?
Click to expand...
Who is this post directed towards?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top