Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

  • 1
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 20198
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: Updates on the US election: Who is more likely to win?

Mon Oct 10, 2016 12:02 pm

winterlight wrote:
The shape-shifting, lizard establishment chose Clinton months ago as their next puppet leader. All this build up is just a show.


There. Fixed that for you. ;)
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 12698
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Updates on the US election: Who is more likely to win?

Mon Oct 10, 2016 12:38 pm

seb146 wrote:
MSPNWA wrote:
Aesma wrote:
What economic theory ? There are plenty of those. Even proponents of the same ones disagree on many aspects.

Usually for a theory to be proven, it has to work.


Forced income equality is a nice way of saying socialism. And we know that doesn't work due to economic theory and historical evidence. It goes against the very basis of human nature. And history has proven it never leads to prosperity. Sadly many "economists" let their political leanings cloud their thinking.


Why were there rich people when the top tax rate was 90%?

Also, one reason companies choose one state over another is the price of land and the amount of skilled and unskilled labor. They can use the tax code to pay nothing in taxes. Look at Trump. People in San Francisco are willing to pay $2500 a month for a hole in the wall one room apartment just to be close to their tech jobs which pay enough for them to afford a $2500 a month hole in the wall one room apartment. If those same people moved to where the rent was much lower, they would be unemployed. And companies would still cheat the tax code.


In every single comparison America isn't doing so well. North Western Europe and especially Scandinavia is, that isn't a coincidence. Economic prosperity needs a good and stable middle class and income / wealth inequality isn't good for a society as a whole.

Nice chart to look at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM
 
User avatar
einsteinboricua
Posts: 8717
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:11 pm

Re: Updates on the US election: Who is more likely to win?

Mon Oct 10, 2016 12:58 pm

rfields5421 wrote:
The 90% tax rate for income over $1 million is what drove Ronald Reagan to enter politics. For one fight in the early 60s in Madison Square Garden, Mohammed Ali owed 107% taxes on the income he earned after the first million (combined federal, state and city taxes).

I think the rate was down to 65% when Reagan took office. His first tax cut dropped the top rate to 40%.

Unlike the Trump tax plan, or Bush II, Reagan's tax plan actually increased total revenue because he also eliminated thousands of deductions. (Despite increasing income, there was no reduction in deficit spending. His spending increases were more than double the increases in tax income and other budget reductions). Many fairly wealthy people actually ended up paying more in total tax. But they also were able to eliminate more money spent on tax accountants, financial advisors and attorneys.

I have a theory about why tax cuts worked back then and why they probably won't work as well now. It all can be represented with a water hose.

Suppose you have a hose with your standard household water pressure and you're looking to get rid of a tough stain on the ground (paint, moss, whatever). Now, if you allow only 10% of the pressure to be released, you'll have water coming out but just barely. Kinda like a mist. If you take off more pressure, you will allow more water to come out while maintaining enough pressure for the work you want/need. If you keep relieving pressure, all that will come out is water with not enough pressure to deal with the stain removal.

That is how I view the economy (water pressure) and tax cuts (hose opening). Because you were taxing too much, barely any money trickled down. As soon as the tax rate was lowered, it allow for more money to flow down to people. However, if you keep lowering it, eventually you have lots of money but it won't be working for you (no pressure buildup inside the hose). So there needs to be a consensus between taxes and how the economy is doing. If the economy is growing, tax cuts should be discarded and progressively reversed; if it's shrinking, they should be front and center to help stimulate it.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 4289
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Updates on the US election: Who is more likely to win?

Mon Oct 10, 2016 1:57 pm

einsteinboricua wrote:
rfields5421 wrote:
The 90% tax rate for income over $1 million is what drove Ronald Reagan to enter politics. For one fight in the early 60s in Madison Square Garden, Mohammed Ali owed 107% taxes on the income he earned after the first million (combined federal, state and city taxes).

I think the rate was down to 65% when Reagan took office. His first tax cut dropped the top rate to 40%.

Unlike the Trump tax plan, or Bush II, Reagan's tax plan actually increased total revenue because he also eliminated thousands of deductions. (Despite increasing income, there was no reduction in deficit spending. His spending increases were more than double the increases in tax income and other budget reductions). Many fairly wealthy people actually ended up paying more in total tax. But they also were able to eliminate more money spent on tax accountants, financial advisors and attorneys.

I have a theory about why tax cuts worked back then and why they probably won't work as well now. It all can be represented with a water hose.

Suppose you have a hose with your standard household water pressure and you're looking to get rid of a tough stain on the ground (paint, moss, whatever). Now, if you allow only 10% of the pressure to be released, you'll have water coming out but just barely. Kinda like a mist. If you take off more pressure, you will allow more water to come out while maintaining enough pressure for the work you want/need. If you keep relieving pressure, all that will come out is water with not enough pressure to deal with the stain removal.

That is how I view the economy (water pressure) and tax cuts (hose opening). Because you were taxing too much, barely any money trickled down. As soon as the tax rate was lowered, it allow for more money to flow down to people. However, if you keep lowering it, eventually you have lots of money but it won't be working for you (no pressure buildup inside the hose). So there needs to be a consensus between taxes and how the economy is doing. If the economy is growing, tax cuts should be discarded and progressively reversed; if it's shrinking, they should be front and center to help stimulate it.
How dare you suggest there may be shades of grey! Surely you must pick a side then put your fingers in your ears?
 
aerosreenivas
Posts: 206
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2007 6:40 pm

Re: Updates on the US election: Who is more likely to win?

Mon Oct 10, 2016 4:36 pm

I feel looking at the current trend in this election, Hilary Clinton will create the history by becoming the 1st woman President in the US.

This is mainly due to the infighting in the Republican party. Whether the establishment likes Trump or not, they should rally around him, if they don't want to see another Obama term. Currently, that is looking very bleak with Paul Ryan clearly stating that he will not defend Donald Trump anymore.
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 24084
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Re: Updates on the US election: Who is more likely to win?

Mon Oct 10, 2016 4:41 pm

Let's not focus on the things Trump said 10 years ago, but, instead, focus on the things Hillary's husband said 20 years ago - from somewhere in the internet...

Republicans have said they do not trust Hillary because of her character. Well, Trump has been showing his character this whole time. How he objectifies women and how he hates that people speak out against him and that he has no value in marriage and he cheats. If character matters, why are Republicans still behind him?
 
ContentCreator
Posts: 95
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2016 11:09 pm

Re: Updates on the US election: Who is more likely to win?

Mon Oct 10, 2016 4:48 pm

aerosreenivas wrote:
I feel looking at the current trend in this election, Hilary Clinton will create the history by becoming the 1st woman President in the US.

This is mainly due to the infighting in the Republican party. Whether the establishment likes Trump or not, they should rally around him, if they don't want to see another Obama term. Currently, that is looking very bleak with Paul Ryan clearly stating that he will not defend Donald Trump anymore.


Current trend? Hillary Clinton has lead the polls (an average of them all) every single day for the entire election cycle.
 
aerosreenivas
Posts: 206
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2007 6:40 pm

Re: Updates on the US election: Who is more likely to win?

Mon Oct 10, 2016 5:10 pm

seb146 wrote:
Let's not focus on the things Trump said 10 years ago, but, instead, focus on the things Hillary's husband said 20 years ago - from somewhere in the internet...

Republicans have said they do not trust Hillary because of her character. Well, Trump has been showing his character this whole time. How he objectifies women and how he hates that people speak out against him and that he has no value in marriage and he cheats. If character matters, why are Republicans still behind him?


Actually, we are seeing more prominent Republicans no longer endorsing Trump. With more of Access Hollywood type of videos to come, Donald Trump will get into an awkward position where he will not be able to become the US President.
 
User avatar
einsteinboricua
Posts: 8717
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:11 pm

Re: Updates on the US election: Who is more likely to win?

Mon Oct 10, 2016 5:10 pm

seb146 wrote:
If character matters, why are Republicans still behind him?

#IOKIYAR

An affair? IOKIYAR
Insults? IOKIYAR
Locker room talk? IOKIYAR
A twice divorced man defending family values? IOKIYAR

No matter what the situation, whereas for a Democrat it would be the end of their career, It's OK If You're A Republican.
 
aerosreenivas
Posts: 206
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2007 6:40 pm

Re: Updates on the US election: Who is more likely to win?

Mon Oct 10, 2016 5:21 pm

ContentCreator wrote:

Current trend? Hillary Clinton has lead the polls (an average of them all) every single day for the entire election cycle.


What I meant was before this video came about last Saturday, there was a chance of Trump closing the gap with Hilary Clinton by performing well in last night's debate. For past few weeks, Trump was trying to convince the Hispanics, Women, African Americans and other minority voters to support him even though the damage was already done by Trump earlier.

But this episode has completely dented Trumps's chances of winning this Presidential election.
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 22270
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

Re: Updates on the US election: Who is more likely to win?

Mon Oct 10, 2016 5:43 pm

So at this point both the Obama Administration and the Clinton Campaign need to be preparing a plan of action for what they will do if Mr. Trump refuses to concede or even commits insurrection and encourages his supporters to take up arms against the legitimately elected government.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 12698
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Updates on the US election: Who is more likely to win?

Mon Oct 10, 2016 5:50 pm

DocLightning wrote:
So at this point both the Obama Administration and the Clinton Campaign need to be preparing a plan of action for what they will do if Mr. Trump refuses to concede or even commits insurrection and encourages his supporters to take up arms against the legitimately elected government.


Nice joke (hopefully)
 
User avatar
zckls04
Posts: 2785
Joined: Fri Dec 30, 2011 6:55 pm

Re: Updates on the US election: Who is more likely to win?

Mon Oct 10, 2016 6:07 pm

DocLightning wrote:
So at this point both the Obama Administration and the Clinton Campaign need to be preparing a plan of action for what they will do if Mr. Trump refuses to concede or even commits insurrection and encourages his supporters to take up arms against the legitimately elected government.


If Trump refuses to concede, they just don't do anything. Trump doesn't have to concede for Clinton to become President. He can keep saying he's still in the race until 2024 if he likes.

I doubt he will encourage violence except perhaps in a moment of petulance. And I very much doubt a significant number of his supporters will follow his lead, certainly not in an organized way. I suspect there will be a few random acts of violence, but I think that's par for the course these days given the divide between both sides.

DocLightning wrote:
That's your opinion. Which is irrelevant. I'm not dismissing you, but your claim that it is not constitutional might have merit but neither you nor I get to decide that.


Yes, but it's interesting to speculate. And I agree with einsteinboricus about this- there's no chance of the Supreme Court ruling gerrymandering unconstitutional. The problem is that there is no intrinsically fair way of drawing boundaries. Any system can be deemed unfair, and any system can be challenged. There's also nothing in the Constitution which could conceivably be used to construct such a ruling.

And even if they did rule it unconstitutional, they don't have the power to impose a different system; that would be the responsibility of lawmakers. I don't see them agreeing on anything, and even if it passed with a slim majority, there's no way a President, Democrat or Republican, would be foolish enough to sign it.
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 11534
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

Re: Updates on the US election: Who is more likely to win?

Mon Oct 10, 2016 6:15 pm

zckls04 wrote:
And even if they did rule it unconstitutional, they don't have the power to impose a different system; that would be the responsibility of lawmakers. I don't see them agreeing on anything, and even if it passed with a slim majority, there's no way a President, Democrat or Republican, would be foolish enough to sign it.

Then why are courts/judges redrawing and creating adjusted/approved/modified legislative maps that the states are required to use?

Tugg
 
User avatar
casinterest
Posts: 14172
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 5:30 am

Re: Updates on the US election: Who is more likely to win?

Mon Oct 10, 2016 6:17 pm

So Paul Ryan is refusing to defend Trump and has canceled an appearance with him. This should create more drama within the GOP ranks.
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 24084
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Re: Updates on the US election: Who is more likely to win?

Mon Oct 10, 2016 6:21 pm

zckls04 wrote:
DocLightning wrote:
So at this point both the Obama Administration and the Clinton Campaign need to be preparing a plan of action for what they will do if Mr. Trump refuses to concede or even commits insurrection and encourages his supporters to take up arms against the legitimately elected government.


If Trump refuses to concede, they just don't do anything. Trump doesn't have to concede for Clinton to become President. He can keep saying he's still in the race until 2024 if he likes.

I doubt he will encourage violence except perhaps in a moment of petulance. And I very much doubt a significant number of his supporters will follow his lead, certainly not in an organized way. I suspect there will be a few random acts of violence, but I think that's par for the course these days given the divide between both sides.


He has already encouraged armed insurrection if he loses. Hell, he even said that some of his supporters should go ahead and assassinate Hillary as soon as possible!

http://www.newsweek.com/kill-hillary-sy ... -it-489792

But, then, he says he didn't say it.

I suspect Trump will keep suing and suing until he gets his way, instead of listening to the American people.
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 22270
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

Re: Updates on the US election: Who is more likely to win?

Mon Oct 10, 2016 6:38 pm

Dutchy wrote:

Nice joke (hopefully)


Mr. Trump has already suggested that he might not accept a loss at the polls.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/d ... ion-227252

Now, his only legal recourse would be to fight the outcome in court, must as the Gore camp tried to do in 2000. But in 2012 Mr. Trump actually called for revolution on Twitter and then took the tweet down
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 12698
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Updates on the US election: Who is more likely to win?

Mon Oct 10, 2016 6:41 pm

seb146 wrote:
zckls04 wrote:
DocLightning wrote:
So at this point both the Obama Administration and the Clinton Campaign need to be preparing a plan of action for what they will do if Mr. Trump refuses to concede or even commits insurrection and encourages his supporters to take up arms against the legitimately elected government.


If Trump refuses to concede, they just don't do anything. Trump doesn't have to concede for Clinton to become President. He can keep saying he's still in the race until 2024 if he likes.

I doubt he will encourage violence except perhaps in a moment of petulance. And I very much doubt a significant number of his supporters will follow his lead, certainly not in an organized way. I suspect there will be a few random acts of violence, but I think that's par for the course these days given the divide between both sides.


He has already encouraged armed insurrection if he loses. Hell, he even said that some of his supporters should go ahead and assassinate Hillary as soon as possible!

http://www.newsweek.com/kill-hillary-sy ... -it-489792

But, then, he says he didn't say it.

I suspect Trump will keep suing and suing until he gets his way, instead of listening to the American people.


Trump suing? I doubt that. He says he suis the hell of everyone, he rarely does actually. Another lie from him.
 
wingman
Posts: 4195
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 4:25 am

Re: Updates on the US election: Who is more likely to win?

Mon Oct 10, 2016 6:41 pm

He can't win with a 4-4 SCOTUS. Tie would have to go to the votes winner.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 12698
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Updates on the US election: Who is more likely to win?

Mon Oct 10, 2016 6:46 pm

DocLightning wrote:
Dutchy wrote:

Nice joke (hopefully)


Mr. Trump has already suggested that he might not accept a loss at the polls.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/d ... ion-227252

Now, his only legal recourse would be to fight the outcome in court, must as the Gore camp tried to do in 2000. But in 2012 Mr. Trump actually called for revolution on Twitter and then took the tweet down


Well the Gore camp had a very good point and he probably had won if the count was fair. If Trump looses, well I don't see what point he would have. He has, what we call in The Netherlands, a Calimero-syndrome, the big bad outside world has done it all. You could observe this nicely during the debate, just look at how he complains, it's 3-to-1, I am more harshly taken down after my two minutes are up. Quite sad actually, and that man wants to become president of the US.
 
User avatar
zckls04
Posts: 2785
Joined: Fri Dec 30, 2011 6:55 pm

Re: Updates on the US election: Who is more likely to win?

Mon Oct 10, 2016 6:50 pm

Tugger wrote:
Then why are courts/judges redrawing and creating adjusted/approved/modified legislative maps that the states are required to use?

Tugg


From what I can tell some of the rulings were in states which gave the power to the courts to draw such maps if the legislature could not agree. Others were upholding maps drawn by independent commissions given the power to draw those maps by the voters. Still others were reversions to changes made in previous years where testimony from GOP officials showed that the redistricting was performed specifically with the intention of grouping people of a certain race.

I think these kind of lower court rulings will gradually lead to gerrymandering becoming rare, albeit with a few isolated examples which will be challenged an subsequently reverted. But I highly doubt the Supreme Court will pass a blanket verdict ruling it unconstitutional. Certainly they have been reluctant so far, and they've had ample opportunity with all the redistricting cases they've heard.
 
User avatar
einsteinboricua
Posts: 8717
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:11 pm

Re: Updates on the US election: Who is more likely to win?

Mon Oct 10, 2016 6:59 pm

Tugger wrote:
zckls04 wrote:
Then why are courts/judges redrawing and creating adjusted/approved/modified legislative maps that the states are required to use?

Tugg

Courts are not redrawing the maps. They don't have the power to do so. But they can tell the state what they deem acceptable or not. NC, VA, and FL have very gerrymandered districts so it's obvious what the intent is. Take FL-5 which snakes its way from Jacksonville to Orlando. When you can group people into a more symmetrical district, it's clear what the goal is here: pack minority voters into this district. So around Jacksonville this is the only blue district. Around Orlando, everyone else is packed into FL-9. Everywhere else is red. If you unpack them, you may have more swingier districts that, depending on sentiment, could go either way.

The courts are not saying how the maps HAVE to be drawn but rather how, in their eyes, they SHOULDN'T be drawn.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 12698
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Updates on the US election: Who is more likely to win?

Mon Oct 10, 2016 7:28 pm

einsteinboricua wrote:
Tugger wrote:
zckls04 wrote:
Then why are courts/judges redrawing and creating adjusted/approved/modified legislative maps that the states are required to use?

Tugg

Courts are not redrawing the maps. They don't have the power to do so. But they can tell the state what they deem acceptable or not. NC, VA, and FL have very gerrymandered districts so it's obvious what the intent is. Take FL-5 which snakes its way from Jacksonville to Orlando. When you can group people into a more symmetrical district, it's clear what the goal is here: pack minority voters into this district. So around Jacksonville this is the only blue district. Around Orlando, everyone else is packed into FL-9. Everywhere else is red. If you unpack them, you may have more swingier districts that, depending on sentiment, could go either way.

The courts are not saying how the maps HAVE to be drawn but rather how, in their eyes, they SHOULDN'T be drawn.


Why have these districts anyway, why have these electors anyway, what is the purpose? Why not just the populair vote and be done with it, at least for the president.
 
User avatar
einsteinboricua
Posts: 8717
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:11 pm

Re: Updates on the US election: Who is more likely to win?

Mon Oct 10, 2016 7:38 pm

Dutchy wrote:

Why have these districts anyway, why have these electors anyway, what is the purpose? Why not just the populair vote and be done with it, at least for the president.

In the same manner that the EU Parliament assigns seats to its member states based on population, the US Constitution dictates that each state will have a minimum of 1 seat in the US House, with additional seats to be assigned based on population. The more populous a state is, the more seats it will have. The problem comes where those districts are drawn. You could elect members at large from each state and allow the top contenders to get a seat, but ideally you'd want to assign a representative to an area so boundaries have to be drawn. These representatives, along with the state's senators, constitute the number of votes the state has in the electoral college for president.

Now, I favor the popular vote for president because in that sense the candidates have to earn the votes of all, not just a couple of swing states. I would also favor abolishing state districts and instead allow the representatives to span state lines as well. That way a representative is truly accountable to people and there's no need to redraw maps every 10 years (unless you have a variable number of representatives across the country). The alternate scenario is to allow the House membership to fluctuate: don't set it at 435 but let it grow/shrink as needed. The Wyoming Rule (which I've mentioned before) allows for this.
 
coolian2
Posts: 2483
Joined: Sun Oct 22, 2006 3:34 pm

Re: Updates on the US election: Who is more likely to win?

Mon Oct 10, 2016 7:45 pm

I will admit during the debate, the moderators gave Trump nothing. That was more than his bullshit deserved anyway.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 12698
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Updates on the US election: Who is more likely to win?

Mon Oct 10, 2016 8:05 pm

einsteinboricua wrote:
Dutchy wrote:

Why have these districts anyway, why have these electors anyway, what is the purpose? Why not just the populair vote and be done with it, at least for the president.

In the same manner that the EU Parliament assigns seats to its member states based on population, the US Constitution dictates that each state will have a minimum of 1 seat in the US House, with additional seats to be assigned based on population. The more populous a state is, the more seats it will have. The problem comes where those districts are drawn. You could elect members at large from each state and allow the top contenders to get a seat, but ideally you'd want to assign a representative to an area so boundaries have to be drawn. These representatives, along with the state's senators, constitute the number of votes the state has in the electoral college for president.

Now, I favor the popular vote for president because in that sense the candidates have to earn the votes of all, not just a couple of swing states. I would also favor abolishing state districts and instead allow the representatives to span state lines as well. That way a representative is truly accountable to people and there's no need to redraw maps every 10 years (unless you have a variable number of representatives across the country). The alternate scenario is to allow the House membership to fluctuate: don't set it at 435 but let it grow/shrink as needed. The Wyoming Rule (which I've mentioned before) allows for this.


I understand that for congress, but not for the president.

For the EU parlement the "districts" are fixed, they are the member states and you are partly right, in the EU parlement smaller member-states have relatively more members to parlement.
 
727LOVER
Posts: 8633
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2001 12:22 am

Re: Updates on the US election: Who is more likely to win?

Mon Oct 10, 2016 8:08 pm

There is a poll out today, taken before the debate, showing Hillary with an 11 point lead.

However, I don't take a lot of stock in it because:

1. it's a national poll
2. only 447 people were polled

100 million people are going to vote and we're going to base results on 447 people ? :shock:
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 11534
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

Re: Updates on the US election: Who is more likely to win?

Mon Oct 10, 2016 8:19 pm

727LOVER wrote:
There is a poll out today, taken before the debate, showing Hillary with an 11 point lead.

Source? Link?

Tugg
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 22270
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

Re: Updates on the US election: Who is more likely to win?

Mon Oct 10, 2016 8:32 pm

Dutchy wrote:

Why have these districts anyway, why have these electors anyway, what is the purpose? Why not just the populair vote and be done with it, at least for the president.


Goes back to the founding of the United States. The United States was not originally conceived as a single nation as it is today but rather as a confederation of states, much like the EU. It wasn't until after the Civil War that the United States went from a plural ("The United States are fighting a civil war") to a singular ("The United States is launching a Mars mission").

At the founding of the nation, the representatives of the smaller states wanted to ensure that there was a way to temper their smaller political power and prevent larger states from overwhelming them. That led to the bicameral legislature we have today in which representation is proportional in one house and symmetrical in other houses.

In the era of instantaneous communication and near-instantaneous travel, some of these arrangements are quite anachronistic. That said, the Founders also made it quite difficult to alter the Constitution.

As for the districts themselves, each state is supposed to be divided into congressional districts. You vote for a representative that is going to represent your own district. If you live in a coal mining town, you elect a representative who believes in "clean coal" and what-not. But there is a way to game the system by collecting all the "undesirables" into a single district by drawing districts with ridiculous borders, so all the undesirables get only one represenatives and your party stays in power. That's called gerrymandering based on some old politician named "Gerry" who had his congressional district drawn to look something like a salamander and so the satirists came up with the term.

In GOP states, they have gerrymandered themselves basically into perpetuity unless something other than a democratic vote topples them because it would take a crazy democratic vote (like 75%) to topple them otherwise.
 
727LOVER
Posts: 8633
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2001 12:22 am

Re: Updates on the US election: Who is more likely to win?

Mon Oct 10, 2016 8:37 pm

Tugger wrote:
727LOVER wrote:
There is a poll out today, taken before the debate, showing Hillary with an 11 point lead.

Source? Link?

Tugg




http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/first-r ... ts-n663691

Correction: its 500 people
 
User avatar
zckls04
Posts: 2785
Joined: Fri Dec 30, 2011 6:55 pm

Re: Updates on the US election: Who is more likely to win?

Mon Oct 10, 2016 11:09 pm

727LOVER wrote:
There is a poll out today, taken before the debate, showing Hillary with an 11 point lead.

However, I don't take a lot of stock in it because:

1. it's a national poll
2. only 447 people were polled

100 million people are going to vote and we're going to base results on 447 people ? :shock:


447 people selected with the right methodology is better than 10,000 selected with an unintentional bias. But in any case no single poll should be used to predict anything. There are just too many variables. That's why sites like 538 are a lot better at predicting results.
 
User avatar
777Jet
Posts: 6987
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 7:29 am

Re: Updates on the US election: Who is more likely to win?

Mon Oct 10, 2016 11:23 pm

"Updates on the US election: Who is more likely to win?"

Not the American people: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7LYRUOd_QoM
 
User avatar
PacificBeach88
Posts: 756
Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2015 9:42 pm

Re: Updates on the US election: Who is more likely to win?

Tue Oct 11, 2016 12:13 am

777Jet wrote:
"Updates on the US election: Who is more likely to win?"

Not the American people: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7LYRUOd_QoM


LMAO! Ok, Alex Jones. BTW....do you sweat as much as Alex does while he rants and raves? LMAO! You can see the fat just ooze out of his face in his hysteria.

Image

Image
Last edited by PacificBeach88 on Tue Oct 11, 2016 12:16 am, edited 2 times in total.
 
Hillis
Posts: 1307
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2011 6:19 pm

Re: Updates on the US election: Who is more likely to win?

Tue Oct 11, 2016 12:13 am

[quote="zckls04
Yes, but it's interesting to speculate. And I agree with einsteinboricus about this- there's no chance of the Supreme Court ruling gerrymandering unconstitutional. The problem is that there is no intrinsically fair way of drawing boundaries. Any system can be deemed unfair, and any system can be challenged. There's also nothing in the Constitution which could conceivably be used to construct such a ruling.

And even if they did rule it unconstitutional, they don't have the power to impose a different system; that would be the responsibility of lawmakers. I don't see them agreeing on anything, and even if it passed with a slim majority, there's no way a President, Democrat or Republican, would be foolish enough to sign it.[/quote]

Of course there's a fair way: you draw them as equally as possible based on geography. In states like Colorado, why not simply take how many House seats they have, and draw that many squared congressional districts? None of this, let's say, snaking a district from Colorado Springs, to say, Steamboat Springs to carve out a niche. Fill in any state there, with perhaps the exception of Maryland in that one. Simply make them as geographically contiguous as possible.

A computer can do that, and it'll be the most fair system there is. Republicans won't like it, because it will strip their artificial advantage in holding the House, but it's not the voters' fault that they have no ideas to move the nation forward.

It can be done, and with some political will, and a left-leaning court, I think it will be done.
 
Hillis
Posts: 1307
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2011 6:19 pm

Re: Updates on the US election: Who is more likely to win?

Tue Oct 11, 2016 12:14 am

777Jet wrote:
"Updates on the US election: Who is more likely to win?"

Not the American people: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7LYRUOd_QoM


No wonder you're so daft. If you draw upon this lunatic for inspiration.
 
User avatar
777Jet
Posts: 6987
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 7:29 am

Re: Updates on the US election: Who is more likely to win?

Tue Oct 11, 2016 12:27 am

Hillis wrote:
777Jet wrote:
"Updates on the US election: Who is more likely to win?"

Not the American people: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7LYRUOd_QoM


No wonder you're so daft. If you draw upon this lunatic for inspiration.


You of all people call me daft? LMFAO

Aren't you the one who can't comprehend? The one that interpreted me saying that I do not support the traditional family view to mean the exact opposite. Genius you are! LOL
 
User avatar
777Jet
Posts: 6987
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 7:29 am

Re: Updates on the US election: Who is more likely to win?

Tue Oct 11, 2016 12:30 am

PacificBeach88 wrote:
BTW....do you sweat as much as Alex does while he rants and raves?


Not when I rant, but sometimes when I'm in the process of satisfying a beautiful Asian woman multiple times ;)
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 24084
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Re: Updates on the US election: Who is more likely to win?

Tue Oct 11, 2016 12:36 am

777Jet wrote:
"Updates on the US election: Who is more likely to win?"

Not the American people: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7LYRUOd_QoM


That is your opinion and you cite an opinion piece to support your opinion. I could very easily state an opinion and link to a Mike Malloy video to support my opinion.
 
User avatar
777Jet
Posts: 6987
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 7:29 am

Re: Updates on the US election: Who is more likely to win?

Tue Oct 11, 2016 12:46 am

seb146 wrote:
777Jet wrote:
"Updates on the US election: Who is more likely to win?"

Not the American people: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7LYRUOd_QoM


That is your opinion and you cite an opinion piece to support your opinion. I could very easily state an opinion and link to a Mike Malloy video to support my opinion.


Thank you for stating a fact (yes, that is just my opinion) and for not immediately resorting to insults.

I'm starting to like you more and more :)
 
User avatar
WarRI1
Posts: 14195
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 10:51 am

Re: Updates on the US election: Who is more likely to win?

Tue Oct 11, 2016 1:18 am

winterlight wrote:
The establishment chose Clinton months ago as their next puppet leader. All this build up is just a show.


Please explain your words, you obviously do not realize the power struggle going on here. This is war between the Right and Left in pursuit of wealth and power and influence over our citizens. This is not rigged by a long shot. I am rather shocked to read your words. I would like to know what happened to Winterlights words I replied to?
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 24084
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Re: Updates on the US election: Who is more likely to win?

Tue Oct 11, 2016 1:32 am

777Jet wrote:
seb146 wrote:
777Jet wrote:
"Updates on the US election: Who is more likely to win?"

Not the American people: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7LYRUOd_QoM


That is your opinion and you cite an opinion piece to support your opinion. I could very easily state an opinion and link to a Mike Malloy video to support my opinion.


Thank you for stating a fact (yes, that is just my opinion) and for not immediately resorting to insults.

I'm starting to like you more and more :)


That being said, the video you linked to is simply a bunch of random Clinton quotes with thin ties to "she is this" and "she is that." Like saying "the sky is blue therefore, winter is great." Sure, Hillary said those things. Obviously. But, linking what she said to some vast left wing conspiracy is flimsy at best. Like the people who insist that her throat clearing is proof positive that she was signaling the moderators or that Trumps sniffling is proof positive of a coke habit.
 
User avatar
zckls04
Posts: 2785
Joined: Fri Dec 30, 2011 6:55 pm

Re: Updates on the US election: Who is more likely to win?

Tue Oct 11, 2016 4:48 am

Hillis wrote:
Of course there's a fair way: you draw them as equally as possible based on geography. In states like Colorado, why not simply take how many House seats they have, and draw that many squared congressional districts? None of this, let's say, snaking a district from Colorado Springs, to say, Steamboat Springs to carve out a niche. Fill in any state there, with perhaps the exception of Maryland in that one. Simply make them as geographically contiguous as possible.


It's considerably harder than you might think. This is a good short read on the subject:

http://www.citylab.com/politics/2013/02 ... ting/4790/

The problem is that there is no intrinsically fair way to draw a boundary. Whatever you choose to do it becomes a political decision.
 
User avatar
zckls04
Posts: 2785
Joined: Fri Dec 30, 2011 6:55 pm

Re: Updates on the US election: Who is more likely to win?

Tue Oct 11, 2016 4:49 am

777Jet wrote:
PacificBeach88 wrote:
BTW....do you sweat as much as Alex does while he rants and raves?


Not when I rant, but sometimes when I'm in the process of satisfying a beautiful Asian woman multiple times ;)


Perhaps when it comes time to pay the bill...
 
bmacleod
Posts: 2990
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2001 3:10 am

Re: Updates on the US election: Who is more likely to win?

Tue Oct 11, 2016 1:07 pm

Similarities between Sunday debate and 2nd Bush-Gore debate in 2000.

http://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/donald-trump-lurks-behind-hillary-clinton-at-debate-sparks-viral-meme-w444077

Did Trump get this idea from former VP Al Gore?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NH3LXEULJYI
 
diverted
Posts: 1308
Joined: Sat May 17, 2014 3:17 pm

Re: Updates on the US election: Who is more likely to win?

Tue Oct 11, 2016 1:26 pm

Meanwhile the rest of the world sits back with popcorn and laughs...

Though soon we may all be living in fear after one of these two buffoons ends up in power of the world's most powerful country. Come on America, 319M people and these two idiots are the ones running for pres?

I want Trump to win, strictly because it's the only way to drive change. Hillary will be 4 more years of the same DNC establishment. Donald's the one rocking the boat, and while it may be a painful 4 years, at least something may change next time around. Heck, the DNC already bastardized the democratic process with Waserman Schulz kneecapping Bernie because he wasn't "the chosen one."

Also, anyone else find Hillary's tone of entitlement annoying? Like she already has the decorations for the White House picked out (which she can then take back to New York with her after her single terms up)

At least the silver lining here is that no matter who is elected, they'll be a one term president. No question
 
Hillis
Posts: 1307
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2011 6:19 pm

Re: Updates on the US election: Who is more likely to win?

Tue Oct 11, 2016 2:53 pm

diverted wrote:
Meanwhile the rest of the world sits back with popcorn and laughs...

Though soon we may all be living in fear after one of these two buffoons ends up in power of the world's most powerful country. Come on America, 319M people and these two idiots are the ones running for pres?

I want Trump to win, strictly because it's the only way to drive change. Hillary will be 4 more years of the same DNC establishment. Donald's the one rocking the boat, and while it may be a painful 4 years, at least something may change next time around. Heck, the DNC already bastardized the democratic process with Waserman Schulz kneecapping Bernie because he wasn't "the chosen one."

Also, anyone else find Hillary's tone of entitlement annoying? Like she already has the decorations for the White House picked out (which she can then take back to New York with her after her single terms up)

At least the silver lining here is that no matter who is elected, they'll be a one term president. No question


You complain about someone's tone of "entitlement" (whatever that means), but dismiss his talk of assaulting women. No wonder you want him to win-you're no less misogynistic than he is.
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 22270
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

Re: Updates on the US election: Who is more likely to win?

Tue Oct 11, 2016 2:53 pm

diverted wrote:
Though soon we may all be living in fear after one of these two buffoons ends up in power of the world's most powerful country. Come on America, 319M people and these two idiots are the ones running for pres?


Hillary Clinton is neither a buffoon nor is she an idiot. Donald Trump is certainly a buffoon. I'm not sure if he's stupid. I suspect he's not nearly as smart as he thinks he is.
 
User avatar
casinterest
Posts: 14172
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 5:30 am

Re: Updates on the US election: Who is more likely to win?

Tue Oct 11, 2016 2:55 pm

Trump's current twitter feed is blasting Republicans and Paul Ryan. The GOP civil war is escalating. The tent is far too big and disjointed anymore.
 
diverted
Posts: 1308
Joined: Sat May 17, 2014 3:17 pm

Re: Updates on the US election: Who is more likely to win?

Tue Oct 11, 2016 3:25 pm

Hillis wrote:
diverted wrote:
Meanwhile the rest of the world sits back with popcorn and laughs...

Though soon we may all be living in fear after one of these two buffoons ends up in power of the world's most powerful country. Come on America, 319M people and these two idiots are the ones running for pres?

I want Trump to win, strictly because it's the only way to drive change. Hillary will be 4 more years of the same DNC establishment. Donald's the one rocking the boat, and while it may be a painful 4 years, at least something may change next time around. Heck, the DNC already bastardized the democratic process with Waserman Schulz kneecapping Bernie because he wasn't "the chosen one."

Also, anyone else find Hillary's tone of entitlement annoying? Like she already has the decorations for the White House picked out (which she can then take back to New York with her after her single terms up)

At least the silver lining here is that no matter who is elected, they'll be a one term president. No question


You complain about someone's tone of "entitlement" (whatever that means), but dismiss his talk of assaulting women. No wonder you want him to win-you're no less misogynistic than he is.


Yep, that's it. You know me, and can make the assertation that I'm misogynistic. Mhmm...That's a reasonable thing to say. I'll stay away from name calling here.

But if we're going to touch the topic of how either candidate treats women, how about Hillary deflecting and disparaging everyone who came forward about Bill's "indiscretions"

[cpde]Nevertheless, Hillary Clinton dismissed an accusation made by Gennifer Flowers, the singer who sold her story to a supermarket tabloid after having previously denied an affair. In an ABC News interview, she called Flowers “some failed cabaret singer who doesn’t even have much of a résumé to fall back on.”[/code]
Eventually, Bill Clinton settled for $850,000. During discovery, Jones’s attorneys found out about White House intern Monica Lewinsky.

Her husband denied the relationship, and Hillary Clinton blamed the allegations on a “vast right-wing conspiracy.”


Yep, the truth was a vast right wing conspiracy, and Hillary is a firm believer in women's rights. Anyways, the rest of the world's having a good time watching these debates, they're right up there with the Comedy Central Roasts in terms of entertainment value.



Former White House press secretary George Stephanopoulos recalled in his memoir discussing a woman’s allegation published in Penthouse Magazine. He said that after her husband dismissed it as untrue during a meeting, Hillary Clinton said, “We have to destroy her story.”


But what I can't understand, is that if either party had ANY other candidate, it wouldn't even be a race. But yet, it's like they're both actively trying to lose. Just a shame that the position they're bumbling towards happens to be in control of the world's strongest military...that much scares me. The last thing we need is another Iraq/Libya/Syria etc.



Anyways. I'm a liberal, but I'm glad my voting options were Harper or Trudeau, not Donald or Hillary.

Peace and love folks
 
rfields5421
Posts: 6374
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:45 am

Re: Updates on the US election: Who is more likely to win?

Tue Oct 11, 2016 3:40 pm

DocLightning wrote:
I suspect he's not nearly as smart as he thinks he is.


I won't disagree - but I'll be the first to admit that applies to a lot of people, many on this forum - probably including me.

-----------------------------------------
I sincerely hope that neither the electoral college vote nor the popular vote is close in a few weeks.

Either way, I hope the 'winner' has a clear, undeniable majority.

I don't want the decision to come down to a few hundred votes in one state again.

That said - neither Trump, nor Clinton, has to concede. Making such a speech/ statement is just a 'nice' way to thank your workers and voters for supporting you. And asking them to support their opponent after that person takes office. In the past couple decades, concession speeches have drifted away from asking for the best for the country - into vows to continue to fight in the Congress against a lost election.

As we all relearned 8th grade civics in 2000 - the real vote is in early December, and the votes are counted about Jan 3 - when the new President is officially confirmed.

As far as lawsuits. Donald Trump has kept a lot of lawyers well paid for decades. He will most likely continue to do so in the future. Part of me would like for him to win the Presidency, and learn that he can't personally sue people while serving as President.
  • 1
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Pentaprism and 36 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos