Are you trolling me?
Debates matter 0.00 percent. Anyone who says different has not read the literature on this topic.
In my view, the debates are just like preseason football games. All you want to do is avoid injury. But in general, they don’t matter-which is why I don’t watch them.
jnd
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
I mean, humor me here.
Wouldn’t Biden just take votes from Hilary and therefore give it to Sanders?
What I’m asking, and for my blood pressure, how are you guys so confident he won’t win? Dude is drawing a lot of crowds, I see his bumper stickers all over MA and NH with a RI plate tossed in for good measure, NOT ONE SINGLE STICKER FROM ANYONE ELSE… Please walk me through how he doesn’t win the nomination.[/quote]
Seriously, I see these stupid bumper stickers all the time. “Feel the Bern” (real friggin cute.) I have friends and coworkers that support this clown and I have decided to stop engaging them. Like Dennis Leary said, “I’m not going to have a heart attack in front of some haiku writing mother fucker!”
[quote]Alrightmiami19c wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
I mean, humor me here.
Wouldn’t Biden just take votes from Hilary and therefore give it to Sanders?
What I’m asking, and for my blood pressure, how are you guys so confident he won’t win? Dude is drawing a lot of crowds, I see his bumper stickers all over MA and NH with a RI plate tossed in for good measure, NOT ONE SINGLE STICKER FROM ANYONE ELSE… Please walk me through how he doesn’t win the nomination.[/quote]
Seriously, I see these stupid bumper stickers all the time. “Feel the Bern” (real friggin cute.) I have friends and coworkers that support this clown and I have decided to stop engaging them. Like Dennis Leary said, “I’m not going to have a heart attack in front of some haiku writing mother fucker!”[/quote]
It’s cool for a certain part of the population to think Bernie is where its at. But as the demographic gets older they realize that Socialism isn’t too cool and that Bernie’s kind of government has never really worked awfully well long-term anywhere else in the world.
But, currently the democratic party has drifted so far left that having a candidate who is a Socialist is quite acceptable. And he actually leads Hillary in certain geographic regions. If you are a democrat I hope you realize where your party is taking you.
If John F. Kennedy were alive today he’d be considered a republican.
[quote]jnd wrote:
Are you trolling me?
Debates matter 0.00 percent. Anyone who says different has not read the literature on this topic.
In my view, the debates are just like preseason football games. All you want to do is avoid injury. But in general, they don’t matter-which is why I don’t watch them.
jnd[/quote]
Debates mean absolutely nothing, NOTHING I tell you. That’s why after his last lukewarm debate performance Trump’s numbers started to fall. And after two strong debate performances Marco Rubio’s numbers have been climbing. And after her first debate at the adults table Carly Fiorina’s numbers climbed.
I agree debates mean nothing except when they do.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]jnd wrote:
Are you trolling me?
Debates matter 0.00 percent. Anyone who says different has not read the literature on this topic.
In my view, the debates are just like preseason football games. All you want to do is avoid injury. But in general, they don’t matter-which is why I don’t watch them.
jnd[/quote]
Debates mean absolutely nothing, NOTHING I tell you. That’s why after his last lukewarm debate performance Trump’s numbers started to fall. And after two strong debate performances Marco Rubio’s numbers have been climbing. And after her first debate at the adults table Carly Fiorina’s numbers climbed.
I agree debates mean nothing except when they do.
[/quote]
Didn’t take long at all for you to provide evidence for my statement “Debates matter 0.00 percent. Anyone who says different has not read the literature on this topic.”
Thanks for proving my point.
jnd
[quote]jnd wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]jnd wrote:
Are you trolling me?
Debates matter 0.00 percent. Anyone who says different has not read the literature on this topic.
In my view, the debates are just like preseason football games. All you want to do is avoid injury. But in general, they don’t matter-which is why I don’t watch them.
jnd[/quote]
Debates mean absolutely nothing, NOTHING I tell you. That’s why after his last lukewarm debate performance Trump’s numbers started to fall. And after two strong debate performances Marco Rubio’s numbers have been climbing. And after her first debate at the adults table Carly Fiorina’s numbers climbed.
I agree debates mean nothing except when they do.
[/quote]
Didn’t take long at all for you to provide evidence for my statement “Debates matter 0.00 percent. Anyone who says different has not read the literature on this topic.”
Thanks for proving my point.
jnd[/quote]
I gave you a few instances where debates made a difference. You did not refute any of it.
And if you think about it almost everything means something. In other words one cannot stand on a stage for a couple of hours and trade comments with other contenders (if they are worthy) and not come out just a bit different than they went in at least in the voters eyes.
A good example would be Bernie (hard core socialist) Sanders. Many are going to see him for the first time tonight. Now that may help him, or it may hurt him. But it does mean something.
Debates, just like certain other political events do matter.
But try not to take this so personally I mean no offense to you.
Zeb
[quote]ZEB wrote:
A good example would be Bernie (hard core socialist) Sanders. Many are going to see him for the first time tonight. Now that may help him, or it may hurt him. But it does mean something.
Zeb
[/quote]
I watched an old congressional debate with Sanders and he is pretty bad at it. He just repeats the same tired socialist talking points, “Soak the rich.” But, what resonates more with voters, those talking points, or facts? He won that election.
I agree with you though, the debates do hold value, just not as much as the media like to claim.
[quote]jnd wrote:
Are you trolling me?
Debates matter 0.00 percent. Anyone who says different has not read the literature on this topic.
In my view, the debates are just like preseason football games. All you want to do is avoid injury. But in general, they don’t matter-which is why I don’t watch them.
jnd[/quote]
Said no coach ever.
Preseason games are mainly used to evaluate players deemed “on the fence,” meaning how guys play under game conditions and whether to keep or boot them. In this case, this is an evaluation of candidates under scrutiny, had the media grilled Obama with the same intensity as they have Trump, we would have learned long ago about Obama’s glass jaw.
So… I read a piece by Silver last night that calmed my fears a fair amount. He puts Hillary at about 85% to win the nomination, but not anywhere remotely close to a lock to win the General.
I’m feeling a lot better this morning, lol.
Now just need to focus on the Republicans not doing something stupid like giving the nomination to someone like Trump.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
So… I read a piece by Silver last night that calmed my fears a fair amount. He puts Hillary at about 85% to win the nomination, but not anywhere remotely close to a lock to win the General.
I’m feeling a lot better this morning, lol.
Now just need to focus on the Republicans not doing something stupid like giving the nomination to someone like Trump. [/quote]
Glad you are feeling better and moving in my direction beans. Like I’ve been saying for months Hillary is not winning. And I certainly agree with you that Trump might be one of the worst candidates to put up against her. But even he could beat her at this point. Of course he would do it without TB’s vote 
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
So… I read a piece by Silver last night that calmed my fears a fair amount. He puts Hillary at about 85% to win the nomination, but not anywhere remotely close to a lock to win the General.
I’m feeling a lot better this morning, lol.
Now just need to focus on the Republicans not doing something stupid like giving the nomination to someone like Trump. [/quote]
Glad you are feeling better and moving in my direction beans. Like I’ve been saying for months Hillary is not winning. And I certainly agree with you that Trump might be one of the worst candidates to put up against her. But even he could beat her at this point. Of course he would do it without TB’s vote
[/quote]
I think Rubio, Cruz, and MAYBE Carly could beat Hilary if the stars aligned. I think Bush would give her a run for her money, and maybe Kalish if things landed the right way. Paul? Sure but he gets flustered too easy and is running a total and absolute shit campaign.
Both Trump and Carson will end up looking like unprepared children against her. And I dont’ trust either of them on the 2nd, so my biggest issue is moot between the three. And with the R’s in control of the House, I’m fine with Hillary.
No amount of typing will convince me Trump could beat anyone but Bernie, and that’s because Bernie is a fucking commie.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
So… I read a piece by Silver last night that calmed my fears a fair amount. He puts Hillary at about 85% to win the nomination, but not anywhere remotely close to a lock to win the General.
I’m feeling a lot better this morning, lol.
Now just need to focus on the Republicans not doing something stupid like giving the nomination to someone like Trump. [/quote]
Glad you are feeling better and moving in my direction beans. Like I’ve been saying for months Hillary is not winning. And I certainly agree with you that Trump might be one of the worst candidates to put up against her. But even he could beat her at this point. Of course he would do it without TB’s vote
[/quote]
I think Rubio, Cruz, and MAYBE Carly could beat Hilary if the stars aligned. I think Bush would give her a run for her money, and maybe Kalish if things landed the right way. Paul? Sure but he gets flustered too easy and is running a total and absolute shit campaign.
Both Trump and Carson will end up looking like unprepared children against her. And I dont’ trust either of them on the 2nd, so my biggest issue is moot between the three. And with the R’s in control of the House, I’m fine with Hillary.
No amount of typing will convince me Trump could beat anyone but Bernie, and that’s because Bernie is a fucking commie. [/quote]
Republicans control both houses of congress right now. What if we don’t hold them? Are you still fine with that lying bag of shit as President?
[quote]ZEB wrote:
What if we don’t hold them? Are you still fine with that lying bag of shit as President?
[/quote]
No. One party control is much more frightening than any single person as POTUS (assuming the law is followed), irrelevant of party.
I still content we would have been infinitely better off had Hilary won in 2008, both as a country and the Globe over. Even the Republican party would be in better shape today, because she would have worked WITH people to get her way, things would be different and significantly less shitty.
The downside would be she likely wouldn’t have caused the historic landslides that Obama did in 2010 and 2014.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
So… I read a piece by Silver last night that calmed my fears a fair amount. He puts Hillary at about 85% to win the nomination, but not anywhere remotely close to a lock to win the General.
I’m feeling a lot better this morning, lol.
Now just need to focus on the Republicans not doing something stupid like giving the nomination to someone like Trump. [/quote]
Glad you are feeling better and moving in my direction beans. Like I’ve been saying for months Hillary is not winning. And I certainly agree with you that Trump might be one of the worst candidates to put up against her. But even he could beat her at this point. Of course he would do it without TB’s vote
[/quote]
I think Rubio, Cruz, and MAYBE Carly could beat Hilary if the stars aligned. I think Bush would give her a run for her money, and maybe Kalish if things landed the right way. Paul? Sure but he gets flustered too easy and is running a total and absolute shit campaign.
Both Trump and Carson will end up looking like unprepared children against her. And I dont’ trust either of them on the 2nd, so my biggest issue is moot between the three. And with the R’s in control of the House, I’m fine with Hillary.
No amount of typing will convince me Trump could beat anyone but Bernie, and that’s because Bernie is a fucking commie. [/quote]
Beans, I appreciate your pragmatic approach here. But a threshold question: do you really consider 2nd Amendment/gun control issues to be your biggest issue in evaluating a candidate for president in 2016?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
But a threshold question: do you really consider 2nd Amendment/gun control issues to be your biggest issue in evaluating a candidate for president in 2016?
[/quote]
Yes.
But not because “gunz”. I do because it clearly shows a politician for who they are and how they think. It’s the most important litmus test I have right now.
If someone is willing to throw away our rights based on an emotional reaction to an event, we’ll end up with a new Patriot Act if something significant happens again and they are in charge.
I’m pretty jaded with the entire beast these days. The press, the politicians, people pontificating on facebook, the paid astro turf on social media, all of it… So I’m very much at a point were it’s bare bones and basic tests for me. No matter who wins I’m going to end up pissed, I know it at this point, lol. So this basic test is my most important issue.
Freedom is important. Someone has to lean that way, in all issues, not just “da gayz marriage”.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
What if we don’t hold them? Are you still fine with that lying bag of shit as President?
[/quote]
No. One party control is much more frightening than any single person as POTUS (assuming the law is followed), irrelevant of party.
I still content we would have been infinitely better off had Hilary won in 2008, both as a country and the Globe over. Even the Republican party would be in better shape today, because she would have worked WITH people to get her way, things would be different and significantly less shitty.
The downside would be she likely wouldn’t have caused the historic landslides that Obama did in 2010 and 2014. [/quote]
I believe that you are correct. Hillary would have been far better than the left wing child Obama.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
But not because “gunz”. I do because it clearly shows a politician for who they are and how they think. It’s the most important litmus test I have right now…
[/quote]
You GET this. Most don’t.
If you’re in a discussion with anyone about this subject and the anyone utters the words “hunting” or “sportsman” or “reasonable,” or word of the day, “pragmatic,” or “safety measures” (which are always enforced at the point of a…gun) you pretty much know you’re dealing with someone who doesn’t get it.
[/quote]
Pretty much.
I would however, be willing to placate the emotional amongst the citizenry with things like “universal background checks” if we get some portion of our rights BACK that was previously taken.
I mean, that is the biggest issue with “compromise”. A lot of times, when people use that word they mean: “do what I want to some degree or another”. Not “hey I’ll give you this if you give me that”. Gun control specifically.
I live in a high regulation state, and it’s really fucking annoying to have my Democrat “betters” tell me how to live my life when I’ve never done anything to even suggest I’d be anything other than a model FREE citizen.