LS1GTO.com Forums banner

6341 - 6360 of 6421 Posts

·
Fake bacon lover
Joined
·
10,734 Posts
I mean even wearing the methodist hat for a moment - he's pretty OK on that front. Aside from he seeming married wrong, but other than that the rest of his discussion points are decent. I mean he's not really for abortion - he's not against it either but more importantly he's on the "it's not the role of the govenment to legalize morality" bandwagon.
I'm in a Southern Baptist Majority in my parts - thus my reasoning for my comments above.
He is mostly certainly NOT acceptable to the congregation. (yet so funny how Trump has been embraced - but while he's personally a sack of immoral shit I believe, he has come through for the Religious right on promises).

Frankly, I'd say 9 out of 10 people I know will vote D or R solely on the Abortion question. Meaning all D's are for killing babies. End of story (according to them).
 

·
The Entenmann's Shim-Sham
Joined
·
12,117 Posts
The Bernie bros aren't voting for Pete any more than they did Hilldawg.
They might. The main point of contention with Hillary was the backdoor rigging against Bernie that was exposed during the primaries. That little tidbit caused a lot of Bernie's supporters to stay home.
 

·
Have Bar, Will Travel
Joined
·
9,647 Posts
I read a theory the other day, I can't remember where it was published. Basically the gist was there is no such person as a swing voter. There is about a 55% engagement factor among the general electorate. A popular candidate that energizes a base will turn out a large voter population, but that is offset by resignation on the opposing side. So the idea that there is a large percentage of voters that go either way isn't true.

That said. IDK if I believe it, because I have been that swing voter. But it does make some sense. I talk to a lot of people that thing a vote for a candidate that didn't win is a wasted vote. So if you know your guy is going to lose, there is less incentive for you to take the time to actually vote.

Fear is a great motivator. If you're scared of a particular boogeyman you will come out to defend. I think that's why W really won in 2004 - they were able to make gay marriage the boogeyman and the Dems weren't all charged up about the Frankenstein looking dude. Obama was a shock, and conservatives responded huge in 2010. No one thought Drumpf would win, so a lot of people felt it safe to vote for him in protest, or vote 3rd party for the same reason (this was me). But it's surprising to me that Drumpf's supporter has been so strong among his base.

I see lots of motivation on both sides. Ouster of Trump is a HUGE Democrat motivator, as is his defense on the other side. IDK what is going to happen, but I don't really think the nominee is going to be the deciding factor for many.
I read something fairly similar to this related to how various polling places where trying to rationalize how they got the trump 2016 election wrong. And I buy part of it with a grain of salt.

So I guess we are long past the days where you actually voted FOR somebody as president? It it strictly a strategic vote against X or Y?
I suspect that ship sailed a bit further back that people want to credit. for example I suspect it sailed when people came out to vote against Carter in 1980

I'm in a Southern Baptist Majority in my parts - thus my reasoning for my comments above.
He is mostly certainly NOT acceptable to the congregation. (yet so funny how Trump has been embraced - but while he's personally a sack of immoral shit I believe, he has come through for the Religious right on promises).

Frankly, I'd say 9 out of 10 people I know will vote D or R solely on the Abortion question. Meaning all D's are for killing babies. End of story (according to them).
Right. And the rhetoric from that preacher mag - whatever it was talking about how bad trump is and no christian call call themselves a christian and still vote for him . . . . Well OK but his policies not the person are liked by most of the southern christian camp from what I can see. He's a shitheel yep, but he ain't out there callin for killin babies, he likes womens, lowered taxes, ain't out there selling shit to the commies. . . . . . . . .

I mean policy wise trump is about as at home in a black baptist church too, but by damn they cannot endorse a white R. Had this discussion with some co-workers the other day while at popeyes I mean it's funny to hear how it plays out on the other side of the fence. Hence why I said earlier their isn't muich talk about who they (the chruch) is backing yet but they know who they don't like already.

They might. The main point of contention with Hillary was the backdoor rigging against Bernie that was exposed during the primaries. That little tidbit caused a lot of Bernie's supporters to stay home.
How funny would it be if the DNC superpac whatever decided that Warren needed to be the answer for 2020?
 

·
The Entenmann's Shim-Sham
Joined
·
12,117 Posts

·
Administrator
Joined
·
19,004 Posts
I read a theory the other day, I can't remember where it was published. Basically the gist was there is no such person as a swing voter. There is about a 55% engagement factor among the general electorate. A popular candidate that energizes a base will turn out a large voter population, but that is offset by resignation on the opposing side. So the idea that there is a large percentage of voters that go either way isn't true.

That said. IDK if I believe it, because I have been that swing voter. But it does make some sense. I talk to a lot of people that thing a vote for a candidate that didn't win is a wasted vote. So if you know your guy is going to lose, there is less incentive for you to take the time to actually vote.

Fear is a great motivator. If you're scared of a particular boogeyman you will come out to defend. I think that's why W really won in 2004 - they were able to make gay marriage the boogeyman and the Dems weren't all charged up about the Frankenstein looking dude. Obama was a shock, and conservatives responded huge in 2010. No one thought Drumpf would win, so a lot of people felt it safe to vote for him in protest, or vote 3rd party for the same reason (this was me). But it's surprising to me that Drumpf's supporter has been so strong among his base.

I see lots of motivation on both sides. Ouster of Trump is a HUGE Democrat motivator, as is his defense on the other side. IDK what is going to happen, but I don't really think the nominee is going to be the deciding factor for many.
I saw the same piece; read most of it. It was a neat take on how things actually work rather than how people THINK they work.

might be worth a different thread as if it really matters.

but to TX's point I agree and have already heard the various comments. Some from the "only R" camp but amazingly some from the millennial "you mean there is another party" D camp. which I will say surprised me. but some of the younger people I know - who can't do anything like their parents so they must vote D - HATE the Buttreig (sp?). and it's really various other reasons. OH he's from the other side, he's worked for some major fim . . . . . , etc etc blah. And I'm sitting here saying - do you read/listen to anything the boy has said?

I mean even wearing the methodist hat for a moment - he's pretty OK on that front. Aside from he seeming married wrong, but other than that the rest of his discussion points are decent. I mean he's not really for abortion - he's not against it either but more importantly he's on the "it's not the role of the govenment to legalize morality" bandwagon.

ANd yet he gets flamed from both sides now. But some of they younger side can not stand the guy. How dare he claim to be ghey when he doesn't embrace full on socialism. really how the hell does that work. I will say however I don't trust him as far as I can throw him. I mean I don't like turnip but I can trust what is motivations actually are. I don't trust Pence by any stretch as I'm not 100% sure what his motivations are.
Werd, Hoss. Werd.

I'm just ready for this to be over.
500380
 

·
Jimmy Rustler
Joined
·
9,634 Posts
So now the mere suggestion that a sentence might be too harsh for one of his friends is enough to get a reduction from the justice department. Interesting...
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
19,004 Posts
Token Comeback of the Day: But if your whole deal was "Drain The Swamp", ummmm...


Now, I intend to carry on despising the dude that's running my economic agenda. I'll probably vote for him in November, which I am sure makes me part of some problem somewhere.
 

·
Jimmy Rustler
Joined
·
9,634 Posts
There has always been some desire to keep the DOJ out of politics, something to do with a former president directing surveillance of their political rivals or some such nonsense. Am I naive enough to believe there is no political influence over anything in Washington? No. But does this seem out of bounds? Yeah, a little bit. At least it should pass the smell test. This stinks.
 

·
GR-RRR!
Joined
·
4,724 Posts
Hopefully the judge involved will take the DOJ recommendations and pitch them and make her own decision based on the merits of the case and conviction. He WAS convicted of some pretty serious shit. That, and he's just a smug mothersmurfing criminal that needs to be taken down a notch or seven.
 

·
Have Bar, Will Travel
Joined
·
9,647 Posts
or another president directing the DOJ to investiagating police shootings even if they were clear in the intiial state investiagation.

DOJ has been a political tool for as long as I can remember which to be fair hasn't really been that long but well the 90's was 20 years ago.

However I do agree yes ideally the DOJ wouldn't have anything to do with politics. I also think supreme court justices needs term limits, read that as all parts of government should have term limits.
 

·
GR-RRR!
Joined
·
4,724 Posts
However I do agree yes ideally the DOJ wouldn't have anything to do with politics. I also think supreme court justices needs term limits, read that as all parts of government should have term limits.
Some years ago I would have disagreed with the SCJ part of your comment, but nowadays I would agree. Perhaps a long term, but certainly not for life. Term limits for Congress would be wonderful. Nebraska put term limits on for our Legislature and it worked. Sort of. They put in a weenie clause that Senators kicked out due to term limits could run again after sitting out one 2-year term. One long term Senator sat out two years, sent in his patsy to serve for him for two years and then was right back in it.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
19,004 Posts
Yeah, my only issue with Congressional term limits is the inherent cronyism it would promote. I mean I get it, and would not oppose it, but I don't think it actually solves anything. Sure, one dude serving 11ty consecutive terms is basically the same thing, but term-limiting that dude won't really address the problem because he'll just hand-pick his successor.

Well, wait a minute... if that successor has to run on his own merit, then maybe term limits would work.

Stream of consciousness posting, I do it.
 

·
Have Bar, Will Travel
Joined
·
9,647 Posts
My thought was always staggered it such a way that no sitting pres would get to appoint a replacement. IE Pres gets 2 4-year terms for a total of 8. SCJ term would be at least 10 years so they could span a decade of change. Now I heartily agree there is logic to make that 12, 15,16,some other random number short of being 24.

Likewise congress limit would be 4-4 year terms. period. Senate would get 3-6 year terms. period. And no sitting senator or congressperson can run for pres they have to resign first before even announcing a run. And once term of president is over you cannot serve on any part of again. I'd also argue if you did your 4-4year terms or your 3-6 year terms, you're out anyway but that might be a touch too harsh.
 
6341 - 6360 of 6421 Posts
Top