All-purpose news and politics thread: Two Steps Beyond!(Part II)

**BeastieRunner** · 08-15-2018, 01:34 PM

Well the jury is back for the final FINAL arguments.

Team Mueller has won all the appeals today.

Team Mueller won all the rulings today.

Defense has to recant in front of the jury they misrepresented facts.

Defense got every request shot down by the judge.

Manafort got twitterpated with his lawyers and the judge told him, "you had your chance."

**catbellysqueezer** · 08-15-2018, 01:36 PM

Originally Posted by Malvolio

Yes. If the Democrats gain a majority of the House, and 70-80% of them have the politics of Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez, the Ocasio-Cortez wing can get the 20-30% that are like Claire McCaskill to vote with them.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is a candidate that people like you are telling me not to vote for because they are too "pure" and most people thought did not have a chance to win.

**Handsome men don't lose fights** · 08-15-2018, 01:54 PM

What's up with Trump declaring a red wave? Winning a Republican primary doesn't mean anything. Also, "Red Wave" sounds like an 80's action movie about a soviet invasion.

**PaulBullion** · 08-15-2018, 01:56 PM

Originally Posted by Dalak

Another Tangent. If you can't answer a simple question and deliberately keep changing the subject you will leave no other conclusion to come to than you are a troll.

In Soviet Russia, candidate choose you!

**Kirby101** · 08-15-2018, 01:57 PM

Originally Posted by catbellysqueezer

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is a candidate that people like you are telling me not to vote for because they are too "pure" and most people thought did not have a chance to win.

So untrue. AOC is the Dem nominee and even the more centrist Dems in her district should support her. The same as more left leaning Dems should support their candidate, sven if he or she is more centrist.

Voting for a third Party candidate because the Dem isn't pure enough for you gets us Bush, and Trump and LePage and ...

**BeastieRunner** · 08-15-2018, 02:04 PM

Manafort jury is receiving instructions as we speak.

They'll be let out soon but won't get into deliberation till tomorrow.

**PaulBullion** · 08-15-2018, 02:09 PM

Originally Posted by KNIGHT OF THE LAKE

No maybe they just voted for who they thought represented their interests better.

I do find it funny that the people that claim they are more interested in beating the Republicans or are the people most effected are the ones demanding everyone else come to their candidates rather than the other way around

The error in thinking there is that a person who has exactly zero percent chance of winning can NOT and will NOT represent their interests better because they will never had the power to do anything but spoil elections.

**4saken1** · 08-15-2018, 02:17 PM

Originally Posted by catbellysqueezer

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is a candidate that people like you are telling me not to vote for because they are too "pure" and most people thought did not have a chance to win.

Now that she won the Primary, though, I'm sure almost all of them would tell you yes, absolutely go out and vote for Ocasio-Cortez! One could probably find a few anecdotal cases to support an alternate opinion, however.

**PaulBullion** · 08-15-2018, 02:21 PM

Originally Posted by catbellysqueezer

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is a candidate that people like you are telling me not to vote for because they are too "pure" and most people thought did not have a chance to win.

I need to build some shelves, and if you got off that cross, I could recycle the wood for it.

**4saken1** · 08-15-2018, 02:34 PM

Originally Posted by PaulBullion

The error in thinking there is that a person who has exactly zero percent chance of winning can NOT and will NOT represent their interests better because they will never had the power to do anything but spoil elections.

Exactly. Simple math escapes these people. Candidate A has a 50% chance of winning and supports 0% of the policies you believe in. Candidate B has a 50% chance of winning and supports 80% of the policies you believe in. Candidate C has 0% chance of winning, but supports 100% of the policies you believe in. Knowing that voting for candidate B will increase their chances of winning by thousands of times more than the same would for candidate C, the choice seems obvious to anybody who got passed basic math. I've often wondered how many statisticians or math majors out there are on board with voting Green. Probably not many!

**Mecegirl** · 08-15-2018, 02:36 PM

Originally Posted by PaulBullion

I need to build some shelves, and if you got off that cross, I could recycle the wood for it.

Did this person ever actually list a candidate from their state that they agree with? Or is everything still in the hypothetical? Honestly I see no point in trying to discuss anything with anyone who never talks about who they believe in just tears other people down.

**Mecegirl** · 08-15-2018, 02:37 PM

double post

**worstblogever** · 08-15-2018, 02:40 PM

So Trump just ordered former CIA Director John Brennan to have his security clearance stripped for... "instability", because of course there's no irony in that.

This is, of course, an order given my a toxic narcissist from his personal NJ golf course, who's desperate to bury the lede so the main story on cable news isn't "Manafort guilty" or "Omarosa clowns racist president". It's petty, but it's still only the craziest thing happening during the Trump administration today, at best.

**JCAll** · 08-15-2018, 02:45 PM

Originally Posted by Mecegirl

Did this person ever actually list a candidate from their state that they agree with? Or is everything still in the hypothetical? Honestly I see no point in trying to discuss anything with anyone who never talks about who they believe in just tears other people down.

No. But I'd still like to hear it if they become more willing to discuss it.

**Mecegirl** · 08-15-2018, 02:47 PM

Originally Posted by 4saken1

Exactly. Simple math escapes these people. Candidate A has a 50% chance of winning and supports 0% of the policies you believe in. Candidate B has a 50% chance of winning and supports 80% of the policies you believe in. Candidate C has 0% chance of winning, but supports 100% of the policies you believe in. Knowing that voting for candidate B will increase their chances of winning by thousands of times more than the same would for candidate C, the choice seems obvious to anybody who got passed basic math. I've often wondered how many statisticians or math majors out there are on board with voting Green. Probably not many!

This is more than just our voting system being unfriendly towards third parties. How many third Party candidates are stable? How many people would love to vote for a third party, look at the candidates and change their mind with the quickness based off merit alone? I actually want to see more major debates where the third parties are included just to prove a point. Hillary would have wiped the floor with Jill Stine or Gary Johnson.

Granted I do question the judgement of anyone who truly supported either candidate just based on their interviews, but there would have been at a percentage of those voters who would have seen just how shallow they were once put to the test.

Thread: All-purpose news and politics thread: Two Steps Beyond!(Part II)

Thread Tools

Display

Posting Permissions