NationStates

Satuga wrote:

Evil Dictators Happyland wrote:1) Trump's approval ratings have been hovering around 25-30%, therefore 70-75% does not approve of him (or didn't vote, but that doesn't really change the point considering how few people didn't vote).
2) I didn't say I had a problem with it (IIRC Obama lost the popular vote in 2008), I was just contesting the idea that "the majority of people will vote him again".
3) He has consistently failed to come up with anything resembling a decent plan (no, "gimme a few billion dollars" doesn't count), and I was under the impression that he failed to repeal the ACA but I acknowledge that I might have missed something in the fustercluck that is American politics.

1) Trumps current approval rating is around 45.3% so as i said around 55% dont agree with him.
2) I suppose I should change my words a little, the majority of electoral votes will go to him, as it did in 2016.
3) That's because not only are they coming up with the best possible design to protect the borders, but many people have protested and attempted to halt the construction, hell I think it was coke-a-cola who even purchased a section of land where the wall was going to go in order to "protest" or even make the government pay them more than what they bought for to build there.

2) He's underwater approval-wise in the three states that carried him to victory, the Dems just need to nominate someone not disastrously unpopular, which should be fine for several of the top contenders in the primary.

Evil Dictators Happyland wrote:

Satuga wrote:
1) Considering that most democratic states are also some of the highest population states i.e California then its not entirely unreasonable, although 70% is fairly high, i would say more like 55%-65%.
2) that's why we have the electoral college, so one party doesn't have control over the entire nation.
3) He's currently trying to build the wall, (It takes quite a while if you didn't know), also wasn't Obama care repealed?

edit:spelling mistake "althouth"

1) Trump's approval ratings have been hovering around 25-30%, therefore 70-75% does not approve of him (or didn't vote, but that doesn't really change the point considering how few people didn't vote).

His disapproval rate has hovered around high thirties to low forties for his entire presidency.

Evil Dictators Happyland wrote:2) I didn't say I had a problem with it (IIRC Obama lost the popular vote in 2008),

What on Earth gave you that idea? Obama won the popular vote by 10 million votes.

Evil Dictators Happyland wrote:I was just contesting the idea that "the majority of people will vote him again".
3) He has consistently failed to come up with anything resembling a decent plan (no, "gimme a few billion dollars" doesn't count), and I was under the impression that he failed to repeal the ACA but I acknowledge that I might have missed something in the fustercluck that is American politics.

It was not repealed but key elements of it have either been not enforced or successfully challenged in court. Despite that, enrollment has continued.

Satuga wrote:

Evil Dictators Happyland wrote:1) Trump's approval ratings have been hovering around 25-30%, therefore 70-75% does not approve of him (or didn't vote, but that doesn't really change the point considering how few people didn't vote).
2) I didn't say I had a problem with it (IIRC Obama lost the popular vote in 2008), I was just contesting the idea that "the majority of people will vote him again".
3) He has consistently failed to come up with anything resembling a decent plan (no, "gimme a few billion dollars" doesn't count), and I was under the impression that he failed to repeal the ACA but I acknowledge that I might have missed something in the fustercluck that is American politics.

1) Trumps current approval rating is around 45.3% so as i said around 55% dont agree with him.
2) I suppose I should change my words a little, the majority of electoral votes will go to him, as it did in 2016.
3) That's because not only are they coming up with the best possible design to protect the borders, but many people have protested and attempted to halt the construction, hell I think it was coke-a-cola who even purchased a section of land where the wall was going to go in order to "protest" or even make the government pay them more than what they bought for to build there.

1) I don't recheck this very often, I concede that particular point.
2) I still doubt that but there's no way to know for sure until the votes come in.
3) They've been doing that basically his entire presidency with nothing to show for it. And it wouldn't have stopped him, anyway, since eminent domain is a thing that he'd have to use even if they hadn't bought the land.

Washington Resistance Army wrote:

The Xenopolis Confederation wrote:Then who would lead the country? And who would decide who leads the country?

Nobody and nobody. We're going full anarcho-anarchist now. It'll be better than having non-stop 24/7 election news.

i.e. hedging your bets on which warlord comes out ahead.

Cannot think of a name wrote:

Evil Dictators Happyland wrote:1) Trump's approval ratings have been hovering around 25-30%, therefore 70-75% does not approve of him (or didn't vote, but that doesn't really change the point considering how few people didn't vote).

His disapproval rate has hovered around high thirties to low forties for his entire presidency.

Evil Dictators Happyland wrote:2) I didn't say I had a problem with it (IIRC Obama lost the popular vote in 2008),

What on Earth gave you that idea? Obama won the popular vote by 10 million votes.

Evil Dictators Happyland wrote:I was just contesting the idea that "the majority of people will vote him again".
3) He has consistently failed to come up with anything resembling a decent plan (no, "gimme a few billion dollars" doesn't count), and I was under the impression that he failed to repeal the ACA but I acknowledge that I might have missed something in the fustercluck that is American politics.

It was not repealed but key elements of it have either been not enforced or successfully challenged in court. Despite that, enrollment has continued.

The lesson I take from this is that I should probably stay away from these debates until I'm reasonably awake.

Valrifell wrote:
2) He's underwater approval-wise in the three states that carried him to victory, the Dems just need to nominate someone not disastrously unpopular, which should be fine for several of the top contenders in the primary.

He most likely lost some approval ratings due to the mass media, which is also a big factor in the presidential race, as all mainstream media aside from fox news desperately tried to smear Trump during and after the presidency. As well as the ever growing racial divide that is caused by the mainstream media. Luckily it might not be as influential as the majority of the population do not trust the mainstream media anymore. Though all we can really do is wait and see what the democratic or republican candidates are like.

Evil Dictators Happyland wrote:The lesson I take from this is that I should probably stay away from these debates until I'm reasonably awake.

Most likely, politics isn't something a tired person should discuss lol.

Satuga wrote:

Valrifell wrote:
2) He's underwater approval-wise in the three states that carried him to victory, the Dems just need to nominate someone not disastrously unpopular, which should be fine for several of the top contenders in the primary.

He most likely lost some approval ratings due to the mass media, which is also a big factor in the presidential race, as all mainstream media aside from fox news desperately tried to smear Trump during and after the presidency. As well as the ever growing racial divide that is caused by the mainstream media. Luckily it might not be as influential as the majority of the population do not trust the mainstream media anymore. Though all we can really do is wait and see what the democratic or republican candidates are like.

Oh no, you're one of those

Valrifell wrote:Oh no, you're one of those

By one of those I'm going to assume you mean "big bad media, fake news" people?

As a response to that,
1) I don't just go around saying that whatever news site I don't like is "fake news"
2) There has been multiple examples of certain news sites either manipulating the truth or just plain out lying I.E the "Pope hand incident", or the "Fake Protest Set up"

Edit: One additional example, was the Koi Feeding outrage.

And of course the Republicans in power conveniently dismissing cybersecurity concerns for 2020. If they're counting on Russian social engineering to help them keep the White House perhaps the Democrats should encourage foreign social engineering on their behalf.

Gormwood wrote:And of course the Republicans in power conveniently dismissing cybersecurity concerns for 2020. If they're counting on Russian social engineering to help them keep the White House perhaps the Democrats should encourage foreign social engineering on their behalf.

It's possible to react to someone breaking the rules by doing things other than violating the exact same rules in the exact same way.

Evil Dictators Happyland wrote:

Gormwood wrote:And of course the Republicans in power conveniently dismissing cybersecurity concerns for 2020. If they're counting on Russian social engineering to help them keep the White House perhaps the Democrats should encourage foreign social engineering on their behalf.

It's possible to react to someone breaking the rules by doing things other than violating the exact same rules in the exact same way.

One way chivalry is a sucker's game.

Gormwood wrote:

Evil Dictators Happyland wrote:It's possible to react to someone breaking the rules by doing things other than violating the exact same rules in the exact same way.

One way chivalry is a sucker's game.

Not really how rules work but OK.

Ahh, that new thread smell. Take it in everyone!

The Xenopolis Confederation wrote:

Satuga wrote:Unless there is a candidate who is respective, encouraging, and prepared to deal with real issues on both sides of the political spectrum, it is very likely trump will be reelected.

I don't know about that. Trump isn't really that popular. The only reason he won because Hillary was also really unpopular.

However, Trump has a good economy under his belt; the only thing he has going for him. That will probably be enough to re-elect him unless the Democrats can convince their voters to come out in droves with a likable nominee, which is likely.

Evil Dictators Happyland wrote:

Gormwood wrote:One way chivalry is a sucker's game.

Not really how rules work but OK.

So if the Republicans encourage Russian aid through neglecting cybersecurity in 2020 how are they getting punished? Rules are only as good as they can get enforced.

Gormwood wrote:

Evil Dictators Happyland wrote:Not really how rules work but OK.

So if the Republicans encourage Russian aid through neglecting cybersecurity in 2020 how are they getting punished? Rules are only as good as they can get enforced.

And it's impossible that they could be enforced because...?

Gormwood wrote:

Evil Dictators Happyland wrote:Not really how rules work but OK.

So if the Republicans encourage Russian aid through neglecting cybersecurity in 2020 how are they getting punished? Rules are only as good as they can get enforced.

The Russians were condemned for trying to interfere in our politics, by both democrats and republicans, it was never stated how they interfered or why. It was also proven that despite this interference, it wasn't substantial enough to change the voting out come. In fact a recount was attempted in one state, and it actually ended up adding votes towards Trump.

Just stop cause it's not helping you get anywhere.

Gormwood wrote:

Evil Dictators Happyland wrote:Not really how rules work but OK.

So if the Republicans encourage Russian aid through neglecting cybersecurity in 2020 how are they getting punished? Rules are only as good as they can get enforced.

Well, a few ways. First of all, the platforms that were exploited last time have taken measures of their own regardless of how congress or Trump acts. Second, we're more aware of the tactics used. You can't use a trick after you know how it works, not as well at least. Can they still manufacture both sides of a rally to stir unrest? Sure. There's always a fish for the hook. But it won't be as effective a second time around. Third, the DNC can up its own security. The leak happened after someone opened an email link for fuck's sake. Don't do that. Finally, they can keep it in the conversation and highlight the Republican's lack of action on it.

But whatever they do, they should absolutely not undermine any effort to stop it by asking someone else to do the same fucking thing on their behalf.

Fortunately, no one in the party with any modicum of power or influence would suggest this as it's bonkers.

Satuga wrote:

Gormwood wrote:So if the Republicans encourage Russian aid through neglecting cybersecurity in 2020 how are they getting punished? Rules are only as good as they can get enforced.

The Russians were condemned for trying to interfere in our politics, by both democrats and republicans, it was never stated how they interfered or why. It was also proven that despite this interference, it wasn't substantial enough to change the voting out come. In fact a recount was attempted in one state, and it actually ended up adding votes towards Trump.

Just stop cause it's not helping you get anywhere.

Dude. Just...

Okay, first of all. Intensity matters. Republicans have been constantly downplaying any involvement in the elections, Trump took Putin's word over our own intelligence, so no. Not really a both by equal measures.

Second, yes it was stated. Over and over again.

Third, I would like to see this proof you speak of.

Fourth, you're talking about vote tampering. That was not the issue.

Mondale/Dukakis 2020.

Satuga wrote:

Evil Dictators Happyland wrote:The lesson I take from this is that I should probably stay away from these debates until I'm reasonably awake.

Most likely, politics isn't something a tired person should discuss lol.

I can speak from experience on that. I write something tired, and then wake up in the morning thinking, "What the fuck did I write there?"

South Odreria wrote:Elections and leaders are unnecessary if we ban large scale human interaction.

Where one bans human interaction one eventually bans humans.

Major-Tom wrote:Mondale/Dukakis 2020.

Weld/Roosevelt 2020

Shrillland wrote:

Satuga wrote:
Most likely, politics isn't something a tired person should discuss lol.

I can speak from experience on that. I write something tired, and then wake up in the morning thinking, "What the fuck did I write there?"

I can relate.

Sidesh0w B0b wrote:

Major-Tom wrote:Mondale/Dukakis 2020.

Weld/Roosevelt 2020

Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho 2020. Honestly, would he really be any worse than where we are now?