Trump MAGAthread II: Donald and Mike go to the White House

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

But I thought protestant was more liberal the Roman Catholic?

Protestants are more liberal than Roman Catholics in a theological context, which is a common confusion in NSG because of the CDT.

U.S. Protestants though are far more conservative (in what American Conservatism actually means) than Roman Catholics from my experience.

Central Daylight Time?

Oh.

Those heretics should be moar liberal than.

[Novus America]

The religious conservatives backed Trump

The big protestant parishes (most of them mega-churches) -- which are neither conservative, nor passionately religious -- backed Trump.

At best, they take huge liberties when it comes down to religious conservatism.

The propsperity theology types. Which are different than other religious conservatives and as you point out not that conservative. More like Ayn Rand meets megachurch.

Like this.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paula_White

GOP is a big tent party. It has a lot of factions, and factions within factions, and factions overlapping. This is why Trumps flip floppy was more an asset than a liability.

[Tahar Joblis]

Even if there was no favoritism at play, Bernie still would've lost.

If there were no superdelegates at play, Bernie still would've lost.

Like it or not, Clinton was the one that the majority of Democrats voted for and wanted, so she became the nominee.

He lost, and badly. Not because of superdelegates at all. Simply because he did not appeal to enough of the party.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democra ... ries,_2016

He lost, but not badly.

Reporting on superdelegates played a role because it helped fuel the narrative that the party needed to hurry up and start unifying around the inevitable candidate, which almost certainly helped her, especially in the last contests. Traditionally, the party unifies around the winning candidate, amplifying the apparent margin of victory. This happened with Trump, who saw a last-minute surge in votes once it was clear no other candidate could win "legitimately." In that light, the margin wasn't all that exceptional.

Most of Clinton's lead came in states that were very early (when a lot of voters still didn't know about Sanders, thanks to disproportionately low news coverage) and Southern. Her margin was heavily concentrated demographically and the result of a strong appeal to groups that are generally very loyal to the Democratic Party.

If there was no favoritism in play, Clinton would not have received the "inevitability" coverage to start with, nor would that have been inappropriately buffered by news organizations counting non-binding declarations of support from superdelegates as if they were in the bag already. If there was no favoritism in play, Sanders would have gotten a lot more coverage early on - and probably, correspondingly, done a lot better in the early primaries. If you crunch the data, it's quite clear that there was a time effect, above and beyond demographics.

Clinton probably would have won by a narrow margin, but let's not pretend it was certain; nor should we pretend that the overt favoritism displayed towards the Clinton campaign by the DNC and by many major media outlets was acceptable; nor should we pretend that how Clinton won the primary had nothing to do with how the general election went.

Clinton staking her campaign on a message of inevitability was a clever tactical move for winning the primary, as party loyalists respond to calls to unify behind an inevitable candidate if they are convinced that candidate is inevitable. It turned around and bit her in the ass in the general, because a lot of disaffected voters that she never appealed to in the primary - those who are less reliably Democratic, in particular - stayed home or voted third party in disproportionately large numbers, as you would expect from an "inevitable" candidate.

[Novus America]

But I thought protestant was more liberal the Roman Catholic?

Actually, Roman Catholics have traditionally been more liberal. I think it may have something to do with more focus on helping the poor and that migrants tended to be Roman Catholic for the better part of the 20th century who tended to vote Democratic thanks to large-scale voting fraud operations in major cities and whatnot. That only started to change when the Church came out against abortion, which Democrats have more or less picked up being for.

Again it is important to note the Catholic Church is a unfied church with a single theology. While there is varriation within it, it at least is a unfied denomination.

You cannot really say anything about modern US Protestantism that applies unversally or close to it. It is a broad grouping a groups that often have little in common.

All it basically means is "not Orthodox, Mormon or Catholic".

[Lazarus Happy Insurance Corp]

The big protestant parishes (most of them mega-churches) -- which are neither conservative, nor passionately religious -- backed Trump.

At best, they take huge liberties when it comes down to religious conservatism.

They propsperity theology types. Which are different than other religious conservatives and as you point out not that conservative. More like Ayn Rand meets megachurch.

Like this.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paula_White

GOP is a big tent party. It has a lot of factions, and factions within factions, and factions overlapping. This is why Trumps flip floppy my was more an asset than a liability.

Trump wasn't flip floppy! He was just cognitive dissoDANCE mashup with reality. He's like Schrodinger's Stance, both and neither and nothing and everything.

[Novus America]

He lost, and badly. Not because of superdelegates at all. Simply because he did not appeal to enough of the party.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democra ... ries,_2016

He lost, but not badly.

Reporting on superdelegates played a role because it helped fuel the narrative that the party needed to hurry up and start unifying around the inevitable candidate, which almost certainly helped her, especially in the last contests. Traditionally, the party unifies around the winning candidate, amplifying the apparent margin of victory. This happened with Trump, who saw a last-minute surge in votes once it was clear no other candidate could win "legitimately." In that light, the margin wasn't all that exceptional.

Most of Clinton's lead came in states that were very early (when a lot of voters still didn't know about Sanders, thanks to disproportionately low news coverage) and Southern. Her margin was heavily concentrated demographically and the result of a strong appeal to groups that are generally very loyal to the Democratic Party.

If there was no favoritism in play, Clinton would not have received the "inevitability" coverage to start with, nor would that have been inappropriately buffered by news organizations counting non-binding declarations of support from superdelegates as if they were in the bag already. If there was no favoritism in play, Sanders would have gotten a lot more coverage early on - and probably, correspondingly, done a lot better in the early primaries. If you crunch the data, it's quite clear that there was a time effect, above and beyond demographics.

Clinton probably would have won by a narrow margin, but let's not pretend it was certain; nor should we pretend that the overt favoritism displayed towards the Clinton campaign by the DNC and by many major media outlets was acceptable; nor should we pretend that how Clinton won the primary had nothing to do with how the general election went.

Clinton staking her campaign on a message of inevitability was a clever tactical move for winning the primary, as party loyalists respond to calls to unify behind an inevitable candidate if they are convinced that candidate is inevitable. It turned around and bit her in the ass in the general, because a lot of disaffected voters that she never appealed to in the primary - those who are less reliably Democratic, in particular - stayed home or voted third party in disproportionately large numbers, as you would expect from an "inevitable" candidate.

55% to 43% and 34 to 23 states and territories is badly. Had that been the General it would be a landslide. It was not close.

[Novus America]

They propsperity theology types. Which are different than other religious conservatives and as you point out not that conservative. More like Ayn Rand meets megachurch.

Like this.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paula_White

GOP is a big tent party. It has a lot of factions, and factions within factions, and factions overlapping. This is why Trumps flip floppy my was more an asset than a liability.

Trump wasn't flip floppy! He was just cognitive dissoDANCE mashup with reality. He's like Schrodinger's Stance, both and neither and nothing and everything.

Same thing, described in different words.

[Chestaan]

But I thought protestant was more liberal the Roman Catholic?

Protestants are more liberal than Roman Catholics in a theological context, which is a common confusion in NSG because of the CDT.

U.S. Protestants though are far more conservative (in what American Conservatism actually means) than Roman Catholics from my experience.

I would say not only in the US, but in general, Catholics are far more left wing. Not so much on abortion and gay marriage, but definitely economically. Liberation theology was essentially socialism-lite for Catholics.

[Lazarus Happy Insurance Corp]

Trump wasn't flip floppy! He was just cognitive dissoDANCE mashup with reality. He's like Schrodinger's Stance, both and neither and nothing and everything.

Same thing, described in different words.

And sometimes he described a different thing using the same words, so people thought it was the same, but it was different, just the words were the same, because his words aren't what he's saying.

Jesus, my head hurts.

[Novus America]

Protestants are more liberal than Roman Catholics in a theological context, which is a common confusion in NSG because of the CDT.

U.S. Protestants though are far more conservative (in what American Conservatism actually means) than Roman Catholics from my experience.

I would say not only in the US, but in general, Catholics are far more left wing. Not so much on abortion and gay marriage, but definitely economically. Liberation theology was essentially socialism-lite for Catholics.

Again Protestant is no longer anything resembling a unfied movement or theology, just a vague grouping by exclusion. Basically every Christian not Moromon, Orthodox or Catholic.

[Chestaan]

I would say not only in the US, but in general, Catholics are far more left wing. Not so much on abortion and gay marriage, but definitely economically. Liberation theology was essentially socialism-lite for Catholics.

Again Protestant is no longer anything resembling a unfied movement or theology, just a vague grouping by exclusion. Basically every Christian not Moromon, Protestant or Catholic.

Yes, I am aware, but the majority of those that fall into this group are more conservative than Catholics. Like you said, Catholicism is one unified church and it happens to push the part of the gospel that talks about social and economic justice. Anglicans, Baptist churces, Methodist churches and the like usually treat Christianity quite differently. They're not the same but they do tend to pit less emphasis on the same place that Catholicism does.

[Ashmoria]

Bernie is a secular jew, iirc, and he would have won if not for the Democratic Party's undemocratic super delegates...

He might have won the primary if the establishment hadn't decided, four years ago, to make Clinton the nominee.

he MIGHT have won if 4 years ago he had been a democrat.

[Farnhamia]

He might have won the primary if the establishment hadn't decided, four years ago, to make Clinton the nominee.

he MIGHT have won if 4 years ago he had been a democrat.

And last year if 3.7 million more deluded, undemocratic people hadn't voted for Hillary in the primaries.

[Ashmoria]

he MIGHT have won if 4 years ago he had been a democrat.

And last year if 3.7 million more deluded, undemocratic people hadn't voted for Hillary in the primaries.

that goes without saying. but to think that it is ever going to be OK to try to hijack a party for your own political ends.....well we only have room for ONE of those and he is going to be inaugurated next week.

[Minoa]

In my case, it’s the Brexit and the IPA. Privacy International is taking up on the IPA case.

its still worth contacting your government to voice your concerns. how else can they know?

Hola,

For the record, my state of depression is very severe at this time. I wrote in my diary and I have said it before that I could warn the world about the decline of freedom of such, but a majority (especially in social networks) would just bully me or turn me into some stupid Internet meme so that I would not be taken seriously — just because of my disability.

Sources: http://metro.co.uk/2016/02/01/mum-posts ... e-5655189/ and http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2 ... fensive-m/

The Internet in general has become that atrocious.

[Tahar Joblis]

55% to 43% and 34 to 23 states and territories is badly. Had that been the General it would be a landslide. It was not close.

Primaries work differently, as I said, leading in general to much larger numeric margins.

Mind you, the "55-43" number is bullshit, since different states have very different rules when it comes to participation in the primary process, so very different percentages of the population show up from state to state, making aggregating across states meaningless. The popular vote margin is much more meaningful in the general election, where enfranchisement rules are more uniform. It would be more accurate to refer to the margin as being around 54-46.

[Tahar Joblis]

And last year if 3.7 million more deluded, undemocratic people hadn't voted for Hillary in the primaries.

that goes without saying. but to think that it is ever going to be OK to try to hijack a party for your own political ends.....well we only have room for ONE of those and he is going to be inaugurated next week.

I think it's completely appropriate to "hijack" a political party. Welcome to the post-1968 era, where the primary process has been reformed to be responsive to the will of the party's voters, rather than insiders.

John McCain "hijacked" the Republican party in 2008 - insiders didn't prefer him and he'd been called a RINO countless times.

Obama "hijacked" the party in 2008 as an outsider, winning only because of his support among independent voters. If you pulled out all the independent voters who crossed over to participate, he would have lost.

Bill Clinton was an outsider in 1992. He "hijacked" the party, buoyed by independents.

Yes, Sanders' party affiliation declaration was pure expedience, but it's an appropriate move. Political parties are there to help express the will of the people.

[Ashmoria]

that goes without saying. but to think that it is ever going to be OK to try to hijack a party for your own political ends.....well we only have room for ONE of those and he is going to be inaugurated next week.

I think it's completely appropriate to "hijack" a political party. Welcome to the post-1968 era, where the primary process has been reformed to be responsive to the will of the party's voters, rather than insiders.

John McCain "hijacked" the Republican party in 2008 - insiders didn't prefer him and he'd been called a RINO countless times.

Obama "hijacked" the party in 2008 as an outsider, winning only because of his support among independent voters. If you pulled out all the independent voters who crossed over to participate, he would have lost.

Bill Clinton was an outsider in 1992. He "hijacked" the party, buoyed by independents.

Yes, Sanders' party affiliation declaration was pure expedience, but it's an appropriate move. Political parties are there to help express the will of the people.

john McCain and barack Obama are lifelong party members. sanders and trump are not.

[Novus America]

55% to 43% and 34 to 23 states and territories is badly. Had that been the General it would be a landslide. It was not close.

Primaries work differently, as I said, leading in general to much larger numeric margins.

Mind you, the "55-43" number is bullshit, since different states have very different rules when it comes to participation in the primary process, so very different percentages of the population show up from state to state, making aggregating across states meaningless. The popular vote margin is much more meaningful in the general election, where enfranchisement rules are more uniform. It would be more accurate to refer to the margin as being around 54-46.

Regardless it was not even close. Bernie lost because he simply did not earn enough support, did not appeal to enough people. Plain and simple. Had he gotten more votes and states than Hillary he could have won. But he did not. He lost, and lost by a large margin.

[Novus America]

I think it's completely appropriate to "hijack" a political party. Welcome to the post-1968 era, where the primary process has been reformed to be responsive to the will of the party's voters, rather than insiders.

John McCain "hijacked" the Republican party in 2008 - insiders didn't prefer him and he'd been called a RINO countless times.

Obama "hijacked" the party in 2008 as an outsider, winning only because of his support among independent voters. If you pulled out all the independent voters who crossed over to participate, he would have lost.

Bill Clinton was an outsider in 1992. He "hijacked" the party, buoyed by independents.

Yes, Sanders' party affiliation declaration was pure expedience, but it's an appropriate move. Political parties are there to help express the will of the people.

john McCain and barack Obama are lifelong party members. sanders and trump are not.

And? The party exists for the people, not the people for the party. The party is just a means to an end.

I do not like Trump, but he simply ran a better primary campaign. Sure the rules benifited but he played the rules and won using them. Bernie had every right to run as a Democrat. Unlike Trump however he did not run as effectively and lost.

[Tahar Joblis]

john McCain and barack Obama are lifelong party members. sanders and trump are not.

Ronald Reagan wasn't a lifelong party member.

For that matter, Hillary Clinton wasn't a lifelong party member.

Nor was Abraham Lincoln. The Republican Party of his time didn't exist when he was born.

The purpose of political parties is to help express the will of the voters. They can, have, and will be routinely "hijacked" by outsiders if they do that, and that's not a problem. Their platforms will evolve over time, and that's not a problem in and of itself.

Trump winning in a chaotic mess of a primary by virtue of badly constructed rules is a problem, but not because he was an outsider; but rather, because his selection didn't really reflect the will of the people. If Sanders had gained the support of an extra 5% of Democratic primary voters and Clinton had lost the support of an extra 5% of Democratic primary voters, he would have most likely eked out a narrow victory, and that would not have been an existential crisis for the Democratic party.

[Tahar Joblis]

Primaries work differently, as I said, leading in general to much larger numeric margins.

Mind you, the "55-43" number is bullshit, since different states have very different rules when it comes to participation in the primary process, so very different percentages of the population show up from state to state, making aggregating across states meaningless. The popular vote margin is much more meaningful in the general election, where enfranchisement rules are more uniform. It would be more accurate to refer to the margin as being around 54-46.

Regardless it was not even close.

Repeating your claim doesn't make it true.

By the standards of the typical numeric margins of victory in primaries, and by the standards of the sort of perturbations required to flip the outcome, Sanders did make it close.

[Novus America]

Regardless it was not even close.

Repeating your claim doesn't make it true.

By the standards of the typical numeric margins of victory in primaries, and by the standards of the sort of perturbations required to flip the outcome, Sanders did make it close.

You have yet to explain how it was close. In order to win he would have had to win many of millions of votes he did not win. That is a big difference. He was well short of what he needed, and would have had to make major changes to have had a chance of winning.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

Trump related story:

I was playing Alpha centauri as Morgan. I named him "Trump" and my first city was "Make planet great again"

The game went like this: Human Hive winning the vote for supreme leader, me declaring war on Human Hive, using Planet Busters on the Human Hive,
going into a long stalemate vendetta, killing off the UN guy, and after hours of playing, winning via transcendence.

[Ashmoria]

john McCain and barack Obama are lifelong party members. sanders and trump are not.

And? The party exists for the people, not the people for the party. The party is just a means to an end.

I do not like Trump, but he simply ran a better primary campaign. Sure the rules benifited but he played the rules and won using them. Bernie had every right to run as a Democrat. Unlike Trump however he did not run as effectively and lost.

I'm just saying that one of the big reasons sanders didn't get the nomination is due to the democratic base not being interested in nominating a non-democrat.