The Gaming Den Forum Index The Gaming Den
Welcome to the Gaming Den.
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Google
 Search WWW   Search tgdmb.com 
Trump Thread
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 43, 44, 45 ... 49, 50, 51  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Gaming Den Forum Index -> MPSIMS
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
MGuy
Prince


Joined: 21 Jul 2009
Posts: 3446
Location: Indiana

PostPosted: Thu Oct 12, 2017 1:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

angelfromanotherpin wrote:
As Trump's spawn have apparently duplicated literally every email-related offense they accused Hillary of, I think we really have to amend all the 'but her emails' memes to 'but her.'
Trump supporters/apologists seem to care so little about the hypocrisy that they spent less time excusing it than the Rex moron quote. This whole year has been surreal.
_________________
The first rule of Fatclub. Don't Talk about Fatclub..
I've always thought it best to never hit a lady, but be sure to beat a bitch. -TOZ
MGuy wrote:
Finally a thread about fighters!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Yahoo Messenger
RobbyPants
Prince


Joined: 06 Aug 2008
Posts: 4473

PostPosted: Thu Oct 12, 2017 12:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

MGuy wrote:
Hilary emails are more damming than actual rape.

Of course, they aren't so bad when it's pointed out that his side has done it more. Basically, they don't care if they're supporting a racist so long as they're winning.


MGuy wrote:
Trump supporters/apologists seem to care so little about the hypocrisy that they spent less time excusing it than the Rex moron quote. This whole year has been surreal.
I guess it points to the strength of tribalism. This is why I refuse to be lectured by a conservative about pretty much anything ever. If they'd just come out and say "I support an admitted rapist because I find voting for a democrat worse", at least I could respect them for being honest. Instead, their actions say that, but their words say they think they can outsmart me with their hypocrisy.

Last edited by RobbyPants on Thu Oct 12, 2017 12:35 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
angelfromanotherpin
King


Joined: 07 Mar 2008
Posts: 7450

PostPosted: Thu Oct 12, 2017 1:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

Trump continues his process of abandoning Puerto Rico.

Trump displays a shocking ignorance on, of all things, money.
_________________
"Now that we've determined that up to π angels can dance on the head of a pin, how do we determine the specific number (or fraction) of angels dancing?"
"What if angels from another pin engage them in melee combat?"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Voss
Prince


Joined: 07 Mar 2008
Posts: 3814

PostPosted: Thu Oct 12, 2017 5:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

The money thing is not at all shocking. There has been too little press on how much incompetent buffoonery goes on under the Trump name, business-wise.

The pothole article next to those is more interesting- he's been gibbering about partnerships for infrastructure work, but only now realizes they wouldn't work. The states don't have the money so this is just going to continue as is.

Harrisburg is pretty much the perfect place to talk about potholes though. The roads in PA are dogshit. I drove up 15 (the main N/S highway through the center of the state) to New York a while back, and the potholes were so prevalent and so old, there was literal grass growing in the lanes of the highway.


Last edited by Voss on Thu Oct 12, 2017 8:42 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
RobbyPants
Prince


Joined: 06 Aug 2008
Posts: 4473

PostPosted: Thu Oct 12, 2017 6:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

Trump signed an EO to lessen ACA regulations. The likely effect will be for lower cost alternatives to draw healthy customers away, driving up the cost on the sick.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
DSMatticus
Prince


Joined: 14 Apr 2011
Posts: 4944

PostPosted: Thu Oct 12, 2017 9:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

I still do not understand the legal basis for this EO. It appears to be "I am refusing to enforce this congressionally passed law. Come at me." This is going to go to court. What the hell does the legal argument look like?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
EightWave
NPC


Joined: 23 Sep 2017
Posts: 20

PostPosted: Thu Oct 12, 2017 9:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

Voss wrote:
The money thing is not at all shocking. There has been too little press on how much incompetent buffoonery goes on under the Trump name, business-wise.
There's been plenty of coverage of just how terrible Trump is at business and how unethical and terrible his business practices are. But no matter how bad he is at business he's really good at walking into deals, screwing them up, and walking out with gold-plated toilet money (you know, theft). And in the words of the 61 year old Republican I talked to right before the election that makes him "Smarter than Obama"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Voss
Prince


Joined: 07 Mar 2008
Posts: 3814

PostPosted: Thu Oct 12, 2017 10:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

EightWave wrote:
Voss wrote:
The money thing is not at all shocking. There has been too little press on how much incompetent buffoonery goes on under the Trump name, business-wise.
There's been plenty of coverage of just how terrible Trump is at business and how unethical and terrible his business practices are. But no matter how bad he is at business he's really good at walking into deals, screwing them up, and walking out with gold-plated toilet money (you know, theft). And in the words of the 61 year old Republican I talked to right before the election that makes him "Smarter than Obama"


I honestly disagree. Maybe on left leaning websites only read by left leaning people, but the national news (the stuff right and centrists watch and get the sum total of their news from) largely failed to talk about it during the campaign, when it mattered.

They just reported what he said, and didn't do any digging, analysis or fact checking. Despite his private war on 'fake news,' the national media refusing to just shove him in a box and label him the liar and criminal that he actually is basically won him the election. Instead they kept him front and center of their entire campaign for their own ratings.

The appropriate way to have handled him was a 1 minute segment once a week titled 'Stupid Things the Liar Said' followed by a list of times he said the exact opposite or when his statements were directly contradicted by objective reality.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
phlapjackage
Knight


Joined: 24 May 2012
Posts: 313

PostPosted: Fri Oct 13, 2017 1:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

Basically this, but before the election Sad

https://www.reddit.com/r/TrumpCriticizesTrump/
_________________
Koumei: and if I wanted that, I'd take some mescaline and run into the park after watching a documentary about wasps.
PhoneLobster: DM : Mr Monkey doesn't like it. Eldritch : Mr Monkey can do what he is god damn told.
Chamomile: Deaddmwalking... was a holy warrior dedicated not to a specific cause, but to doing battle with a single foe. With his nemesis forever banished from our shores, he goes off to become a normal denner who puts irritating people on ignore rather than endlessly engage them.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dimmy
1st Level


Joined: 16 Sep 2017
Posts: 26

PostPosted: Fri Oct 13, 2017 9:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

DSMatticus wrote:
I still do not understand the legal basis for this EO. It appears to be "I am refusing to enforce this congressionally passed law. Come at me." This is going to go to court. What the hell does the legal argument look like?


It looks exactly like Andrew Jackson's reply to the Supreme Court, just before he did his whole Trail of Tears thing. "The Chief Justice has made his decision -- now let him enforce it!" I think you've gravely overestimated the respect this administration has for good governance and due process of law.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
EightWave
NPC


Joined: 23 Sep 2017
Posts: 20

PostPosted: Fri Oct 13, 2017 11:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

Voss wrote:
EightWave wrote:
Voss wrote:
The money thing is not at all shocking. There has been too little press on how much incompetent buffoonery goes on under the Trump name, business-wise.
There's been plenty of coverage of just how terrible Trump is at business and how unethical and terrible his business practices are. But no matter how bad he is at business he's really good at walking into deals, screwing them up, and walking out with gold-plated toilet money (you know, theft). And in the words of the 61 year old Republican I talked to right before the election that makes him "Smarter than Obama"


I honestly disagree. Maybe on left leaning websites only read by left leaning people, but the national news (the stuff right and centrists watch and get the sum total of their news from) largely failed to talk about it during the campaign, when it mattered.

They just reported what he said, and didn't do any digging, analysis or fact checking. Despite his private war on 'fake news,' the national media refusing to just shove him in a box and label him the liar and criminal that he actually is basically won him the election. Instead they kept him front and center of their entire campaign for their own ratings.

The appropriate way to have handled him was a 1 minute segment once a week titled 'Stupid Things the Liar Said' followed by a list of times he said the exact opposite or when his statements were directly contradicted by objective reality.
Put that way I agree 100%. There also was no "Man who shits on gold-plated toilet and bankrupted contractors by stealing from them claims to be job creator with insights into mid of common worker."

It just proves those sites would be willing to support a man who shot their dog and burned down their house as long as he also promised to cut taxes and shit on minorities.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Whipstitch
Prince


Joined: 29 Apr 2011
Posts: 2963

PostPosted: Sat Oct 14, 2017 11:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

Too many people I know don't seem to get the difference between promoting cheap low risk, low coverage insurance pools and making actual healthcare services more affordable. I doubt they'll figure it out in time to prevent the Libertarian types from creating a world where instead of going to a real doctor we just go give Lucy a nickel and hope for the best.
_________________
bears fall, everyone dies
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
DSMatticus
Prince


Joined: 14 Apr 2011
Posts: 4944

PostPosted: Sun Oct 15, 2017 12:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

Most people do not understand the healthcare debate or why Obamacare works the way it does. They want two things; 1) not to have to pay a monthly health insurance bill, because it's fucking expensive, and 2) not to have to pay hospital bills when they get sick, because it's fucking expensive.

The literal actual fucking impossibility of that does not really register. The best solution, of course, is medicaid for all and then just hide it in the goddamn taxes. It does a much better job of restribiting from the haves to the have-nots, and the idiots who can't be assed to understand anything also can't be assed to understand which taxes go where in the first place and will never really notice.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
deaddmwalking
Duke


Joined: 21 May 2012
Posts: 1625

PostPosted: Sun Oct 15, 2017 2:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

A lot of cost is built in to for-profit healthcare. Doctors are losing. Patients are losing. Insurance companies and lawyers are winning.

If you paid the same price without insurance as your insurance company does, a lot of issues would go away. Personally, I think single-payer is the way to go and simultaneous attack costs.

The hardest part is that, as a society, we have to decide what care is covered and what happens if it is not.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Maj
Prince


Joined: 07 Mar 2008
Posts: 4265
Location: Shelton, Washington, USA

PostPosted: Sun Oct 15, 2017 5:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

deaddmwalking wrote:
The hardest part is that, as a society, we have to decide what care is covered and what happens if it is not.


Insurance companies already do that. And without the moral imperative to keep people alive.
_________________
My son makes me laugh. Maybe he'll make you laugh, too. Oh, hey! There's now a Minecraft Edition of GODzookery!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
FrankTrollman
Serious Badass


Joined: 07 Mar 2008
Posts: 27155

PostPosted: Sun Oct 15, 2017 5:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

Certainly one problem with having the government pay for all the healthcare is that it turns personal and technical questions into political questions. In Northern Ireland, for example, anyone who wants or needs an abortion has to travel to the mainland because the local government won't let money get spent on gynacology issues they find icky and the national parliament lacks the political will to overrule them on this issue.

None of the people involved in the decision making process of whether a woman is allowed an abortion in Northern Ireland are in any way qualified to make that decision. But that isn't stopping them because it's a political question and the electorate of Northern Ireland is frankly pretty horrible.

Northern Ireland is a tiny backwater, and the abortion issue has an unsatisfying but mostly functional workaround that only kills a woman here and there who needs treatment faster than transport to Glasgow can be arranged. The United States on the other hand has very large backwaters, and a similar political compromise would end up killing a lot more people there. Northern Ireland has 1.8 million people in it, less than the San Antonio metropolitan area. And the car ride from Belfast to Glasgow is about 5 hours including the ferry ride (140 miles). The trip from San Antonio to Denver is over nine hundred miles!

Single Payer or outright government owned national health services are much much more efficient than private insurance models. That's not even an arguable point. The amount of healthcare they output for the amount of dollars you input is just more. But the United States has a specific problem of having a broken political system where large chunks of the country are operated by a political movement that is expressly opposed to people getting access to healthcare. Putting the political process in charge of who gets healthcare is just not an option for tens of millions of people in the United States. And it won't be until the political system is massively overhauled.

If you're in a two party system like the one in the United States, you can't have a government takeover of the healthcare industry unless both political parties at least agree that universal healthcare is a shared goal. The United States does not have that at this time. We couldn't even get Obamacare to be fully implemented, because Red States showed they were willing to turn down free money as long as it also meant that some poor people would have to go without life saving medical treatment.

-Frank
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Voss
Prince


Joined: 07 Mar 2008
Posts: 3814

PostPosted: Sun Oct 15, 2017 5:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

DSMatticus wrote:

The literal actual fucking impossibility of that does not really register. The best solution, of course, is medicaid for all and then just hide it in the goddamn taxes. It does a much better job of restribiting from the haves to the have-nots, and the idiots who can't be assed to understand anything also can't be assed to understand which taxes go where in the first place and will never really notice.

They don't really need to understand or notice themselves.

The American conservative class is very well entrenched in the notion that ANY money that might help <poor><black><women><minorities> is wrong and aimed at taking money from their pockets.

So any attempt at the kind of thing you're talking about will be noticed on a political level and used to incite the republican base against whatever specific plan that might theoretically happen. And with the voting situation as it is, and the general attitudes of the country as they are... yeah, this isn't a thing that will happen any time soon.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
DSMatticus
Prince


Joined: 14 Apr 2011
Posts: 4944

PostPosted: Sun Oct 15, 2017 8:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

The Republican propaganda platform is going do the exact thing you describe regardless of reality. You are completely powerless to stop conservative media from screaming about every fucking thing that Democrats ever do that Republicans would prefer instead gave more money to billionaires. You're thinking that there's some kind of rhyme or reason or proportionality or just any semblance of basis for what does and doesn't rally the base, and you are largely wrong. Fox News says bark, and people bark. That is as deep as it goes. It's death panels and emails all the way down.

Obamacare was always going to be a big ol' political L, because a bunch of middle-class white people weren't having problems so "fuck you I got mine stop I don't like change", and poor white people are passionately conservative, and poor black people are already passionately democratic. There was no constituency who actually wanted Obamacare that Democrats needed to win over by passing Obamacare. It was just a policy goal that needed to be achieved because our healthcare system was rocketing towards collapse and people were dying. What's the point of political capital if you don't spend it on policy wins (or, if you're Republican, enriching yourself and your friends)?

If anything, changing the form of Obamacare to one that doesn't involve tens of millions of individuals receiving monthly insurance bills would have helped turn a lot of that bite into bark, because while people are perfectly willing to nod along to their conservative propaganda they are a shitton more motivated to do more than bitch when the results tangibly show up in their mailbox. Obviously, actually doing that would have been fucking impossible at the time. I'm not saying Obamacare was a mistake. It was what it could be, and the problem it solved was an ongoing disaster waiting to be upgraded to cataclysm. Though I suppose at this point with the 2010 redistricting, Trump in the White House, Scalia but younger, Obamacare being sabotaged, and members of Trump's own cabinet worrying amongst one another what to do if Trump decides he wants to spontaneously start a nuclear war, "maybe we should have just let some people die of completely preventable illnesses" becomes a pretty valid utilitarian what-if. But hindsight is always 20/20.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lago PARANOIA
Invincible Overlord


Joined: 25 Sep 2008
Posts: 10159

PostPosted: Sun Oct 15, 2017 8:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

DSMatticus wrote:
Though I suppose at this point with the 2010 redistricting, Trump in the White House, Scalia but younger, Obamacare being sabotaged, and members of Trump's own cabinet worrying amongst one another what to do if Trump decides he wants to spontaneously start a nuclear war, "maybe we should have just let some people die of completely preventable illnesses" becomes a pretty valid utilitarian what-if. But hindsight is always 20/20.
Eh. Don't get me wrong, I was also one of those people who thought that the ACA was a good thing at the time. But it's clear in hindsight that the Democrats should've been using that time to consolidate their power rather than trying to achieve policy victories.

If the Democrats had spent their political capital on a decent stimulus, immigration reform, voting reform, and undoing as much of the carceral state as they could (especially, but not solely, WRT voting) the Democrats would've had enough of a bulge to take over the House in 2012, being only about 2% in the popular vote off, and not have lost the Senate in 2014.

I know, I know. Hindsight. But it's something to think about going forward, and it's also why I think that a Hillary Clinton Presidency would've ended up with Tom Cotton shoving a rewritten copy of the Constitution up her ass with the 4th, 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments crossed out.
_________________
Josh Kablack wrote:
Your freedom to make rulings up on the fly is in direct conflict with my freedom to interact with an internally consistent narrative. Your freedom to run/play a game without needing to understand a complex rule system is in direct conflict with my freedom to play a character whose abilities and flaws function as I intended within that ruleset. Your freedom to add and change rules in the middle of the game is in direct conflict with my ability to understand that rules system before I decided whether or not to join your game.

In short, your entire post is dismissive of not merely my intelligence, but my agency. And I don't mean agency as a player within one of your games, I mean my agency as a person. You do not want me to be informed when I make the fundamental decisions of deciding whether to join your game or buying your rules system.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Wiseman
Duke


Joined: 09 Mar 2012
Posts: 1150
Location: lost... HELP!

PostPosted: Sun Oct 15, 2017 10:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

DSMatticus wrote:
I still do not understand the legal basis for this EO. It appears to be "I am refusing to enforce this congressionally passed law. Come at me." This is going to go to court. What the hell does the legal argument look like?



_________________
Check out my RP site!

Click here to see the hidden message (It might contain spoilers)


Last edited by Wiseman on Sun Oct 15, 2017 10:08 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Voss
Prince


Joined: 07 Mar 2008
Posts: 3814

PostPosted: Sun Oct 15, 2017 10:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

DSMatticus wrote:
The Republican propaganda platform is going do the exact thing you describe regardless of reality. You are completely powerless to stop conservative media from screaming about every fucking thing that Democrats ever do that Republicans would prefer instead gave more money to billionaires. You're thinking that there's some kind of rhyme or reason or proportionality or just any semblance of basis for what does and doesn't rally the base, and you are largely wrong.

Actually, no. I just thought with the 'hide medicare in taxes' you were actually proposing something, not just grousing.

The things Fox and conservatives will bark about are quite predictable.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kaelik
ArchDemon of Rage


Joined: 07 Mar 2008
Posts: 12085

PostPosted: Sun Oct 15, 2017 10:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

DSMatticus wrote:
Though I suppose at this point with the 2010 redistricting, Trump in the White House, Scalia but younger, Obamacare being sabotaged, and members of Trump's own cabinet worrying amongst one another what to do if Trump decides he wants to spontaneously start a nuclear war, "maybe we should have just let some people die of completely preventable illnesses" becomes a pretty valid utilitarian what-if. But hindsight is always 20/20.


It wouldn't have changed anything. 2010 was 100% about the fact that we were at the peak unemployment of Bush's recession and people have no ability to chain together cause and effect and 0% anything else.

Lago PARANOIA wrote:
the Democrats would've had enough of a bulge to take over the House in 2012, being only about 2% in the popular vote off


What completely delusional fantasyland are you coming from? The dems had more votes in 2012, there is no metric by which they were 2% off the popular vote from taking the house, because 2012 was the first election on the maps the republicans just drew, the ones still in operation now, but even m ore calibrated because time hadn't changed some small things yet.

Right now, the dems winning 55% of the votes is not enough to get the House. So 2% more than 49 up to 51 and the republican going down from 47 to 45 would result in:

Republicans winning the house.

Because America isn't a democracy, and hasn't been since 2011, to the extent it ever was before.
_________________
"DSMatticus" wrote:
Kaelik gonna kaelik. Whatcha gonna do?
That's libertarians for you - anarchists who want police protection from their slaves.
Click here to see the hidden message (It might contain spoilers)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Lago PARANOIA
Invincible Overlord


Joined: 25 Sep 2008
Posts: 10159

PostPosted: Mon Oct 16, 2017 12:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

Quote:
Right now, the dems winning 55% of the votes is not enough to get the House. So 2% more than 49 up to 51 and the republican going down from 47 to 45 would result in:
What? Where are you getting THAT figure?

Here's where I'm getting mine:
http://election.princeton.edu/2013/01/30/gerrymandering-notes-how-many-votes-to-take-house-1992-2012/
http://election.princeton.edu/2013/10/17/house-2014-election-analysis-errors-not-mine-i-think/

The first link is more relevant to 2012. Sam Wang, whose reputation got tarnished in 2016, but was spot-on for 2008/2012/2014, ran those numbers. The second was prospective for 2014, which hilariously didn't pan out.

Obama was reasonably close in 2012 to hitting the magic 53-54.5% range to break the gerrymander. Indeed, the only group he lost a significant amount of support with going from 2008 to 2012, both in turnout and absolute vote-%, were with millenials, especially black male millenials and whites. It was really quite possible for Dems to break the gerrymander in 2012.
_________________
Josh Kablack wrote:
Your freedom to make rulings up on the fly is in direct conflict with my freedom to interact with an internally consistent narrative. Your freedom to run/play a game without needing to understand a complex rule system is in direct conflict with my freedom to play a character whose abilities and flaws function as I intended within that ruleset. Your freedom to add and change rules in the middle of the game is in direct conflict with my ability to understand that rules system before I decided whether or not to join your game.

In short, your entire post is dismissive of not merely my intelligence, but my agency. And I don't mean agency as a player within one of your games, I mean my agency as a person. You do not want me to be informed when I make the fundamental decisions of deciding whether to join your game or buying your rules system.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kaelik
ArchDemon of Rage


Joined: 07 Mar 2008
Posts: 12085

PostPosted: Mon Oct 16, 2017 2:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

Lago PARANOIA wrote:
Obama was reasonably close in 2012 to hitting the magic 53-54.5% range to break the gerrymander. Indeed, the only group he lost a significant amount of support with going from 2008 to 2012, both in turnout and absolute vote-%, were with millenials, especially black male millenials and whites. It was really quite possible for Dems to break the gerrymander in 2012.


Obama's votes don't matter. The House was, if 54 was the right number to win, 5% off. And that's if it was, which since current projections all have 54% as not breaking the gerrymander, means I'm not inclined to trust someone's attempt back when no one thought 54% was a thing that any party could ever achieve.

https://decisiondeskhq.com/data-dives/ddhq-2018-house-midterm-forecast/
_________________
"DSMatticus" wrote:
Kaelik gonna kaelik. Whatcha gonna do?
That's libertarians for you - anarchists who want police protection from their slaves.
Click here to see the hidden message (It might contain spoilers)


Last edited by Kaelik on Mon Oct 16, 2017 2:05 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Lago PARANOIA
Invincible Overlord


Joined: 25 Sep 2008
Posts: 10159

PostPosted: Mon Oct 16, 2017 12:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

Kaelik wrote:
And that's if it was, which since current projections all have 54% as not breaking the gerrymander, means I'm not inclined to trust someone's attempt back when no one thought 54% was a thing that any party could ever achieve.
The trick is, IMO, the multiple pathways to 54-55% not being evenly distributed. Indeed, just take a look at 2016: Clinton ran up respectable margins on Trump to the tune of 4 million votes and still only got 48% of the vote.

Obama racking up his margins in 2012 by another 3% wasn't worth much if they're evenly distributed across the country. That would only flip a handful of House seats. The trick is that the magic number of 24 seats resided in a combination of <3% vote Republican victory margins across the country and in 'safe' states like New York, New Jersey, and California that had a Republican victory of <10%. Jacking up Obama's 2012 margins nationally by 7% was pretty much impossible no matter what they did in 2008, but jacking up the margins in Michigan by 7% would've quite doable IMO, had the Democrats used their two-year (or two-month) margin more wisely.

https://ballotpedia.org/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections,_2012

This is incidentally why I don't give Clinton much shit for driving up her margins in California, despite that apparently being a sign of her ignoring swing states. Regardless of how I feel about Clinton personally, I think it was an absolutely sound and smart strategy. Especially because I was positive that Trump was going down in flames after the 'grab them by the p*ssy' tape came out.
_________________
Josh Kablack wrote:
Your freedom to make rulings up on the fly is in direct conflict with my freedom to interact with an internally consistent narrative. Your freedom to run/play a game without needing to understand a complex rule system is in direct conflict with my freedom to play a character whose abilities and flaws function as I intended within that ruleset. Your freedom to add and change rules in the middle of the game is in direct conflict with my ability to understand that rules system before I decided whether or not to join your game.

In short, your entire post is dismissive of not merely my intelligence, but my agency. And I don't mean agency as a player within one of your games, I mean my agency as a person. You do not want me to be informed when I make the fundamental decisions of deciding whether to join your game or buying your rules system.


Last edited by Lago PARANOIA on Mon Oct 16, 2017 12:22 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Gaming Den Forum Index -> MPSIMS All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 43, 44, 45 ... 49, 50, 51  Next
Page 44 of 51

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group