Deep-Level Post Election Analysis and Myth Addressing by yours truly

Thing1 said:
You said the same thing by agreeing w/ Grind.
Click to expand...

Only in your fevered imagination, little Thingy. What I said was "Exactly".

Thing1 said:
I realize you're in a total panic right now because you realize your conclusion was wrong, but it is what it is.
Click to expand...

What you feel it is ... isn't, little Thingy.

Thing1 said:
I'm also looking forward to Grind's tapdancing response to this.
Click to expand...

Poor little Thingy.
 
Stretch said:
Jones ... barely won over an accused pedophile doesn't say much for Jones. er.
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't say much for Trumptard Republicans in Alabama. A person with Einstein's brain and General Patton's leadership ability couldn't beat a death row serial child killer in Alabama but by a whisker if he had a (D) by his/her name.
Your party has NO morals. Doesn't need any.
 
Micawber said:
No, it doesn't say much for Trumptard Republicans in Alabama. A person with Einstein's brain and General Patton's leadership ability couldn't beat a death row serial child killer in Alabama but by a whisker if he had a (D) by his/her name.
Your party has NO morals. Doesn't need any.
Click to expand...
Oh that’s not true. Republicans have values. Democrats values are they are embarrassed by all they have earned where as Republicans are proud of everything they have stolen.
 
Thing1 said:
Sorry - I didn't realize you were logically challenged.

Where did I say that polls aren't accurate? All I said was that they are just part of the picture of what happened yesterday. I believe the exit polls you cite - but you conclude that they show that there is nothing to read into for anti-Trump sentiment or enthusiasm.

Those facts can be found in the turnout #'s.

Man, how stupid is that? I thought you were all intellectually superior & all that? What an idiotic thing for you to say.
Click to expand...
That is also not true. It could be they just didn't want the pedophile in. 25% turnout is hardly a sign of a massive turnout. While it is certainly good for a special election, this particular election had massive amounts of coverage. Both the assault charges and the amount of coverage by the media could be the actual drivers of the turnout.

Not saying you are wrong about there being a potential wave coming, but it most certainly is not a 'fact' either.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Oh that’s not true. Republicans have values. Democrats values are they are embarrassed by all they have earned where as Republicans are proud of everything they have stolen.
Click to expand...

The stupidity of your post is astounding. Democrats by and large want to be the takers, not the earners. Constantly harping on taking more from those that have been successful to give to those that haven't been.
 
Superfreak said:
That is also not true. It could be they just didn't want the pedophile in. 25% turnout is hardly a sign of a massive turnout. While it is certainly good for a special election, this particular election had massive amounts of coverage. Both the assault charges and the amount of coverage by the media could be the actual drivers of the turnout.

Not saying you are wrong about there being a potential wave coming, but it most certainly is not a 'fact' either.
Click to expand...


Knowing what you are talking about has never been your thing but I'll put what actually happened out there for any honest people that may come along. http://whnt.com/2017/12/12/alabama-...ctations-reaching-well-over-1-million-voters/
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Oh that’s not true. Republicans have values. Democrats values are they are embarrassed by all they have earned where as Republicans are proud of everything they have stolen.
Click to expand...

Exception taken, moreover they respect the principle of honor among theives. They don't roll on their own kind easily.
 
Superfreak said:
The stupidity of your post is astounding. Democrats by and large want to be the takers, not the earners. Constantly harping on taking more from those that have been successful to give to those that haven't been.
Click to expand...

Not true, Democrats want us all to build a society where we all do something to take care of the economic losers, on a sliding scale sort of basis. And we don't trust private impulses to take the oars.
If we use taxes to do it, we know it gets done. You appear to be in denial that in our system that generates such great wealth most of it goes to the few, and little to the rest. That's baked in just
like in a casino, not just some one off stochastic weirdness. If I have to live in your casino world, jackpot winners are gonna pay most of the overhead.
 
Superfreak said:
The stupidity of your post is astounding. Democrats by and large want to be the takers, not the earners. Constantly harping on taking more from those that have been successful to give to those that haven't been.
Click to expand...

Honestly, it's one of the main reasons I don't consider myself a Democrat. I don't like the general attitude of the party when it comes to taxes - there is a cavalier disposition about raising them if we ever need to pay anything, and never a real commitment to addressing spending and finding other ways to increase efficiencies. I think Clinton was a lone exception to that in the '90's, and had to go that way to work w/ Congress.

On the other hand, and this is a much deeper discussion, there IS a tremendous problem with the constantly growing gap between the haves and have nots. As the haves accumulate more political power (they basically run DC at this point), more policies favor them & create an even more uneven playing field. The tax plan right now is a perfect example of that. Sure, everyone gets a tax cut - but it's really smoke & mirrors for the lower classes. Something that the haves are trying to fool them with - "hey, look - your taxes are getting cut too!"

But it will further increase the gap - of that there is no doubt. I don't believe in wealth redistribution, but I also see the growth of that gap as unsustainable and something that has to be addressed in some way. I don't have the answers on it, though.
 
Micawber said:
Not true, Democrats want us all to build a society where we all do something to take care of the economic losers, on a sliding scale sort of basis. And we don't trust private impulses to take the oars.
If we use taxes to do it, we know it gets done. You appear to be in denial that in our system that generates such great wealth most of it goes to the few, and little to the rest. That's baked in just
like in a casino, not just some one off stochastic weirdness. If I have to live in your casino world, jackpot winners are gonna pay most of the overhead.
Click to expand...

Thanks for proving my point.
 
katzgar said:
Knowing what you are talking about has never been your thing but I'll put what actually happened out there for any honest people that may come along. http://whnt.com/2017/12/12/alabama-...ctations-reaching-well-over-1-million-voters/
Click to expand...
Interesting....the wonks were speculating during the election day. For some reason, they thought there was a sweet spot for Jones. Low turnout would hurt him....700,000 range. Very high turnout was supposed to bad as well, because it supposedly meant that republican voters would be motivated. They seemed to think that somewhere around 1,000,000 was the perfect number, with much over 1.2 million being bad.

Of course, most of them just talk to avoid dead air during a broadcast.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top