Jump to content

The Braves Battle to the NLCS Thread


Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Serge said:

I meant it when I said I will never vote for another liberal if Trump wins in 2024. That won't be because I blame Biden for Trump. It's that I blame the whole system for making Trump inevitable. I mean holy ****, we haven't even gotten to the part where liberal and leftist media commentators collectively **** their pants and start eating each other's faces because the 1/6 commission didn't make all their dreams come true.

If the only made Russian Collusion or the call come true, amirite? 

Tell you what, maybe the red wave in 22' can make that dream come true for Bidet and deservedly so 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Leon Troutsky said:

Just a note that now Republicans want to oust Cheney and Kinzinger from the GOP caucus while simultaneously defending and even promoting members who have launched death threats and called for the execution of Democrats (MTG, Boebert) or openly advocated for violent insurrection (Madison Cawthorn).  

Well, if Democrats aren't going to pay for everyone's student debt, this is what you get.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Leon Troutsky said:

You are, actually.  You want to trivialize thousands upon thousands of individual studies based on scientific evidence as “dumb garbage for babies” and “very narrow realm of evidence”.  And you want to substitute that mountain of evidence with leftwing twitter narratives and hot takes on a football message board.

You’re literally the leftwing version of climate change deniers.  

i have no problem with the studies, i take issue with your specific interpretation and conclusions based upon those studies, and the arguments you make about political strategy using those studies as a foundation. i do think that's dumb garbage for babies. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Downvote Don said:

Well, if Democrats aren't going to pay for everyone's student debt, this is what you get.

It's not necessarily a bad thing for the left if the Republicans want to give a platform to their biggest lunatics under the logic that "it worked for Trump."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, achilles return said:

genuinely, yes

so you should probably reconsider the student debt part. 

If I don't get exactly what I want, even though a huge percentage of people don't want it, I'm going to completely blow up everything.

Political Jihadism.  

Mazel Tov.

Edit . . . actually it isn't Jihadism.  I think Jihadism is when you value your cause so much you are willing to die to achieve it.  When you blow things up even when it doesn't help you get what you want you are a terrorist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Leon Troutsky said:

Show me the evidence.  Otherwise, you’re just blowing smoke and touting fact-free narratives.

On 7/15/2021 at 7:15 AM, Leon Troutsky said:

The Nazi reference aside, though, I do wish more people would realize just how dangerous Trump and his lies have been.  The fact that we had a serious attempt by Trump and his supporters in the GOP to overturn an election and install him as an authoritarian ruler and the entire country isn’t in a “holy s*** that can never happen again” mentality is shocking.  Too many people are just shrugging the whole thing off and acting like it’s just normal politics instead of recognizing that we’re facing a very serious threat from authoritarianism, as @Southern California Liar said.  

trout, meet trout. let me know how you square this circle and get back to me

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Downvote Don said:

If I don't get exactly what I want, even though a huge percentage of people don't want it, I'm going to completely blow up everything.

Political Jihadism.  

Mazel Tov.

Edit . . . actually it isn't Jihadism.  I think Jihadism is when you value your cause so much you are willing to die to achieve it.  When you blow things up even when it doesn't help you get what you want you are a terrorist.

it's almost like a lot of people feel like they have nothing to lose, maybe you should consider giving into their material concerns? or just keep moralizing at them while you lose elections, that's cool too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, achilles return said:

i have no problem with the studies, i take issue with your specific interpretation and conclusions based upon those studies, and the arguments you make about political strategy using those studies as a foundation. i do think that's dumb garbage for babies. 

Except you do and this isn’t the first time (nor even the second or third) that you’ve dismissed the mountain of studies and evidence about what determines election outcomes.

This is the post you responded to, dismissing it as a “narrative” by “liberals”.

5 hours ago, Leon Troutsky said:

So Joe Biden was a good candidate who drew all of those people back to the party in 2020?  I’m not sure the people you’re defending in this thread are going to buy into that.

Fact is that 2016 was always going to be a close election and a tough year for Democrats.  That had nothing to do with Clinton or Trump or anyone else.  It’s a natural swing after one party has held the White House for eight years.  Democrats didn’t “drive people away” so much as people just got tired of Democrats governing and many independents shifted to the Republican.  

And even then, Clinton still won the popular vote.  We have to remember that and not get caught up in these narratives about the voters that just are not supported by the facts.

The bolded part comes directly from research by Alan Abramowitz from Emory University who first proposed the “time-for-change” model over three decades ago.  It’s based on several other prominent studies about how swing voters naturally shift to the opposing party after several years of the other party being in power.  When I talk about how 2016 was a “natural swing after one party has held the White House for eight years”, it’s not a “narrative”.  It’s not an “interpretation”.  It’s the natural conclusion from Abramowitz’s decades of research along with tons of other studies by other political scientists and academics.  It’s also one of the most well-documented phenomenon in politics, not just in terms of presidential elections but also in terms of policy attitudes.  For the latter, you can refer to James Stimson’s famous work (also supported by studies for decades now) about the public mood and how it shifts away from the party in power over time.  

But yeah, “dumb garbage for babies” straight from decades of high-level scientific studies from two very prominent political scientists.  :lol: 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, achilles return said:

she lost to donald j trump

What happened to you?  Seriously.  This is such weak sauce s*** and you used to be much more thoughtful.

By your “logic”, Bernie was an awful garbage candidate because he lost to Hillary.  Somehow, I doubt you’re willing to apply your own “logic” that way, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, achilles return said:

it's almost like a lot of people feel like they have nothing to lose, maybe you should consider giving into their material concerns? or just keep moralizing at them while you lose elections, that's cool too.

I don’t think that taunt carries much weight after 2020.  But you do you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, achilles return said:

it's almost like a lot of people feel like they have nothing to lose, maybe you should consider giving into their material concerns? or just keep moralizing at them while you lose elections, that's cool too.

Hmmmm. . . . I make $100k straight out of college.  I have a choice:  I could live in a Democracy and have to pay back money I borrowed knowing I would have to pay it back.  OR, I could live under fascism and have to pay back money I borrowed knowing I have to pay it back.

Dems:  Hey . . . you know we've got some ideas that will help folks who are really buried get out from under, we hear . . . 

Bomb detonates.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Downvote Don said:

Hmmmm. . . . I make $100k straight out of college.  I have a choice:  I could live in a Democracy and have to pay back money I borrowed knowing I would have to pay it back.  OR, I could live under fascism and have to pay back money I borrowed knowing I have to pay it back.

Dems:  Hey . . . you know we've got some ideas that will help folks who are really buried get out from under, we hear . . . 

Bomb detonates.

You're eating the cake that Leon still has 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Leon Troutsky said:

But don’t call them purists!!!

'purism' as a pejorative in this context is hokey liberal ******** because it implies that the democratic party is merely failing to meet some unrealistic ideal, but it's not us that's being irrationally idealistic. we know and recognize the democrats for what they are - a bourgeois party that exists to defend the rights and wishes of the capitalist class - they're already the purest form of themselves that could reasonably exist, and it's only by sabotage and threats that they will ever consider a genuinely left agenda - in most cases they'd rather do nothing or lose. 

the left has to recognize that the democratic party is not our friend, and that any political alliance is one purely of convenience. you are a political vehicle by which we achieve socialism, nothing more. and if you are not helping us do that, then we have nothing to talk about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My completely unresearched take is that there are probably just as many or more registered democrats who vote Republican due to purity over issues like taxes then there are leftists who don’t vote for Democrats due to purity concerns

Somehow centrists and right leaning Democrats never get confronted with purity attacks when they refuse to even consider supporting more leftist  proposals

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Leon Troutsky said:

Except you do and this isn’t the first time (nor even the second or third) that you’ve dismissed the mountain of studies and evidence about what determines election outcomes.

This is the post you responded to, dismissing it as a “narrative” by “liberals”.

The bolded part comes directly from research by Alan Abramowitz from Emory University who first proposed the “time-for-change” model over three decades ago.  It’s based on several other prominent studies about how swing voters naturally shift to the opposing party after several years of the other party being in power.  When I talk about how 2016 was a “natural swing after one party has held the White House for eight years”, it’s not a “narrative”.  It’s not an “interpretation”.  It’s the natural conclusion from Abramowitz’s decades of research along with tons of other studies by other political scientists and academics.  It’s also one of the most well-documented phenomenon in politics, not just in terms of presidential elections but also in terms of policy attitudes.  For the latter, you can refer to James Stimson’s famous work (also supported by studies for decades now) about the public mood and how it shifts away from the party in power over time.  

But yeah, “dumb garbage for babies” straight from decades of high-level scientific studies from two very prominent political scientists.  :lol: 

i don't really know how to explain this any more candidly than i have in the past. i do not believe there is anything "natural" or special about the american political system as it has existed in years following the dissolution of the fifth party system. has there been predictive statistical analysis in the realm of political science over the last half century? of course there has. i have no reason to doubt the mentioned models and i do not doubt them - i merely express skepticism for their predictive value in the coming years as several long-term political issues in the american system of government comes to a head. i also express a lot of skepticism for their value in creating political strategy because i think it's largely begging the question and self-defeating. it's very easy for a complacent party that needs to be pushed to do anything for the public good to sit on their laurels and go "ah well, there was nothing to be done anyways! we were always in for a tough one!".

my point has always been that the reliance on these studies to guide or constrain party strategy about what's possible is deeply misguided and extremely harmful to the public, because it leads to greater and greater disillusionment. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Mr. Hoopah! changed the title to The Braves Battle to the NLCS Thread

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...