Jump to content

BradInATX

Certifiably Surly
  • Posts

    8514
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    6

Posts posted by BradInATX

  1. Barack Obama took the Heritage Foundation's universal healthcare idea and the Republicans have spent the last decade calling it Communism. Anyone who thinks that the Dems going centrist will in any way dull the edge of Republican hysteria is an idiot who will never learn anything. 

     

      

    Obama won twice. Who's the idiot? I don't really care about reparations but it's a dumb ass thing to focus on. So is the green new deal. Congrats, you'll run up the votes in California for a whopping zero additional electoral votes, and you'll turn off voters where it matters.

     

     

    It's absolutely astonishing how quickly some have already forgotten the lessons from 2016.

     

     

     

     

     

     

  2. 1 hour ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

    How about just pretend Trump doesn’t exist and nominate the person that would make the best president? 

    Trump being on the ballot in 2020 is about 50/50 by my armchair estimates.

    Because that's not reality and it's the path to four more years. Lots of Democrats seem to think that victory is imminent and Trump is a dead man walking, affording them the luxury to pick a liberal dream candidate who will jam every vanity project possible into their platform (see: Green New Deal, which nobody in the Rust Belt gives a shit about). 

    However that's not the case at all. Trump is currently 2:1 or better on the prop/betting sites. That's around the same odds that 538 gave him on election night 2016, and we all know what happened there. There was a poll posted recently, I think by you actually, showing that except for Biden, Trump was within 5-6 points of all of the real contenders. That 5-6 points is the same polling margin that Hillary had for basically all of 2016, and again, we all know what happened. There's absolutely some tangible percentage of people who will not tell a pollster that they're voting Trump, but will vote for him. And the GOP spin machine hasn't even begun to paint those candidates with their Muslim baby killing gun stealing propaganda, whereas Trump is a known quantity. So when I see those numbers, I assume the only direction they'll go on election day is towards Trump.

    It's really, really stupid to assume that the Democrats have this in the bag because of 2018 (or whatever reason you fancy). We aren't there. And Hugo, despite our disagreements, I like you and am not calling you stupid personally, but it's absolutely folly to assume that the win is in the bag. It's like Democrats have already forgotten 2016. It's mind-bottling.

    There is a really, really legitimate chance that Trump wins again. 2020 needs to be approached with that in mind. This is not the time for vanity.

    • Like 1
  3. I will not support Bernie. 

    Terrible. I would vote for almost every D candidate over Bernie in the primary but will gladly vote for him with bells on over Trump. And I think just about everyone in this thread would do the same for whoever is up against Trump.

     

    Maybe I'll go back to rolling my eyes at the stupid decisions the D party makes in 2024, but for now I'm on board for whoever they put up, even if (when) they choose poorly.

     

     

     

    • Like 1
  4. 9 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

    Because they didn’t see Obama coming.  

    They saw Hillary’s coming 30 years ago.  

    That may have something to do with it, but I can't imagine that even you would deny that Hillary made several unforced errors that played horribly in the areas that lost her the election. Basket of deplorables, "we're going to put a lot of coal miners out of work", taking PA/WI/MI for granted and barely campaigning there (or not campaigning at all). And also that her general persona does not mesh with people in the midwest at all. She campaigned more in California than she did in Wisconsin. She created a vacuum in those states which Trump happily filled. Completely her own fault. Even Bill tried to tell her she was blowing it by ignoring those states

    But I'm not here to re-parse the reasons Hillary lost. You keep fucking the "Hillary was a good candidate who was  mistreated" chicken if it makes you feel better.

    Bottom line is that you're being disingenuous by trying to box moderates/independents into some corner where we think we're going to win over Trump's 35%. None of us are that stupid. What we do believe is that we can swing those Obama->Trump voters back to the good guys. And we believe that there are certain candidates that can do that better than others, whether it's because the candidate's demeanor and background would play extremely well there (Biden), because they have an inoffensive and positive aura and the charisma to play there (Beto), or because they're from the area and capable (Klobuchar). 

    So I guess I'd ask you this - do you believe that the Obama->Trump voters are completely lost? And if not, then which candidate(s) do you believe have the best chance of winning them back, and why?

  5. So in other words, those voters were swayed by the Republican narratives that were mostly full of shit. 
     
    Possibly, but they did the same thing to Obama and most of the attacks didn't stick, at least with that subset of voters. Why?

    Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

  6. 1 hour ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

    While this is true, the base voters were never going to vote for the democrat. It’s the independents’ susceptibility to the republican false narratives that needs to be overcome.  

    No independents or lean-dem types believe that a more moderate candidate can convince Republican base voters to vote democratic. This is a false narrative that you and the purity test crew love to throw out. I realize that your schtick is the contrived"I'm so open-minded" guy act which I typically ignore, but I can't let a post go by where you attack "false narratives" while throwing a false narrative out in the exact same sentence. 

    What some of us believe is that the Obama->Trump voters are true swing voters (obviously a fact) and can be won back. Those couple hundred thousand voters in the rust belt that switched from Obama to Trump didn't suddenly turn into far-right Republicans (or the 35% of the country that Trump will never lose). They were just turned off by a god-awful Democratic candidate who (fair or not) came across as a coastal, snobby technocrat. The independents that you rail on and throw purity tests at are not susceptible to anything except knowing that the most direct path to victory is winning the Obama->Trump voters back. 

    It's interesting that Beto and Biden, generally considered moderates, are both in the top three of that poll you posted despite neither having announced or gotten the initial boost from the announcement hype. It's almost as if normal people outside of message boards and reddit know the world won't end if the Democrats nominate a "moderate", take the easy W, and win the presidency.

     

    • Like 2
  7. I work with a guy that used to run inventory at the factory that produces the JITB tacos.  They're all pre-made and then frozen at the factory and shipped to JITB warehouses.  But before they're frozen, they do allow most of their employees to participate in QC.
    In unrelated news, that coworker is quite fat.
    Back in the day I'd order 8 of em with no lettuce. Does that mean they were just digging the lettuce out by hand? Guess I'm not surprised

    Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

  8. 1 minute ago, Spankytoes said:

    Except no one is doing that. At all.

    The “debate” is because I don’t recognize a transgendered woman as an actual woman and how this makes me a bigot. You are about the 12th person to falsely equate an argument that hasn’t been made.

    I haven't read any of your posts more than skimming and seeing you parsing through individual citations in articles and whatnot. I don't care to debate the finer points with you. I'm just saying you've got a weird, weird obsession with this debate. It's strange and neurotic and concerning and you need hobbies.

  9. I've always thought transgenders were a bit strange, but I can't imagine spending more than half a second giving a shit what any of them call themselves or do with their lives. Certainly can't imagine devoting as much headspace to being anti-them as some, or one, in this thread do. That's a far more concerning and deep neurosis than anything that I've ever seen a transgender demonstrate.

     

    People who don't drink

    People who don't like dogs

    People who give a shit who people fuck or what they call themselves

    All in the same category. Don't trust 'em.

  10. 1 minute ago, tantric superman said:

    I think a horrific Minnesota accent is about the most grating sound in the world.  It is a softer Minnesota accent, so it's bearable.  I don't think it is that much of an impediment, but I'm pretty open minded about anyone who might beat Trump.

    Not wrong there, but I don't find her accent too over-the-top. And it's not like it's going to cause her to lose any Hillary states.

    Couldn't agree more about anyone who might beat Trump. 

  11. Maybe this is petty, but I think Klobuchar's super midwest accent is going to be an impediment to her attracting support. Maybe it's just me, but it's difficult to listen to her speak. 
    You think her having an accent from the area of the country that will singularly decide the election is an impediment?

    Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

    • Like 1
  12. The fact that her first major act since declaring her run for POTUS is an apology tour is all you need to know. She's a poor political decision maker and there are others who are better at her "calling cards" than she is. Bernie is a better pie in the sky super-lefty. Harris is a better Trump attack bulldog.

     

    When everyone in the primary shifts far left and co-opts half of Bernie's platform, she will be completely lost in the fray.

     

    She won't play in the midwest whatsoever and she's a "good at a lot of stuff but great at nothing" candidate.

     

    She'll be out by the halfway post and back to the Senate, where she can continue to be effective in a role more suited for her.

     

    Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

     

     

     

     

     

     

  13. Head to head again? She'd probably win bigly.
    That's how bad he is.
    I don't necessarily disagree but we all thought the same thing in 2016. Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it, and the "we have this in the bag" attitude scares me to death. It's one of the main reasons Trump won in 2016, and I sure don't want to see it again in 2020

    Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

  14. Someone give me a best effort sell on Joe Biden without the “he has the best chance to beat Trump” bs 
    What is special about Joe Biden?
    "Besides the most important thing by miles and miles, somebody make a case!"

    Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

  15. Yeah. Like Hillary?
    We’ve been over this but the dems should nominate whoever has the best chance of defeating trump if trump is actually running. If that’s Biden then that’s who it should be. If its someone else that’s who it should be. 
    Your argument as to the “best” president reminds me of all the anti-Bernie dems who during the primaries argued we should stick with Hillary because Bernie’s pie in the sky policies would never fly and get through congress. How are those never flying through congress policies looking right about now with a dipshit corrupt administration instead? The dems fucked up nominating Hillary and were all paying a severe price for that fuck up. 
    Maybe we should focus on winning the damn election and getting the crooks thrown out. 
    This. 2020 is not an "opportunity". That's a stupid way of looking at it. 2020 is a must-win situation. In the same way that playing a loser's bracket elimination game in a tournament is not an "opportunity", it's a back against the wall, no holds barred situation.

    Seeing 2020 as opportunity to make some sort of point is how you'll get four more years of Trump. This isn't a gimme where we get to pick our person and they automatically win. 2020 is about saving our country, which means picking the layup candidate. Save the pie in the sky shit for 2024 or 2028. Now is not the time.

    Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

    • Like 2
  16. I like how Trump tries to completely keep his golfing on the down low, except when he has a photo op with Tiger because everyone needs to know that he has a black friend and is totally not a racist.

    Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

  17. unfortunately not.  everything on the sides has to be minimum.  stuff in the middle (hard ways) can be under.
    Have to meet table minimum in total, or per number?

    The math gets weird at a typical $15 table. Keeping up with where each number is at is hard enough.. then multiplying everything by 3.. not sure i can juggle all that while 15 drinks deep

    Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

    • Like 1
  18. 5 hours ago, henrygandorf said:

    yeah, the reason the system "works" (if it works) is because the bets get higher a lot quicker than normal pressing.  you're "power-pressing" which often skips a level.  some people press one unit (6-12-18) while others do a full press (6-12-24), but this will skip levels and require some help from you.  add $3 to make it $15 and add $4 to make it $30.  like lurch said, the dealer will help you out.  when you hit $30 (after a full collect), the next level is $60, and you get $5 back.

    i always suggest finding a spot near the dealer.  it doesn't take long to develop a rapport, and you'll catch on quickly (as will he) and pretty soon the dropping of chips (or collecting) will go on without saying a word.

    i recommend using phrases like, "take me to $15" or "make it look like $30" and he'll instantly say, "drop me four bucks" or something similar.  as long as you keep the table moving, you're in good shape.

    Yep, I like it a lot. It fits the way I want to play. I'm relatively versed in craps but I typically play the way Lurch would like me to play, which is pass line with full odds, and I usually paint some numbers. Lot of fun, but I'll have $100+ down on the table at a $10 table. Can win fast but can bleed fast.

    Stupid question, because I usually play "normal" pass line etc. Can you bet below the table minimum on the numbers? Like if I'm at a $25 table, can I throw down $5/$6 bets on the numbers, assuming I don't play the pass line? Or do I have to bet $25 per number?

     

     

     

  19. 16 minutes ago, Lurch said:

     


    Your math is correct, but you then buy up to get to $15 and $30. Your dealer will usually ask you to throw him what he needs to take it up and make it proper.
     

     

    Got it

×
×
  • Create New...