Jump to content

2024 Presidential Election Thread - Let's keep the party going.


Recommended Posts

Posted
4 hours ago, troph said:

so are you.

half the population (plus or minus a few percentage points) doesn't vote. about 2/3 of them don't even pretend. The other 1/3 actively look for reasons not to vote. He's a nutjob, he's too old, for that reason, I'm out. that plus or minus a few percentage points is the election. motivation to GOTV is paramount. anti-trump with a net-negative biden isn't a safe bet. last time it was anti-trump and neutral biden and he won.  and before anyone assume I'm anti-biden, I'm not. I'm livid it looks like his admin isn't getting a second term whether by losing or by stepping down.

I'll vote for whomever the Democrats' nominee is. That's the same as almost everyone posting in this thread. Some of us are trying to get the point across that a lot of the youth and independents votes Biden had in 2016 aren't going to be there in 2020. It's a losing hand.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
25 minutes ago, Voluminous Banality said:

Assuming that these numbers are accurate, net oil and petroleum exports increased under Trump by roughly 9 quadrillion Btu in the 3 years between 2017-2020 (3 quadrillion Btu per year). Under Biden, it increased by around 1.2 quadrillion Btu in the 3 years from 2020-2023 (0.4 quadrillion Btu per year). So more than 7 times the net increase annually under Trump as under Biden, which you would expect given their respective policies.

Not making a political point, just a statistical one. People need to learn how to read charts better. For a New York Times contributing writer, that is either an embarrassing misinterpretation or an egregious misrepresentation of the data.

For those like Steven Rattner who don't know how to read a chart, this is what the chart is really showing. I don't even care about the point he is trying to make, but the horrendous data presentation cannot be abided.

image.thumb.png.d884f39a2452553214fba3bcea0f820e.png

  • Fuck You 1
Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, Voluminous Banality said:

For those like Steven Rattner who don't know how to read a chart, this is what the chart is really showing. I don't even care about the point he is trying to make, but the horrendous data presentation cannot be abided.

image.thumb.png.d884f39a2452553214fba3bcea0f820e.png

Stop with your bullshit. I already corrected you. If you're going to be pedantic about correcting data presentation, at least don't be so fucking lazy about it and actually pull the full data set. 

Edited by Dahobbs
Posted

I’ve been trying to keep up with this thread while traveling for the last week and the biggest recurring conflict appears to be @troph’s refusal to admit that Biden needs to step down.  @troph, have you come around?

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
1 minute ago, Dahobbs said:

Stop with your bullshit. I already corrected you. 

It's not bullshit. Your'e not understanding the chart. Net exports between 2017-2020 rose by approximately 9 quadrillion Btu. Between 2020-2023, they rose by approximately 1.2 quadrillion Btu. I'm not even making a political point. I'm just responding to a statistical pet peeve. It's literally statistics 101.

Posted
1 minute ago, LCHorn said:

I’ve been trying to keep up with this thread while traveling for the last week and the biggest recurring conflict appears to be @troph’s refusal to admit that Biden needs to step down.  @troph, have you come around?

there's no other choice right now. I said that in my rants. he has to step down. I was talking about how fucked up the media, the party and yes I've come around to agree the biden campaign have been to create this problem. the dems have a long history of shitting the bed and eating their own. add an old guy that won't step down early enough to avoid this mess and we have a grade A, grass fed, angus prime time cluster fuck that I don't think we can recover from.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
Just now, Voluminous Banality said:

It's not bullshit. Your'e not understanding the chart. Net exports between 2017-2020 rose by approximately 9 quadrillion Btu. Between 2020-2023, they rose by approximately 1.2 quadrillion Btu. I'm not even making a political point. I'm just responding to a statistical pet peeve. It's literally statistics 101.

I don't understand if? Look at my prior post with the full data. You have no idea what the actual data says because you havent fucking looked at it. Net exports have been increasing at a consistent rate since 2005. It has fuck all to do with Trump. The only reason Biden's numbers look worse is because of a slight blimp upward during covid followed by an immediate return to the same multi decade trend. 

Posted
2 minutes ago, Underdog said:

Go, Bob, go! 

 

needs to be said by everyone a 1000 times. then pivot to the ask for the vote and explain how deep deep deep shit we are in if we don't stop him.

Posted

Here, @Voluminous Banality, I'll post it for you again:

image.png.0b883e0df2509102739b2cad338f4152.png

Again, I think you missed the point of the original tweet. People are trying to credit Trump for something that has fuck all to do with him. The tweet merely makes the point that the US wasn't a net exporter until Biden's term. Because it wasn't. That's a fact. Not a misrepresentation. Of course, the general trend really has nothing to do with Biden and nothing to do with Trump. It just part of a long term change brought about largely by the fracking revolution. 

 

Posted
49 minutes ago, Voluminous Banality said:

Assuming that these numbers are accurate, net oil and petroleum exports increased under Trump by roughly 9 quadrillion Btu in the 3 years between 2017-2020 (3 quadrillion Btu per year). Under Biden, it increased by around 1.2 quadrillion Btu in the 3 years from 2020-2023 (0.4 quadrillion Btu per year). So more than 7 times the net increase annually under Trump as under Biden, which you would expect given their respective policies.

Not making a political point, just a statistical one. People need to learn how to read charts better. For a New York Times contributing writer, that is either an embarrassing misinterpretation or an egregious misrepresentation of the data.

You seem to be misunderstanding the point he’s making. The point is that under Biden, production is higher than it’s ever been. So when Trump says it’s not, he’s lying. As always. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

I don't understand if? Look at my prior post with the full data. You have no idea what the actual data says because you havent fucking looked at it. Net exports have been increasing at a consistent rate since 2005. It has fuck all to do with Trump. The only reason Biden's numbers look worse is because of a slight blimp upward during covid followed by an immediate return to the same multi decade trend. 

Yes, you don't understand it. You posted a chart showing petroleum imports drastically decreasing between 2017-2020 and then decreasing at a slower rate after 2020:

image.thumb.png.c16cd0aa68a2ba96175270d66d0e2578.png

That corresponds to a rapid INCREASE in net exports or DECREASE in net export deficit from 2017 followed by a much SLOWER increase in net exports from 2020-2023:

image.thumb.png.40e75332133246ea0b8e4b0104f3d510.png

In other words, the chart you posted perfectly supports the statistical (non-political) point I was making. If you still don't understand it, that's okay. Have a good day.

Posted
3 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Here, @Voluminous Banality, I'll post it for you again:

image.png.0b883e0df2509102739b2cad338f4152.png

Again, I think you missed the point of the original tweet. People are trying to credit Trump for something that has fuck all to do with him. The tweet merely makes the point that the US wasn't a net exporter until Biden's term. Because it wasn't. That's a fact. Not a misrepresentation. Of course, the general trend really has nothing to do with Biden and nothing to do with Trump. It just part of a long term change brought about largely by the fracking revolution. 

 

I didn't miss the point of the tweet. To answer in the terms that you are using, in 3 years, Trump got us 90% of the way to becoming a net exporter of petroleum. In the next 3 years, Biden pushed us the final 10% across the line. You are right, of course, that it's not all about Trump and Biden, but this data hardly supports chest-beating over Biden's over-performance in this regard.

Posted
10 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

I don't understand if? Look at my prior post with the full data. You have no idea what the actual data says because you havent fucking looked at it. Net exports have been increasing at a consistent rate since 2005. It has fuck all to do with Trump. The only reason Biden's numbers look worse is because of a slight blimp upward during covid followed by an immediate return to the same multi decade trend. 

You are either being disingenuous or are truly missing the point. Someone pointing out that the US became a net exporter under Biden is a meaningless stat because he didn’t increase production much compared to the previous four years. As you yourself said, that’s just been the trend. Biden hasn’t done anything. And he shouldn’t get any credit for doing anything special, other than continuing the trend. But in fact, his trend has been worse than the previous four years, not better. 

That’s the critical point. It’s a completely misleading conclusion by the guy tweeting. You said “it’s fair to point out….”   But, it’s not fair to point that out. It’s completely misleading. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
Just now, Voluminous Banality said:

Yes, you don't understand it. You posted a chart showing petroleum imports drastically decreasing between 2017-2020 and then decreasing at a slower rate after 2020:

image.thumb.png.c16cd0aa68a2ba96175270d66d0e2578.png

That corresponds to a rapid INCREASE in net exports or DECREASE in net export deficit from 2017 followed by a much SLOWER increase in net exports from 2020-2023:

image.thumb.png.40e75332133246ea0b8e4b0104f3d510.png

In other words, the chart you posted perfectly supports the statistical (non-political) point I was making. If you still don't understand it, that's okay. Have a good day.

The chart I posted is net imports, not total imports. It is literally just the flip side of your graph. Stop focusing on 2017 and look at the full trend. It is a multi decade trend. Taking one small portion of a multi decade trend is going to distort the analysis with randomness. The larger sample size makes clear what is happening. Anyone with the barest familiarity with statistics would understand this. 

Posted
Just now, Dbeasy said:

You are either being disingenuous or are truly missing the point. Someone pointing out that the US became a net exporter under Biden is a meaningless stat because he didn’t increase production much compared to the previous four years. As you yourself said, that’s just been the trend. Biden hasn’t done anything. And he shouldn’t get any credit for doing anything special, other than continuing the trend. But in fact, his trend has been worse than the previous four years, not better. 

That’s the critical point. It’s a completely misleading conclusion by the guy tweeting. You said “it’s fair to point out….”   But, it’s not fair to point that out. It’s completely misleading. 

The point of the tweet is that Trump shouldn't get credit for it if Biden doesn't get credit for the US actually becoming a net exporter. The tweet is factually accurate. Misleading is saying that Trump increased net exports by 9 quadrillion barrels when it had fuck all to do with him. That's what's fucking misleading. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 minute ago, Dahobbs said:

The chart I posted is net imports, not total imports. It is literally just the flip side of your graph. Stop focusing on 2017 and look at the full trend. It is a multi decade trend. Taking one small portion of a multi decade trend is going to distort the analysis with randomness. The larger sample size makes clear what is happening. Anyone with the barest familiarity with statistics would understand this. 

Correct, it's literally the flip side which I literally just said. It's evident that you neither understand the original tweet nor anything I've posted, so this is a good place to end the exchange.

Posted
1 minute ago, Voluminous Banality said:

Correct, it's literally the flip side which I literally just said. It's evident that you neither understand the original tweet nor anything I've posted, so this is a good place to end the exchange.

I understand the pedantic point you've made. I've just provided fuller context. I don't get why you cant engage with that honestly. 

Posted

Checking in on this thread for the first time in a month. Decided around the time of the debate (didn’t watch) to tune out of election news. It’s not like I’m going to change my vote so I made the decision to not give a fuck about the daily barrage of shitty news. It’s been quite a nice break. I suggest others do it. It’s not like any of us can influence a cult member who is pushing for the project 2025 agenda. Those people are too far gone.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
7 minutes ago, Dbeasy said:

You are either being disingenuous or are truly missing the point. Someone pointing out that the US became a net exporter under Biden is a meaningless stat because he didn’t increase production much compared to the previous four years. As you yourself said, that’s just been the trend. Biden hasn’t done anything. And he shouldn’t get any credit for doing anything special, other than continuing the trend. But in fact, his trend has been worse than the previous four years, not better. 

That’s the critical point. It’s a completely misleading conclusion by the guy tweeting. You said “it’s fair to point out….”   But, it’s not fair to point that out. It’s completely misleading. 

Correct. The dude has now shifted to, "Well, Trump doesn't get credit for the increase in net exports during his term because he did fuck all." 🤦‍♂️ The original tweet was stupid and misleading, period. That's all I'm responding to, since someone asked.

Posted
5 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Go fight it out in the oil barons thread you jamokes. 

My bad. Didn't mean to interrupt the panic fest. Continue on everyone!

image.png.0624b8ae44e5331dbab33c5885a3f255.png

 

Posted
2 hours ago, mdmost said:

In a perfect world, Mayor Pete would be the Democratic nominee because he's more than capable of dispatching a light weight moron like Trump. He could stand in a debate and annihilate Trump's lies point by point. But he's gay and we're a nation of bigoted assholes. So we instead get the feeble old man who can't debate any longer. And we'll have to like it, it seems. 

Tim Scott's girlfriend is single now.  I'm sure something could be worked out here.

  • Haha 1
Posted
52 minutes ago, Voluminous Banality said:

I didn't miss the point of the tweet. To answer in the terms that you are using, in 3 years, Trump got us 90% of the way to becoming a net exporter of petroleum. In the next 3 years, Biden pushed us the final 10% across the line. You are right, of course, that it's not all about Trump and Biden, but this data hardly supports chest-beating over Biden's over-performance in this regard.

Well, you are so wrong and so stuck to your point that it's actually a bit annoying and pedantic. 

Obama did 60% of the work, trump did 30% and Biden did the final 10% if anything is truly to be considered "accurate" once you stop becoming a net importer and become a net exporter you also don't increase production as much which is a really fucking simple economic explanation. 

In effect Bidens policies have been extremely friendly to production and big oil has seen some of the largest profits in its history during his administration. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
2 minutes ago, immamac said:

Well, you are so wrong and so stuck to your point that it's actually a bit annoying and pedantic. 

Obama did 60% of the work, trump did 30% and Biden did the final 10% if anything is truly to be considered "accurate" once you stop becoming a net importer and become a net exporter you also don't increase production as much which is a really fucking simple economic explanation. 

In effect Bidens policies have been extremely friendly to production and big oil has seen some of the largest profits in its history during his administration. 

Sarcastic Season 9 GIF by The Office

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

Sarcastic Season 9 GIF by The Office

Long term this is how I feel, but short term, I think it is a net benefit politically. Sadly, that does matter. Also, how the fuck did we get back on oil in this thread?

Posted
8 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Not what I took away from that at all, but ok. 

https://docquery.fec.gov/cgi-bin/forms/C00703975/1724396/

However I think things do get a bit fuzzy for her then VP if she drops out or steps out as they can't amend the original organization filing. It is legally not really in question who the candidate(s) are for the organization according to the FEC. 

She's raising for herself and Joe so it's difficult to draw a conclusion other than there's good sentiment for the current ticket which includes them both as option 1a and 1b. 

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
59 minutes ago, troph said:

that I don't think we can recover from.

If I might share some of the hope that belied my prediction (mostly lifted from the Pod Save America boys) that Biden would ultimately withdraw from the race (I think he would resign, too-it’s the only way to be seen as a kingmaker, but that remains to be seen), it’s that Harris or Dem X is going to have the opportunity to have all of the media’s attention.  I share with @Bozo_Casanova in an affinity for a Harris/Whitmer ticket (though he may have moved on by now), really like a Harris/Beshear ticket, and frankly all of the versions discussed are kind of exciting.  I’m even onboard for a blitz primary, and if it ends up Newsome or whoever I think they keep the Biden 2020 coalition together and reinvigorate it with some the 70% of Americans who know Biden is too old.  
 

And isn’t that what Democrats are begging for, anyway?  Give us something to excite us?

I’ll add that (and I think it’s something @mdmost wrote about ten pages ago that started me thinking about this but I may owe the idea to another poster) I think we are attributing a great deal of credit to Biden for programs passed under his administration that are the culmination of lots of Democratic wish list items kind of coming together at once.  
 

The efforts made toward green energy and infrastructure are big successes, I’ve read, but in the early going I don’t see the results (which is fine, I’m glad the government is making plans that might not come to fruition for a decade or two) and it seems like it’s bad manners to judge them with a healthy skepticism until there’s a real improvement in those areas.  
 

Anyway, my point is we may, ten years hence, look back at the Biden presidency and wonder why we were fucking around with solar panels and bridges while gender and minority rights became increasingly under threat and too little was done to address the anti-democratic practices of the GOP.  

 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
10 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Not what I took away from that at all, but ok. 

I posted the Biden’s wins tweet in response because all of the shit they say is really stupid when you compare it to the reality of what’s really going on. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
1 minute ago, Pancho said:

I’m going to need our surly Latinos to explain this

 

That seems like massive bullshit

Posted
1 minute ago, immamac said:

Well, you are so wrong and so stuck to your point that it's actually a bit annoying and pedantic. 

Obama did 60% of the work, trump did 30% and Biden did the final 10% if anything is truly to be considered "accurate" once you stop becoming a net importer and become a net exporter you also don't increase production as much which is a really fucking simple economic explanation. 

In effect Bidens policies have been extremely friendly to production and big oil has seen some of the largest profits in its history during his administration. 

Many posters here have a hard time separating their strong political leanings from objective analysis. It wasn't my intention to set forth a premise on the attribution of credit for gains in net US export of petroleum across some decades. I was responding to a tweet which misrepresented data from 2017-2023 and that was the extent of my response. Reading comprehension is key and my limited analysis was entirely correct.

The original tweet by Rattner was misleading and the data was badly presented. It's possible to recognize this and still give Obama credit for the recovery in US oil net exports if that's how you wish to interpret the data. Understanding the data first is a good starting point whomever you support.

Posted
3 minutes ago, Pancho said:

I’m going to need our surly Latinos to explain this

 

I don’t know how to explain that if accurate. I will say over the last two months there have been a few polls on the 24/7 news channels. This is one such poll (they all say roughly the same thing):

The CBS News/YouGov poll found that a majority of registered voters overall (62 percent) would favor the government starting "a new national program to deport all undocumented immigrants currently living in the U.S. illegally." Thirty-eight percent said they would oppose it.

The survey polled 1,615 registered voters between June 5 and 7, and had a margin of error of 3.8 points.

Notably, the poll found that mass deportation was popular with Hispanics, with 53 percent saying they would favor such a program and 47 percent saying they would oppose it. White people were more supportive of mass deportations, with 67 percent saying they would back the program, and 33 percent saying they would oppose it. Among Black people, it was 47 percent in favor and 53 percent opposed.

https://www.newsweek.com/majority-hispanics-favor-mass-deportation-1913510#:~:text=Notably%2C the poll found that,saying they would oppose it.

 

Not sure why that number among Hispanics has gone up the last couple of years but there is data that says it has. That’s just one poll but if you scour the internet you can find more of the same. That poll has a small sample size so it’s not a definitive referendum on Jack shit but that sentiment is there. And it has grown over the past few years. 

Posted
21 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Hey You Team GIF by CBC

But also of course the PTown gays turned out for Pete lol

His people, you might say.

Pete is the kind of Democrat Andrew Sullivan would vote for lmao. (I would also vote for Pete, duh)



×
×
  • Create New...