RockRaines Posted October 11, 2016 Share Posted October 11, 2016 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 11, 2016 -> 02:41 PM) I have actually heard high school girls talk about getting pregnant for the increase in welfare. Of course the few times I heard it, these kids were coming out of extreme situations so it isn't like a common thing. But there are a non-zero percentage of people who see that kid as a paycheck because their situations are so dire and hopeless. This isnt even close to the amount of a welfare check though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brett05 Posted October 11, 2016 Share Posted October 11, 2016 QUOTE (RockRaines @ Oct 11, 2016 -> 02:31 PM) LOL, you seriously think people would have kids to get a $1,000 TAX credit and ultimately lose money in the process?..... And yet it happens and it's naive to think otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted October 11, 2016 Share Posted October 11, 2016 QUOTE (raBBit @ Oct 11, 2016 -> 12:14 PM) And more "nail in the coffin" comments. As if Drumpf ever had a chance against establishment Hillary. Not sure if this is sarcasm but with each passing day the polling and support looks worse for him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pettie4sox Posted October 11, 2016 Share Posted October 11, 2016 QUOTE (brett05 @ Oct 11, 2016 -> 02:46 PM) And yet it happens and it's naive to think otherwise. do you know of people personally? genuinely curious Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted October 11, 2016 Share Posted October 11, 2016 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 11, 2016 -> 01:38 PM) Again the difference is the incivility IS the political process today, versus it being a part of political process at times. An argument that campaigns were much more civil (compared to today) from the 1820's through Lincoln isn't going to stand up to objective historical analysis...look at 1968, for another example. It's not unlike Greg's the country is falling apart argument. We see what we want to see and block out all evidence to the contrary that doesn't confirm our strongly held bias. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted October 11, 2016 Share Posted October 11, 2016 QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Oct 11, 2016 -> 03:46 PM) Not sure if this is sarcasm but with each passing day the polling and support looks worse for him. I read that as raBBit piggybacking off what I said. "They will keep making more obvious statements as though it was a revelation." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pettie4sox Posted October 11, 2016 Share Posted October 11, 2016 QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Oct 11, 2016 -> 02:46 PM) Not sure if this is sarcasm but with each passing day the polling and support looks worse for him. I think he was saying it's been a wrap since day one as trump had no chance against hillary's machine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brett05 Posted October 11, 2016 Share Posted October 11, 2016 QUOTE (pettie4sox @ Oct 11, 2016 -> 02:47 PM) do you know of people personally? genuinely curious Unfortunately I have family members that have done this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted October 11, 2016 Share Posted October 11, 2016 QUOTE (pettie4sox @ Oct 11, 2016 -> 12:47 PM) I think he was saying it's been a wrap since day one as trump had no chance against hillary's machine. Ah. I've just seen so many folks all over the place saying how he's been counted out multiple times and that he keeps coming back, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brett05 Posted October 11, 2016 Share Posted October 11, 2016 QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Oct 11, 2016 -> 02:46 PM) Not sure if this is sarcasm but with each passing day the polling and support looks worse for him. Except the LA Times which has him as a 2 point favorite Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrimsonWeltall Posted October 11, 2016 Share Posted October 11, 2016 QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Oct 11, 2016 -> 07:47 PM) An argument that campaigns were much more civil (compared to today) It's a good argument if you're just talking about the past few elections though. There was definitely dirt in them (eg Swiftboating), but nothing like 2016. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illinilaw08 Posted October 11, 2016 Share Posted October 11, 2016 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 11, 2016 -> 01:38 PM) Again the difference is the incivility IS the political process today, versus it being a part of political process at times. I don't think that's right. Incivility has always been part of the political process. It is still a part of the political process. I don't buy that it IS the political process. This election is an outlier in that one of the candidates for the Presidency was nominated with his incivility being touted as a strength by a large enough portion of the Republican primary voters. And there's has been a great deal of incivility between the Legislative and the Executive since the Republicans took back Congress. But it's overstating things to say that incivility is now the political process... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pettie4sox Posted October 11, 2016 Share Posted October 11, 2016 QUOTE (brett05 @ Oct 11, 2016 -> 02:48 PM) Unfortunately I have family members that have done this. you should have a talk with them about seeing kids as paychecks. that's an extremely reckless way to live! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted October 11, 2016 Share Posted October 11, 2016 QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Oct 11, 2016 -> 01:46 PM) Not sure if this is sarcasm but with each passing day the polling and support looks worse for him. And the same exact things were said about Goldwater in 1964 or McGovern in 1972. At least they both had a basic grasp of public policy and could articulate coherent arguments in a debate setting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted October 11, 2016 Share Posted October 11, 2016 QUOTE (brett05 @ Oct 11, 2016 -> 02:49 PM) Except the LA Times which has him as a 2 point favorite The LA Times is a tracker poll which isn't really comparable to 'standard' polls. They've been polling a sample of 800 people or so every day from a larger sample of 3000 people for the entire race. Other polls poll 800-2000 random new people every time. The issue with the LA Time's method is that any potential bias in that original 3000 person sample is baked in from day 1 and unfixable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted October 11, 2016 Share Posted October 11, 2016 (edited) QUOTE (brett05 @ Oct 11, 2016 -> 02:48 PM) Unfortunately I have family members that have done this. I believe this as much as HH's claims to personally know two people who were lied to by planned parenthood into getting abortions they didn't even need because they weren't even pregnant. Regardless of the truth of that claim, if someone is doing that they're not exactly making rational economic choices and I *really* doubt they're up to date on the latest policy details regarding the child tax credit. Edited October 11, 2016 by StrangeSox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brett05 Posted October 11, 2016 Share Posted October 11, 2016 QUOTE (pettie4sox @ Oct 11, 2016 -> 02:51 PM) you should have a talk with them about seeing kids as paychecks. that's an extremely reckless way to live! You'll get no argument from me on that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrimsonWeltall Posted October 11, 2016 Share Posted October 11, 2016 QUOTE (brett05 @ Oct 11, 2016 -> 07:49 PM) Except the LA Times which has him as a 2 point favorite That's an experimental poll that samples the same people over and over again and has weighed heavily toward Trump the entire time. It's not in line with any other poll. He's getting KILLED right now. +11, +5, +9, +11, +7, +5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brett05 Posted October 11, 2016 Share Posted October 11, 2016 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 11, 2016 -> 02:51 PM) The LA Times is a tracker poll which isn't really comparable to 'standard' polls. They've been polling a sample of 800 people or so every day from a larger sample of 3000 people for the entire race. Other polls poll 800-2000 random new people every time. The issue with the LA Time's method is that any potential bias in that original 3000 person sample is baked in from day 1 and unfixable. However it could be accurate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted October 11, 2016 Share Posted October 11, 2016 QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ Oct 11, 2016 -> 02:49 PM) It's a good argument if you're just talking about the past few elections though. There was definitely dirt in them (eg Swiftboating), but nothing like 2016. McCain's illegitimate black baby smear in 2000 primary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted October 11, 2016 Share Posted October 11, 2016 QUOTE (brett05 @ Oct 11, 2016 -> 12:53 PM) However it could be accurate. Yes, and smoking my not cause cancer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted October 11, 2016 Share Posted October 11, 2016 QUOTE (brett05 @ Oct 11, 2016 -> 02:53 PM) However it could be accurate. Ok, you've got one national experimental poll on one hand, every other normal national poll plus all of the state polls on the other hand. I really kinda doubt that the LA Times managed to invent a new style of polling that just happens to be accurate while every other polling firm in the country is off massively. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted October 11, 2016 Share Posted October 11, 2016 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 11, 2016 -> 03:54 PM) McCain's illegitimate black baby smear in 2000 primary Big reason why McCain himself was uncomfortable with going too negative against Obama (his loose-cannon running mate notwithstanding). He knew what it was like to be on the receiving end of those smears and he wouldn't be responsible for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrimsonWeltall Posted October 11, 2016 Share Posted October 11, 2016 QUOTE (brett05 @ Oct 11, 2016 -> 07:53 PM) However it could be accurate. So all the standard polls with established methods and a long history are off by 10+ points, but the new experimental poll is accurate? In that poll, Trump's numbers didn't change after the video came out. Surely, no matter how much you like Trump, there's no way you could think that it wouldn't significantly affect his numbers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted October 11, 2016 Share Posted October 11, 2016 QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Oct 11, 2016 -> 02:54 PM) Yes, and smoking my not cause cancer. Hey, stop channeling Mike Pence! Time for a quick reality check. Despite the hysteria from the political class and the media, smoking doesn't kill. In fact, 2 out of every three smokers does not die from a smoking related illness and 9 out of ten smokers do not contract lung cancer. Smoking doesn't kill! Only 33% percent of smokers die from smoking! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts