Random Politics & Religion #11

anyone else scroll up to see what nausi posted about black mages?

gets me every time!

Aaaaaaaaand here comes the quote.

I was already well aware of the quote.

He's saying that in such a way to get people who voted for him but who might be on the fence about Hillary to go vote for her. He's trying to use their loyalty to him to sway them to action.

It's not actually about his legacy. He's using that as a means to motivate people.

Which is a pretty standard way for any leader of anything to encourage to employees or followers who like them to do something. Appeal to their loyalty and make it seem like you're doing them a favor, etc.

Between black mages, the Bureau of Land Management, and now Black Lives Matter, I just can't keep track of the acronyms anymore.

/announcer voice whisper

if you are a damp towel and you are just joining us now.... the video that began the discussion is back on page 18

Exactly...

then I am going to need to borrow your obama decoder ring because I was almost positive it was about his legacy after he said that part about it being all about his legacy.... >.>

This is the part where I give you and Rav the fry look because I know you're both damn well smart enough to understand the concept I'm expressing, so I'm not sure if you're *** with me (which seems likely for you, I dunno about him) or just really aren't getting it for some nuanced reason, the nature of which I shall refrain from speculating.

Of course.

Hillary's lack of security controls when it comes to national security, and somehow it's Bush's Powell's Trump's fault.

The deflection by some of the posters here is astonishing....and predictable.

Actually, both Rav and Nik are right in this case where Obama is trying to preserve his legacy because he knows that, without Hillary's veto, his "legacy" is going down the toilet.

He's scared that his contribution to history will only be the first black president. He should be lucky if that's all history records of the past 8 years.

*looks at the clock*

Well, I'd love to stay and bicker a little more and then start making *** jokes instead because that's more fun, but it's time to go buy furniture. See you all tomorrow, same Bat-time, same Bat-channel.

Just...maybe briefly consider that what I said is accurate and you might be just a little bit wrong, that he wasn't just talking to hear himself talk and that maybe someone who managed to get made president of the US knows a bit more about motivating his supporters than you do.

I mean, I'm willing to admit that Trump can get the KKK and evangelicals fired up (while keeping them on his side) way better than I could.

Maybe, just maybe, Obama can do the same for his supporters.~

But it's the Internet where everybody is a bigger expert than the guys actually doing it at the highest levels

The word "legacy" is really being blown out of proportion here. Every
political figure leaves something behind that they'd rather not see blown up the second they leave office. Not sure how that equates to narcissism but he was eating crackers like he owned the place, etc.

Let's check off the list:

1) Doesn't admit that he could possibly be wrong: Check
2) Doesn't even attempt to prove his point: Check
3) Accuses other people of being wrong but doesn't show evidence supporting his claim, just making broad assumptions: Check
4) Infers racism and/or racist remarks on the "opposition": Check
5) Infers racism when racism isn't present in the argument: Check
6) Pretends that racism is only a "one political party" thing: Check

I would say typical liberal response, but Ramy might be insulted.

That's funny and all, but if it were only white dudes going for Trump then he wouldn't be nearly tied in the polls right now.

Let the liberals dream Rav.

They still don't realize that, with their voter base practically dead-on-arrival while Trump's is brimming with energy, no amount of polls in the world can show the absolute thrashing that Clinton is going to have on 11/8.

Which is sad, because I rather have a close Trump win than a landslide.

Besides, Rasmussen just released it's newest poll showing Trump +5 and nobody bats an eye.

edit: Source

Also, screw you edit button!

There's a reason for that.

Another interesting poll released

What's interesting is the groups that Clinton is leading.

Wonder why that is

That's all you got Pleebs?

And... jazz hands?

That explains a lot of your viewpoints.

Any particular reason for this unprovoked bitchiness or is this baseline and I haven't been posting enough lately to be used to it?

I've been developing some poll weighting techniques, and this past month in particular has been very intriguing. Unfortunately state polls are harder to gauge due to a lack of data and inconsistency with polling locations, but for a basic perspective what I find interesting is realclearpolitics.com and its current "No Toss Up States" map. Based on poll averages in battleground states, Clinton can only stand to lose three more electoral votes before hitting a tie.

My eyes have been drawn to Colorado and somewhat to Wisconsin and New Hampshire lately. Emerson recently had Trump up 4 in Colorado, but I don't trust them much. What's actually more noteworthy is a Quinnipiac poll that has Clinton/Trump tied there, since Quinnipiac had Clinton up 10 about a month ago.