Walkaway video....No longer a Democrat????

bga1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
41,410
Reaction score
2,710
Points
113
Give up booze before election day. I don't want to see you become an addict when Trump loses in November.
Take up fishing....it is the most effective use of trolling.
 

TruthSeeker

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 8, 2014
Messages
4,356
Reaction score
763
Points
113
Take up fishing....it is the most effective use of trolling.
Trolling? That is life advice.

You're going to go crazy when Trump loses. I wouldn't be surprised if you called for violence or a break up of the country.
 

justthefacts

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
11,019
Reaction score
1,631
Points
113
Actually, you accidentally got close to truth there. Political R's became #neverTrump because they ARE swamp members and on the DC gravy train. While they are prominent and known in a lot of cases, the number of people they represent, people who actually benefit from the swamp dealings, are few. They get a lot of publicity.

By contrast, the number of people on the street who are switching is going to surprise you. You are going to see 15-20% of black people who vote, will now be Trump voters. Think about that. 16.5 million blacks voted in 2016. Trump got 8%. That means he got 1.3 million and Crooked Hillary got 15.2 million. That's a whopping 13.9 million edge for Crooked among blacks.

Let's go with the low end of 15% black vote for Trump (every poll seems to validate this as a floor). If we again have a 16.5 million black turnout, Trump now gets 2.5 million and Sleepy Joe gets 14 million. That's an 11.5 million edge for Sleepy. Still huge but a net gain of 2.4 million for Trump!

#NeverTrump? Before the 2016 election that was a pretty substantial movement. A lot of Rs really doubted that Trump was going to keep his promises or be conservative. In the past he was a Democrat.

Then, to the surprise of many, even Trump voters......he kept most all of his promises! The #never Trump movement could fit on Bill Krystol's sinking yacht these days. The corrupt Rs have been mostly revealed and vanquished: McCain, Flake, Krystol, Rick Wilson. Romney is still around but he has been fully outed and shamed.

Finally, there are a lot of moderate Dems and certainly independents who have woken up to the fact that the media is lying through their teeth on behalf of Sleepy Joe and the Dems and that the hard left (the Squad plus) have taken over the Dem party. They are going to vote Trump. If there are people out there who are undecided, that means that they DO NOT have TDS, which you are badly afflicted with, and they are almost certainly going for Trump in November as a protest against the totalitarian left, Hollywood, the media and our woke athletes who hate America.

Oh by the way, Snyder, has signed on to teach at far left Harvard. No way you get a job there now without a #never Trump resume. Snyder was a whipping boy of the left for not allowing Syrian refugees in Michigan in 2015 and for the water quality scandal. Glad to see he is your new "moral compass." LOL!
The last two examples in this thread are:
- A woman from the private sector that Trump hired
- A guy who has never worked in Washington

There's a term for the belief that anyone critical of your leader is by definition meaningless. That term is "cult."
 

bga1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
41,410
Reaction score
2,710
Points
113
Trolling? That is life advice.

You're going to go crazy when Trump loses. I wouldn't be surprised if you called for violence or a break up of the country.
Projection post ^^^
 

bga1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
41,410
Reaction score
2,710
Points
113
The last two examples in this thread are:
- A woman from the private sector that Trump hired
- A guy who has never worked in Washington

There's a term for the belief that anyone critical of your leader is by definition meaningless. That term is "cult."
I have a feeling that you are more of an "occult" type.
 

cjbfbp

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 23, 2014
Messages
6,460
Reaction score
1,099
Points
113
Let's go with the low end of 15% black vote for Trump (every poll seems to validate this as a floor). If we again have a 16.5 million black turnout, Trump now gets 2.5 million and Sleepy Joe gets 14 million. That's an 11.5 million edge for Sleepy. Still huge but a net gain of 2.4 million for Trump!
You're applying the same incomplete reasoning used by CRG. The popular vote for any particular candidate received from any demographic can be expressed by an extremely simple formula:

Popular vote for Candidate = Demographic turnout x Demographic percentage for candidate.

You are considering only a change in the second term on the right hand side and assuming the first term stays constant.

A number of studies found that Clinton lost in 2016 because of the undervote on her side. African American turnout was lower than it was for Obama, the youth vote was lower, and many on the left end of Democratic party voters either didn't vote for president, voted 3rd party, or wrote in someone else (like Bernie). I personally examined votes in a couple of precincts and found a surprising number of write-in votes for Bernie.

Let's take a hypothetical demographic with 15 million voters during high turnout,13 million under low turnout, and adjust the two parameters above.

Turnout -
Scenario 1: 15 million
Scenario 2: 13 million

Percentage for Candidate -
Scenario 1: 85%
Scenario 2: 90%

Candidate's votes in Scenario 1 - 15 million x 85% = 12.75 million votes
Candidate's votes in Scenario 2 - 13 million x 90% = 11.70 million votes

So, in the higher turnout scenario, the candidate receives 1,050,000 more votes from this demographic despite suffering a 5 point decline in vote percentage.

I'm not claiming this will happen but it should be clear to you that higher turnout can compensate for a lower percentage earned. And, unlike Judicial Watch, I really have "proved" that statement.

By the way, 15% of the African American vote is not Trump's "floor on every poll." I've seen quite a few with a lower percentage than that.
 
Last edited:

Ogee Oglethorpe

Over Macho Grande?
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
9,622
Reaction score
1,326
Points
113
More and more groups slowly realizing that despite the narratives for decades, the Dems actually have never done anything of substance to improve their situation. Zilch. Good for more and more folks to come to that realization. More to follow
 

justthefacts

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
11,019
Reaction score
1,631
Points
113
More and more groups slowly realizing that despite the narratives for decades, the Dems actually have never done anything of substance to improve their situation. Zilch. Good for more and more folks to come to that realization. More to follow
 

CutDownTheNet

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 4, 2018
Messages
2,167
Reaction score
545
Points
113
conservative policies NEVER win, ultimately.

The arc of history bends towards liberal policy in every case, even if sometimes very slowly.
> The arc of history bends towards liberal policy in every case, even if sometimes very slowly.

Yes, and the trend toward liberalism has mostly been a good thing (with a few glitches). We've actually arrived almost near the proper amount of liberalism, but we're not quite there yet. Historically, the thing holding us back has been insufficient liberalism within the Republican party. This was true right up to and through the Tea Party Republicans.

Trump has put a huge bump in the road for those old-school non-liberal Republicans. He has shown that it's quite possible to be a liberal Republican yet not give up on traditional Republican values, most notably a great economy (which he implemented, right up until Covid sabotaged it), but also job creation for actual Americans and reversal of the trend toward shipping American jobs to China (by means of tariffs to counteract China's government subsidies to Chinese industry to achieve Chinese monopoly in areas such as medical supplies). This has cost him some votes among former Tea-Party Republicans. But there were enough people that "get it" to put him in the oval office in 2016. Interestingly, the Republican Party has become the new home of liberalism.

At the same time, the Democratic Party has drifted toward hyper-socialism, and arguably, even toward Communism within that same time frame. The Democrats are no longer the home of liberalism, although people like @USAF are still propagandized into thinking that they are. The Democrats have become the party of American self-loathing, not liberalism.

Most of the glitches (as noted above) in liberal thinking and policies came from mis-application of (what seemed at the time to be, anyway) liberal thinking to the various economic-imbalance problems of our society. For instance, idiotic Democrats thought they could just mandate (by government fiat) the widespread ownership of homes by poor people including blacks and hispanics. It was horribly implemented in a manner that virtually caused widespread greed and corruption in banks, resulting in the depression of 2007/2008 and tens of millions of homeowners losing their homes to the banks, while Obama saved that asses of the banks with our tax money. The people losing their homes included not only people who didn't read the fine print of their balloon mortgages and most of the poor people, who the laws intended to get more people into owning a home were intended to benefit, but also many, many millions of hard-working Americans who were doing just fine in making their mortgage payments, right up until the time that the Democrats' stupidity crashed the economy, thus putting them unemployed for a year or more, and making it impossible to catch up on their way-behind mortgages.

Aside from the recent breath of fresh air from (the economy-boosting) Trump, it has largely been Democrats in power over the era of bad policy that has put more and more poor people into a poorer and poorer situation. What America needs now is liberal-but-economically sound policies, and Trump is the one to lead us in that direction. By contrast, the Democrats have just gone crazy, and are talking nonsense such as defund the police (when we need more police). There have been probably an extra 1,000 black-on-black murders since the protests and defund-the-police movement have emboldened common criminals and murderers across the country. Now, in Chicago, it is reported that there is a new pact among the Chicago gangs to shoot any police who have their service revolver out of their holster. And all this when residents of high-crime areas are begging for more police.

And we have yet to face the dour music of the Covid unemployment outlandishly affecting the poor far greater than the middle class. Democrat policies have failed us, and although they had liberal motivation in most cases, the Democrats were just ridiculously stupid in their implementation (thanks largely to brain-dead Democrat legislators such as Nancy Pelosi), such that we ended up with massively illiberal results. Trump's leadership brought us toward more liberal results, right up until Covid destroyed the economy. We've got a ways to go to get the economy back on track. If we don't elect the new-liberals of the Republican Party, then this country is truly screwed.
 
Last edited:

MennoSota

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2015
Messages
8,088
Reaction score
505
Points
113
At first I thought the woman in the video was a Katie (St Catherine University).
Glad she's thinking for herself. That's all one can hope for.
 

CutDownTheNet

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 4, 2018
Messages
2,167
Reaction score
545
Points
113
At first I thought the woman in the video was a Katie (St Catherine University).
Glad she's thinking for herself. That's all one can hope for.
Sounds like she's either from Massachusetts or went to a Massachusetts college. We need more people like her who are willing to think for themselves and dig out information by themselves, instead of listening to memes invented out of whole cloth (plus out-of-context fragments of video clips) by CNN and MSNBC.
 

bga1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
41,410
Reaction score
2,710
Points
113
You're applying the same incomplete reasoning used by CRG. The popular vote for any particular candidate received from any demographic can be expressed by an extremely simple formula:

Popular vote for Candidate = Demographic turnout x Demographic percentage for candidate.

You are considering only a change in the second term on the right hand side and assuming the first term stays constant.

A number of studies found that Clinton lost in 2016 because of the undervote on her side. African American turnout was lower than it was for Obama, the youth vote was lower, and many on the left end of Democratic party voters either didn't vote for president, voted 3rd party, or wrote in someone else (like Bernie). I personally examined votes in a couple of precincts and found a surprising number of write-in votes for Bernie.

Let's take a hypothetical demographic with 15 million voters during high turnout,13 million under low turnout, and adjust the two parameters above.

Turnout -
Scenario 1: 15 million
Scenario 2: 13 million

Percentage for Candidate -
Scenario 1: 85%
Scenario 2: 90%

Candidate's votes in Scenario 1 - 15 million x 85% = 12.75 million votes
Candidate's votes in Scenario 2 - 13 million x 90% = 11.70 million votes

So, in the higher turnout scenario, the candidate receives 1,050,000 more votes from this demographic despite suffering a 5 point decline in vote percentage.

I'm not claiming this will happen but it should be clear to you that higher turnout can compensate for a lower percentage earned. And, unlike Judicial Watch, I really have "proved" that statement.

By the way, 15% of the African American vote is not Trump's "floor on every poll." I've seen quite a few with a lower percentage than that.
:) I'll bet Joe Biden is really going to drive a huge black turnout. He is one exciting dude. Gonna put y'all in chains! If you vote for Trump you ain't black! Cmon man! Obama was the first "clean" black candidate....according to slow Joe. LOL!

Blacks thought Obama was the messiah and came out in droves- 4.4 million more than came out for Hillary. Then they got ZERO return on investment- he did nothing for them and they know it. Biden has an actual history of racism and racist statements. I don't think he is a turnout upgrade from Hillary. You think the gang bangers that are out looting are going to vote? Nah, neither do I. That's why the Dems are begging for vote by mail.

If there is a better black turnout, then I would guess that Trump gets 25-30% and the turnout is from blacks who have awakened to the fact that under Trump they got jobs and then when covid hit the Dems closed the jobs down.

18 million X .30 = 5.4 million Trump- 12.6 Sleepy - Net = 7.2 for Sleepy
16 million x .08= 1.28 million Trump - 14.72 Sleepy - Net = 13.44 Sleepy

Math proves my point! :)
 
Last edited:

cjbfbp

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 23, 2014
Messages
6,460
Reaction score
1,099
Points
113
If there is a better black turnout, then I would guess that Trump gets 25-30% and the turnout is from blacks who have awakened to the fact that under Trump they got jobs and then when covid hit the Dems closed the jobs down.

18 million X .30 = 5.4 million Trump- 12.6 Sleepy - Net = 7.2 for Sleepy
16 million x .08= 1.28 million Trump - 14.72 Sleepy - Net = 13.44 Sleepy

Math proves my point! :)
You've proven nothing except that you are a dick currently in a captive state of emotional breakdown.

My post simply informed you that an increased African American percentage of the vote doesn't necessarily translate into more votes from that demographic because actual votes are the product of percentage and turnout. My simple exposition was non-partisan and had no other assumptions.

You responded with a bunch of hysterical ranting. You've lost all control. My guess is that there are people formerly part of your private life who no longer speak to you.
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
16,922
Reaction score
1,824
Points
113
This is a Democrat people. She’s running in fear. She’s also Walking Away.

 

justthefacts

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
11,019
Reaction score
1,631
Points
113
Remember: when random Democrats decide to vote for Trump, it's noteworthy and indicative of a broad movement. However, when Republicans who held major elected office decide to vote for Biden, it's because they're members of the Swamp and can be ignored completely
 

Wally

Active member
Joined
Dec 15, 2016
Messages
891
Reaction score
221
Points
43
A sampling:

- Net wealth of bottom half has increased by more than 3 times the top 1%.
Bull F S!

What bottom half went from $1 to $3 and the one percent went from $1 billion to $1.5 billion. Yes their net wealth went up more but it's meaningless.
 

golf

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 11, 2015
Messages
1,022
Reaction score
406
Points
83
Bull F S!

What bottom half went from $1 to $3 and the one percent went from $1 billion to $1.5 billion. Yes their net wealth went up more but it's meaningless.
Very significant when considering the stagnancy of working class wages in past years. Historically low unemployment as well. If this was a dem economy would be praised 24/7.
 

Wally

Active member
Joined
Dec 15, 2016
Messages
891
Reaction score
221
Points
43
Very significant when considering the stagnancy of working class wages in past years. Historically low unemployment as well. If this was a dem economy would be praised 24/7.
Very few ripped Trump economy, they did rip his massive tax cuts for the wealthy. We personally got an extra $20,000+ in our pocket every year from Trump cuts, money we don't really need and at the expense of massive deficits for the country. Doesn't seem very conservative to me????
 

Wally

Active member
Joined
Dec 15, 2016
Messages
891
Reaction score
221
Points
43
Very significant when considering the stagnancy of working class wages in past years. Historically low unemployment as well. If this was a dem economy would be praised 24/7.
Your saying it's significant going $1 of wealth to $3, lol....
 

golf

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 11, 2015
Messages
1,022
Reaction score
406
Points
83
Very few ripped Trump economy, they did rip his massive tax cuts for the wealthy. We personally got an extra $20,000+ in our pocket every year from Trump cuts, money we don't really need and at the expense of massive deficits for the country. Doesn't seem very conservative to me????
Economy is not zero sum. Difficult for me to blame the tax cuts when the result has been record unemployment and wage growth for the lower class. Also difficult for me to blame when america has the most progressive tax code of developed nations. 39% of returns pay zero tax.
 

LesBolstad

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
4,754
Reaction score
639
Points
113
Very few ripped Trump economy, they did rip his massive tax cuts for the wealthy. We personally got an extra $20,000+ in our pocket every year from Trump cuts, money we don't really need and at the expense of massive deficits for the country. Doesn't seem very conservative to me????
IALTO. If true, you were able to keep more of what you earned.
 

Spoofin

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 11, 2013
Messages
16,578
Reaction score
2,050
Points
113
Your saying it's significant going $1 of wealth to $3, lol....
I would say that if those with $3 don’t feel it is significant enough for them that they should do something about it. Bitching about it and asking for handouts doesn’t count.
 

golf

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 11, 2015
Messages
1,022
Reaction score
406
Points
83
Sweet article from 18 months ago.



Another economic trend that began under Obama.
Point is that obama's recovery was historically slow. When trump took over we were way past due for a downturn. Instead, the recovery heated up. Record unemployment. Wage growth for the lower class. Deregulation played a big role. Credit Trump.

Small business is called the enigine of the American economy and their optimism has gone way up under trump as compared to obama. This has contributed greatly to trump's economy as optimism of course leads to hiring and investment. Check out this article:

 

cjbfbp

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 23, 2014
Messages
6,460
Reaction score
1,099
Points
113
Also difficult for me to blame when america has the most progressive tax code of developed nations. 39% of returns pay zero tax.
The progressiveness of the income tax structure is only part of the story. Whether the USA should do more (and how much more) is a matter of debate but just citing that attribute of the income tax distorts the overall picture.

From the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities:

Critics of proposals to make the tax system more progressive or to take other steps to help lessen widening income inequality[2] sometimes cite a 2008 Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) report stating that the United States has the most progressive tax system among developed countries.[3] The implication is that, with a progressive tax system, the United States is already taking very substantial steps to address income inequality.

But to cite the report’s finding on the progressivity of the U.S. tax system while ignoring its other findings amounts to cherry picking and distorts the report’s overall findings. The report also shows that the United States does less to reduce income inequality than every other OECD country examined except Korea, when one considers both various taxes and cash transfer programs such as Social Security, unemployment insurance, and means-tested assistance programs.

1599484484533.png


There are two main reasons for the United States’ comparatively poor performance in reducing inequality:

  • While the taxes that the OECD analysis examined are more progressive in the United States than in other OECD countries, they also are smaller (in terms of the revenue they collect) in the United States than the OECD average.
  • Cash transfers are smaller and less progressive in the United States than in other OECD countries.
 

cjbfbp

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 23, 2014
Messages
6,460
Reaction score
1,099
Points
113
Point is that obama's recovery was historically slow. When trump took over we were way past due for a downturn. Instead, the recovery heated up. Record unemployment. Wage growth for the lower class. Deregulation played a big role. Credit Trump.

Small business is called the enigine of the American economy and their optimism has gone way up under trump as compared to obama. This has contributed greatly to trump's economy as optimism of course leads to hiring and investment. Check out this article:

Obama's recovery was historically slow because 1) it was a deeper and longer recession than any since the Great Depression due to multiple collapses in significant economic sectors and 2) the GOP congress (in McConnell's own words) was committed to limiting his stimulus efforts as much as possible in order to make him a "one-term president."
 
Top Bottom