Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/mikelevinca/status/916158925501640704

meloshouldgo wrote:

nixluva wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

nixluva wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

markvmc wrote:This whole bit about how voting for a third party candidate means you helped Trump win is utter nonsense. If we lived in a democracy it might be true. But we live in a federal republic, and there are some states like NY and Alabama, where the outcome is a foregone conclusion. I live in NY, I voted for the Greens in the safe and certain knowledge that Clinton was going to carry the state. My vote was completely irrelevant in the "who wins" stakes. It had no part in determining that Trump won. Literally no part.

Correct. It's pure sophistry.

Unfortunately, the Democrats that wanted Hillary to win, can't accept that she wasn't capable of winning. So they need to blame other people using this tortuous ass-backwards logic.

Utter unadulterated garbage.

Come on BRUH! Dude won Electoral College by less than 80,000 votes in 3 states. All the Russian BS and Comey! It's not that hard to imagine things being much different and I'll never forgive the voters who went for Trump or 3rd Party. In fact those people should hide in shame for that horrible decision. You can't try to obfuscate the truth of such a bad decision.

TRUMP was a HORRIBLE and UNFIT candidate and every observable fact made this clear!!! The man is a disgrace to the office and the country.

Nix - they are both HORRIBLE AND UNFIT, candidates. Our system doesn't require a minimum margin of victory and the electoral college is what chooses the President not a simple majority. You can take issue with that and you can blame people till the cows come home or you can look at what happened and try to learn from it.

It's up to you.

This idea that Trump and Hillary are equally UNFIT is the DUMBEST LOAD OF BS people can use to excuse their vote for Trump, 3rd Party or no Vote at all. PURE BS!!! You can sit and make a list of the strengths and weaknesses of both candidates and there's no way in HELL Hillary doesn't TROUNCE Trump in her level of Fitness!

I have to question your ability to judge and weigh things if you think you could credibly make a case that Hillary was as Unfit as Trump to be President. IMO you're embarrassing yourself with this take. How do you expect us to take you seriously if you can't admit this thinking was flawed?

Never said anything about "equally" unfit. They are unfit for different reasons and I was unable determine which one would lead to worse long term outcomes. I think this horse has been beaten to death enough and I have nothing further to contribute to this. If blaming me and people like me makes you feel better, have at it.

Papabear Says

Trump is a racist point blank. His daddy was a member of the KKK. How can you compare that to Hillary. Cam Newton made a sexist statement this week and he apologized for it. He lost endorsements and lots more. If Trump would have made the same statement nothing would have happened. It would be business as usual.

meloshouldgo wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:You have three choices and two outcomes

Choices 1, 0 and -1
Outcomes 1 and -1

Apparently if you choose 0, and and regardless of what other people choose the math says, that for the population of people that choose zero

0+0+0+0+0... = 1 for very large values of zero

OR

0+0+0+0+0... = -1 for very small values of zero

And whichever outcome you get the math of adding up zeros to get to THAT outcomes is true and undeniable. Because it is just math. It may even be factorial!!!

I am definitely not an expert on math but for the sake of the betterment of the country I hope Knickoftime isn't teaching math somewhere, or logic for that matter, he seems capable of neither.

But what do I know.

I think what's clear is your absolute motivation to believe you had no role in events affecting you. The pride in the belief of your passivity is the odd part.

You didn't do anything good or noble, you believe (to a degree falsely) you let other people decide for you. Congratulations, you gave other people authority over you. Yay you!

Maybe you should to stick to the math, this drivel is even harder to read.

I don't need motivation or belief, I know I didn't help Trump win, unlike you I can actually do basic math.

You're getting increasingly defensive.

On the other hand your clear and passionate need to hold me accountable for something I didn't do is actually funny.

You're confusing my argument with Nix's. I have no interest in holding you accountable. I'm simply responding to the idea of that you did nothing to affect the outcome of the election. Everybody eligible to vote did. This is such a basic objective fact that anyone arguing against it would seem to be motivated by some personal need.

We now have nine eventful months to plug into the equation. It is no longer 100% speculative. After all Clinton did spend years as a public servant. It hasn't gone unnoticed you're avoiding comparisons despite the fact we now have real information to compare.

Or maybe you don't really think Trump is grossly incompetent, that's a possibility too.

meloshouldgo wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:You have three choices and two outcomes

Choices 1, 0 and -1
Outcomes 1 and -1

Apparently if you choose 0, and and regardless of what other people choose the math says, that for the population of people that choose zero

0+0+0+0+0... = 1 for very large values of zero

OR

0+0+0+0+0... = -1 for very small values of zero

And whichever outcome you get the math of adding up zeros to get to THAT outcomes is true and undeniable. Because it is just math. It may even be factorial!!!

I am definitely not an expert on math but for the sake of the betterment of the country I hope Knickoftime isn't teaching math somewhere, or logic for that matter, he seems capable of neither.

But what do I know.

I think what's clear is your absolute motivation to believe you had no role in events affecting you. The pride in the belief of your passivity is the odd part.

You didn't do anything good or noble, you believe (to a degree falsely) you let other people decide for you. Congratulations, you gave other people authority over you. Yay you!

Maybe you should to stick to the math, this drivel is even harder to read.

I don't need motivation or belief, I know I didn't help Trump win, unlike you I can actually do basic math.

You're getting increasingly defensive.

On the other hand your clear and passionate need to hold me accountable for something I didn't do is actually funny.

You're confusing my argument with Nix's. I have no interest in holding you accountable. I'm simply responding to the idea of that you did nothing to affect the outcome of the election. Everybody eligible to vote did. This is such a basic objective fact that anyone arguing against it would seem to be motivated by some personal need.

We now have nine eventful months to plug into the equation. It is no longer 100% speculative. After all Clinton did spend years as a public servant. It hasn't gone unnoticed you're avoiding comparisons despite the fact we now have real information to compare.

Or maybe you don't really think Trump is grossly incompetent, that's a possibility too.

Yes I know, when you run out of arguments you switch to "you are being defensive"

I'm not switching to anything. You're engaging in personal insults for no reason.

You are trying to now pass judgement on a decision made with the absence of data by using highlight, I have zero interest in going down that rat hole.

Clearly.

The thing is over two camps here, one camp in which people are more than open to talk about their decision then and their thoughts now, and another camp in which people are not only reluctant to talk about the choices but resent being asked.

Here's the thing - for a lot of people what has occurred over the last nine months isn't an x factor, but the utterly predictable result of what was painfully obvious from day one. How anybody thought this wasn't going to happen 10, 12, 15, 20 months ago remains a mystery to a lot of us.

An interesting topic of conversation is whether this is worth whatever bargain people made with themselves.

I can't imagine a situation where I'd be reluctant to talk my choice and its ramifications head on.

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/kendilaniannbc/status/916337588616814594

nixluva wrote:

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/aslavitt/status/916094460253130752

This is news? I thought it's more of a foregone conclusion. He pretty much said he would during the campaign.

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/natashabertrand/status/916416570460688385

Long but interesting article. Haven't finished. Will save here for later

Knickoftime wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:You have three choices and two outcomes

Choices 1, 0 and -1
Outcomes 1 and -1

Apparently if you choose 0, and and regardless of what other people choose the math says, that for the population of people that choose zero

0+0+0+0+0... = 1 for very large values of zero

OR

0+0+0+0+0... = -1 for very small values of zero

And whichever outcome you get the math of adding up zeros to get to THAT outcomes is true and undeniable. Because it is just math. It may even be factorial!!!

I am definitely not an expert on math but for the sake of the betterment of the country I hope Knickoftime isn't teaching math somewhere, or logic for that matter, he seems capable of neither.

But what do I know.

I think what's clear is your absolute motivation to believe you had no role in events affecting you. The pride in the belief of your passivity is the odd part.

You didn't do anything good or noble, you believe (to a degree falsely) you let other people decide for you. Congratulations, you gave other people authority over you. Yay you!

Maybe you should to stick to the math, this drivel is even harder to read.

I don't need motivation or belief, I know I didn't help Trump win, unlike you I can actually do basic math.

You're getting increasingly defensive.

On the other hand your clear and passionate need to hold me accountable for something I didn't do is actually funny.

You're confusing my argument with Nix's. I have no interest in holding you accountable. I'm simply responding to the idea of that you did nothing to affect the outcome of the election. Everybody eligible to vote did. This is such a basic objective fact that anyone arguing against it would seem to be motivated by some personal need.

We now have nine eventful months to plug into the equation. It is no longer 100% speculative. After all Clinton did spend years as a public servant. It hasn't gone unnoticed you're avoiding comparisons despite the fact we now have real information to compare.

Or maybe you don't really think Trump is grossly incompetent, that's a possibility too.

Yes I know, when you run out of arguments you switch to "you are being defensive"

I'm not switching to anything. You're engaging in personal insults for no reason.

You are trying to now pass judgement on a decision made with the absence of data by using highlight, I have zero interest in going down that rat hole.

Clearly.

The thing is over two camps here, one camp in which people are more than open to talk about their decision then and their thoughts now, and another camp in which people are not only reluctant to talk about the choices but resent being asked.

Here's the thing - for a lot of people what has occurred over the last nine months isn't an x factor, but the utterly predictable result of what was painfully obvious from day one. How anybody thought this wasn't going to happen 10, 12, 15, 20 months ago remains a mystery to a lot of us.

An interesting topic of conversation is whether this is worth whatever bargain people made with themselves.

I can't imagine a situation where I'd be reluctant to talk my choice and its ramifications head on.

(I think we have already covered there insult thing? It's how I play, trailer it or leave it)

It comes off as defensive. That's why people lash out. Pointing that out is how I play.

Well I guess I don't understand
Because on one hand you say things like, you have no interest in holding people accountable on their decision and they have the right to vote or not vote

Then you post ad nauseum about that choice being wrong. And make these bogus accusation that I am trying to hide from something. That's not personal right?

I'll be clear. I have no idea why people wouldn't be open to openly discussing their decisions and the reasons behind them and the ramifications of them, particularly in circumstances in which they're choosing to participate in discussion of the topic.

Yes, when anyone does itt it raises questions for me. You may take that personally if inclined.

If you are willing to debate the decision without employing hindsight, I will answer questions on it all day long.

I think we already did that, but as Trump's conduct and performance becomes worse and worse, I think revisiting the original calculation is perfectly fair and relevant, especially since many saw this as entirely predictable.

On your terms, however, to reiterate, given reluctant trump voters and swing states swing voters will now be looking for cover in 2020, I can't imagine any scenario in which the Democratic Party goes to the left. They're going to take the safest route. I strongly suspected you're stuck with moderates for the foreseeable future, moderates set may some staying power.

FINALLY, I don't know how to ask the simple question of your assessment of Trump the reality versus Trump of your expectations without you perceiving it as a gotcha question.

No, I don't think I have changed my position on him. I thought they would both be lousy presidents and so far he hasn't done anything to change that. I also thought eventually what little decency is left in the Republican party will prevail from allowing anything catastrophic from happening that seems to be on target as well. I head zero reason to suppose Hillary or Trump could get a SC pick approved without a Senate majority so in my own analysis I had conceded that we are going to get what the Senate wants. And I tried my best to change the balance of power in the Senate.

meloshouldgo wrote:I know you have the brains but not sure you have the listening skills. I am happy to evaluate Trump as a president against what I thought he would be. I m not going to do a comparative analysis of what he is versus a "projection" of what Hillary should have been. To me a large number of smart people fall into the trap of doing this and it leads to really bad decisions. I would object to it just as much if Hillary was President and Briggs was trying to prove why Trump "would have" been better.

This is the most stressful job in the world people often act out of character and to make blind comparisons to drive an agenda is dangerous and disingenuous.

Obama was a outspoken liberal and an idealist when he campaigned, her became an embattled pragmatist s the President. To say we could project from one to the other in the absence of actual data is just plain stupid.

It's funny but Obama was actually one of the most Progressive Presidents we've had!!!

http://pleasecutthecrap.com/obama-accomplishments/

It's only by a very narrow and purist view that you seem unable to recognize all that Obama did despite unprecedented opposition from Republicans. Hillary would've been able to improve upon what Obama accomplished rather than destroy a lot of things as Trump has been doing. Somehow this seems to have escaped your attention.

meloshouldgo wrote:I know you have the brains but not sure you have the listening skills. I am happy to evaluate Trump as a president against what I thought he would be. I m not going to do a comparative analysis of what he is versus a "projection" of what Hillary should have been. To me a large number of smart people fall into the trap of doing this and it leads to really bad decisions. I would object to it just as much if Hillary was President and Briggs was trying to prove why Trump "would have" been better.

Here's the thing, however. Trump has changed the the calculus. It is no longer an issue of nuanced policy or even political ideology. It is a question a basic competency, of our president getting through a week without grossly and a demonstratively embarrassing the United States of America, doing damage to the office and forever changing political discourse.

I have zero problem concluding just about anybody who ran in either primaries in 2016, including Hillary Clinton, would do laps around Donald Trump in just the appearing to be qualified to be President threshold.

Obama was a outspoken liberal and an idealist when he campaigned, her became an embattled pragmatist s the President. To say we could project from one to the other in the absence of actual data is just plain stupid.

Perhaps, but I don't think there's any question he could muster the appropriate empathy to perform simple tasks. I think you miss the point if you think anyone is asking you to assess Trump in a ideological versus practical matter.

I think people are effectively asking you, 'did you not see Trump would be this big of an incompetent,' or 'do you think he isn't that disaterous of an incompetent?'