The 2020 thread....

nkotb wrote:
I'm starting to think that maybe hutch hasn't thought critically about any of the things he's posting here…

We haven't told you about the Ignore User feature.  It's new since you've returned.

Mouse over "Profile" above.  Click any one of the options.

Then Mouse over "Modify Profile" and select "Buddies/Ignore List"

Add any users to your ignore list and their posts will be covered like this:

"You are ignoring this user." with the option to "Show me the post."

Now if people would stop fucking quoting people I've blocked, I wouldn't have to see their nonsense.

Gee feeling the ❤️ here!


Thanks guys

vansmack wrote:

Now if people would stop fucking quoting people I've blocked, I wouldn't have to see their nonsense.

so you must be reading about 6 posts a month as there are about 4 people posting here

an obviously we're going to have to make sure Seth's name is brought up in this Social Media summit as an enabler of censorship of views not liked

I guess if that’s the way you all feel I don’t have to post

My solemn vow is that I will never Ignore any Users. That's elitist BS and I won't be a part of it. I love you dummies all equally

nkotb wrote:
My solemn vow is that I will never Ignore any Users.

(sing-song voice) You! Are! miss-ing out!

Julian, wrote:

nkotb wrote:
My solemn vow is that I will never Ignore any Users.

(sing-song voice) You! Are! miss-ing out!

Why would people want to miss out on posts by anybody? This forum has become boring enough without adding to the boredom by ignoring posts.

Space wrote:

Julian, wrote:

nkotb wrote:
My solemn vow is that I will never Ignore any Users.

(sing-song voice) You! Are! miss-ing out!

Why would people want to miss out on posts by anybody? This forum has become boring enough without adding to the boredom by ignoring posts.

ditto, brah.

hutch wrote:
You might as well just set an Andrew Jackson on fire.

Mitch is going to be re-elected in a walk

Nate Silver @NateSilver538 2:21 PM · Jul 9, 2019
I think McGrath has a shot.


Nate Silver @NateSilver538  Jul 9 2:55 PM
It's gonna be one of those races where the polling could show a close race, but the fundamentals strongly favor McConnell and McConnell probably wins. But if you're not providing for, say, a 15-20% chance of McGrath winning, your mental and/or statistical model is overconfident.

i swear i wrote a reply to hutch's census comments & queries, but looks like i either didn't hit "submit" - or that our censorship=happy overlord Seth is suppressing my right of free expression.  oh well.

my point was: the census isn't meant to count citizens, it's meant to count residents.  the argument is that anything that suppresses the reporting of residents is undermining the purpose of the census.

hutch, you mentioned something about "what a hill for the dems to die on" - this is a battle that is important to several dem constituencies.  the party would have taken this up even if it didn't threaten their access to power.

"trump will ride this to the white house in 2020" - nope.  this issue will disappear in the background well before november'20.  its importance is long-term: distribution of congressional representation (AKA balance of power), allocation of federal grants, etc.  the citizenship question makes for a good talking point now, and trump will trot it out every now and then as part of his usual woe-is-me litany of deep-state complaints, but this isn't going to move the needle.

hutch wrote:
I guess if that’s the way you all feel I don’t have to post

nah.  the reason folks jumped all over you because you were making very strong statements about a topic you didn't seem to know much (or at least enough) about. 

then there's jules, but that's jules… and you two have history.

Ploonet-Hatch wrote:
Nate Silver @NateSilver538  Jul 9 2:55 PM
But if you're not providing for, say, a 15-20% chance of [INSERT CANDIDATE NAME HERE] winning, your mental and/or statistical model is overconfident.

I feel as though he won many very open and contentious arguments by saying something similar in his projections of Trump possibly winning in 2016, with an even higher percentage of odds.

sweetcell wrote:
then there's jules, but that's jules… and you two have history.

To be fair, I said nothing about Hutch.

I just spit out liquid at someone else's joke about Hutch and then sang a jingle about a third-person's suggestion that people block Hutch. I'm leaving it to other people to do the heavy lifting of the #NeverHutch movement this week.

anyone looking forward to a Gov't shut down in the early fall…

he Bipartisan Policy Center earlier this week warned that there is a "significant risk" for a breach of the debt ceiling in September, revising its prior prediction of October or November.

vansmack wrote:

Ploonet-Hatch wrote:
Nate Silver @NateSilver538  Jul 9 2:55 PM
But if you're not providing for, say, a 15-20% chance of [INSERT CANDIDATE NAME HERE] winning, your mental and/or statistical model is overconfident.

I feel as though he won many very open and contentious arguments by saying something similar in his projections of Trump possibly winning in 2016, with an even higher percentage of odds.

first I was all excited by his 'I think McGrath has a shot.' tweet

but that's why I posted his second tweet which pretty much said…no she doesn't

trump taking a new tack on this….
Ultimately I hold Mitch and co responsible for this shit…he's unchecked on every level and just keeps creating a new normal.
it's not MAGA its Make America a Despotic State

Trump backs away from census citizenship question, direct agencies to hand over citizenship information to Commerce
"We are not backing down on our effort to determine the citizenship status of the US population," Trump said in laying out a plan to issue an executive order asking US departments and agencies to find ways to determine a head-count of citizens.
Trump said agencies would be required to provide the Commerce Department with documents and records of citizens and non-citizens, which he said would help provide an accurate picture of US citizenship.

That’s great news

Ploonet-Hatch wrote:
trump taking a new tack on this….

Not really.  His tack all along was to rile up the left while placating to his base.  This new "tack" - which will never come to fruition - is the same.

It's his tried and true pattern and it's so damn effective: get the left fired up, make my base happy all while changing ABSOLUTELY nothing.

vansmack wrote:

Ploonet-Hatch wrote:
trump taking a new tack on this….

Not really.  His tack all along was to rile up the left while placating to his base.  This new "tack" - which will never come to fruition - is the same.

It's his tried and true pattern and it's so damn effective: get the left fired up, make my base happy all while changing ABSOLUTELY nothing.

ok…that is 100% correct
although they keep chanting 'he's delivered on EVERY promise he's ever made"
how do we combat that misconception

he is so good at getting liberals panties in a knot (is that now an inappropriate cliche in #metoo?)

Ploonet-Hatch wrote:

vansmack wrote:

Ploonet-Hatch wrote:
trump taking a new tack on this….

Not really.  His tack all along was to rile up the left while placating to his base.  This new "tack" - which will never come to fruition - is the same.

It's his tried and true pattern and it's so damn effective: get the left fired up, make my base happy all while changing ABSOLUTELY nothing.

ok…that is 100% correct
although they keep chanting 'he's delivered on EVERY promise he's ever made"
how do we combat that misconception

he is so good at getting liberals panties in a knot (is that now an inappropriate cliche in #metoo?)

This was a good outcome.  It will help with the integrity of the census (though they will find other means to try to undercount minorities).  And of course the R's will continue to pitch new ways to try to reshape the electorate in their favor.

Ploonet-Hatch wrote:
how do we combat that misconception

Why bother?  Are you ever going to change the mind of his base?  Do you even need to in order to win this election?

Start focusing on sensible economic policies that will change the minds of ~700,000 voters in 6 key states instead of seeing who can jerk whom off furthest to the left. 

And, please, ignore the distractions.