***Official Political Discussion Thread***

seeesh, if you grossed 80k last year as a single filer. You prolly live in major cities. Cause living in FL making 80k a year is considered balling for some folks lol

80k doesnt get very far in SoCal as a single filer unless you have VERY MINIMAL debt/bills. If you have a child or pay child suppprt, it’s almost like living in poverty. And yes, I’m speaking from experience
 
lol I don't need to redeem anything, it's a free country yall can be mad or annoyed by my opinions
they don't require redemption. :lol:

here you go.



there are conclusions that can be drawn from this...what conclusions i guess is in the eye of the beholder. 🤔
I read the article already, that is why I made said it doesn't back up your previous point. I am just saying generally you should link your sources.

Pretty sure people were not only by your opinions. You keep thinking it is, even though numerous people have pointed out that was not the only thing. But do you.

And you are right, no one has to try and redeem themselves for being an *** on NT. Folk will just remember buffoonery

Anyway, your first take was about the "defund the police" messaging cost the Dems the election. On that point, you admitting it was probably too early to make that call and would wait until more data comes in.

That is was started your month-long **** show. Before the "defund the police" is dumb because it a bad way to reform policing. It was it is dumb because it cost Dems the election. You conceded you jumped the gun on the election. Then you transition to the other ****.

So now a data point comes it, I am saying it redeems your election argument because it fixes the main fault your acknowledged with that claim you made, that at the time it was conjecture. No matter if what you said or acted, that you know think you have evidence backing up your original point.

You think Shor back up your claim, but he really doesn't.

When Levitz follows up he kinda handwaves the question (in regards to the Dems running on the issue) and theorizes some point about white college-educated liberals and the saliency of "defund the police", but the study he points to actually undercuts his point about views on crime and support for Biden. In fact it says the opposite.

I know it is a free country, and I am free to be annoyed by your hot takes that you don't have evidence to back it up, even when you claim you do. 🤷‍♂️

And of course I know: nah, you disagree :lol:
 
Last edited:
I read the article already, that is why I made said it doesn't back up your previous point. I am just saying generally you should link your sources.

Pretty sure people were not only by your opinions. You keep thinking it is, even though numerous people have pointed out that was not the only thing. But do you.

And you are right, no one has to try and redeem themselves for being an *** on NT. Folk will just remember buffoonery

Anyway, your first take was about the "defund the police" messaging cost the Dems the election. On that point, you admitting it was probably too early to make that call and would wait until more data comes in.

That is was started your month-long **** show. Before the "defund the police" is dumb because it a bad way to reform policing. It was it is dumb because it cost Dems the election. You conceded you jumped the gun on the election. Then you transition to the other ****.

So now a data point comes it, I am saying it redeems your election argument because it fixes the main fault your acknowledged with that claim you made, that at the time it was conjecture. No matter if what you said or acted, that you know think you have evidence backing up your original point.

You think Shor back up your claim, but he really doesn't.

When Levitz follows up he kinda handwaves the question and theorizes some point about white liberals and the saliency of "defund the police", but the study he points to actually undercuts his point about views on crime. In fact it says the opposite.

I know it is a free country, and I am free to be annoyed by your hot takes that you don't have evidence to back it up.

:lol:

i mean all i can say is that's an interesting version of reality you've constructed.

i mean this sincerely, let's hope it's real. 🙏
 
:lol:

i mean all i can say is that's an interesting version of reality you've constructed.

let's hope it's real. 🙏
Where did I lie?

About you making an *** of yourself?
You arguing the defund the police stuff cost the Dems in the election?
You acknowledging you don't have election research to back it up?
Your rants about defund the police being a bad way to do the reforms, and that came after the election take?
Or my point about Shor argument and him citing something that undercuts his point?
 
i'm not gonna argue about this because there is simply too much distance between you and i on this subject.

i think just about everything you said in there is totally wrong.


no point in going round and round.
let's just hope you're right about all this.
:lol: :lol:

-Of course you do

Let me prove one of my points real quick...
dacomeup dacomeup
M Mark Antony
Methodical Management Methodical Management
D deleted
IATT IATT
Nike Jordan Nike Jordan
Comparison Ford Comparison Ford

Did Osh make an *** of himself when he was ranting in here for weeks about defunding the police. Or I'm I just operating in an alternative reality?

-Also....
No show us proof it is responsible for the Dems underperformance in the 2020 election.

Your response. this you right?...

obviously I don't have definitive proof of that,

it's possible that the polls were always wrong, and that Dems didn't so much under perform as much as they were only up by 3-4 points to begin with.



I think the fact that Trump was able to overperform in majority Latino districts, especially a long the boarder where many Latino's work for immigration and law enforcement

and he seems to have improved his margins in some majority black districts.



I would guess that "Defund the Police" was unhelpful.


I can't say for certain,

but I think in general irrespective of the specifics of the 2020 election
it's bad process to use unpopular slogans that confuse or radicalize people against you.

-Third, when you read the Vox article Shor links to it makes the argument that Economics might be helping Trump.

Economy-focused voters like Trump
In Equis’s polling, a key driver of the Hispanic gender gap is that Latinos were much more likely than Latinas to express worry about the economy relative to worry about getting sick.

Screen_Shot_2020_07_01_at_11.40.33_AM.png
Equis Research
Trump’s big remaining hope of winning the election is that surveys show the public still has confidence in his economic management.

A June 30 Pew poll showed Biden with an edge on handling race relations, criminal justice issues, and the public health impact of the coronavirus pandemic. But Trump had a three point edge on making good decisions about economic policy. In the New York Times poll that was overall disastrous for Trump, “his approval rating is still narrowly positive on the issue of the economy, with 50 percent of voters giving him favorable marks compared with 45 percent saying the opposite.”


Trump’s problem is that a clear majority of voters are focused on other things. The exception to that is Latino men, who Trump is ill-positioned to win over due to his positioning of himself as the candidate of white backlash against Latin American immigration. But Trump is currently doing better than expected with this swath of the electorate, pointing to a possible resurgence in the president’s support among older white voters who are a better cultural fit for him but who are currently focused on the threat of the coronavirus.

It seems likely that the shift in the outbreak’s epicenter toward Florida and the Southwest will increase concern about Covid-19 among Latino voters and eliminate Trump’s pocket of strength there. But the larger lesson is not so much about Hispanic voters as the extent to which Biden’s strong standing in the polls is potentially a hostage to the news environment. As long as voters don’t explicitly see economic problems as Trump’s fault, he has hopes for a revival of fortunes.
Shor said you can see his theory playing out during the election. But at that time, Biden had higher polling on criminal justice and Trump's strength was supposedly with the economy.
 
Last edited:
I don't disagree with this point at all, but using 2009 as the starting point right after the housing collapse is misleading as hell.

2009 is the last time minimum wage was increased and prices fell to 171k by 2011, so I don't think this is cherry picking.

Which date do you think wouldn't be misleading? Surely not right before the bubble burst?

 
-Third, when you read the Vox article Shor links to it makes the argument that Economics might be helping Trump.

Shor said you can see his theory playing out during the election. But at that time, Biden had higher polling on criminal justice and Trump's strength was supposedly with the economy.

im not arguing about this on here.

1. no one wants that. :lol:
2. im sure you can already probably guess what i think. :lol:


i thought the article was interesting tho!
 
??
:lol:

"online progressives are dislike opinions that run contrary to their own"

if this is the charge

you_got_me_breaking_bad.gif
:lol: man look at this :rofl:

Perfect, you think everything I said was wrong. Yet on one point, I can show that I am not the only one that thought that way, and you want to dismiss that.

So a bunch of people agree with something, you disagree, but the group is the one delude operating in an alternative reality, not you. :rofl: :rofl:

Amazing.

You just don't get it it was not just your take people had an issue with. Your general behavior, constant hypocrisy were pissing people off.

But you were and are still up your own *** about this that you think it is just about 'Online progressive can't handle my reality-based take"

That is not it dude.
 
im not arguing about this on here.

1. no one wants that. :lol:
2. im sure you can already probably guess what i think. :lol:


i thought the article was interesting tho!
I know what you think

No matter if you don't have a data point, or no matter if the evidence you present doesn't back up that point, in the end, it still confirm your priors

The end :D
 
80k doesnt get very far in SoCal as a single filer unless you have VERY MINIMAL debt/bills. If you have a child or pay child suppprt, it’s almost like living in poverty. And yes, I’m speaking from experience

Could say that for every major city on the west coast. $1,400 is one mortgage payment for me.
 
:lol: man look at this :rofl:

Perfect, you think everything I said was wrong. Yet on one point, I can show that I am not the only one that thought that way, and you want to dismiss that.

So a bunch of people agree with something, you disagree, but the group is the one delude operating in an alternative reality, not you. :rofl: :rofl:

Amazing.

You just don't get it it was not just your take people had an issue with. Your general behavior, constant hypocrisy were pissing people off.

But you were and are still up your own *** about this that you think it is just about 'Online progressive can't handle my reality-based take"

That is not it dude.

You keep doing this thing where you just casually state things I didn't say.

I didn't say: "online progressive can't handle my reality-based take"

i said

"online progressives dislike opinions that run contrary to their own"

maybe you all are right, maybe I'm right. Who can say

But this discontent many may feel about my manner of presentation or the content of the opinion, isn't a data point that refutes my claims.

and if I was acting the exact same way but it was in support of the consensus opinion, undoubtedly people would feel a lot differently about it.


 
Could say that for every major city on the west coast. $1,400 is one mortgage payment for me.

very true my friend. I would rather pay a $1,400 mortgage payment every month and have equity than pay $1,400 or more every month for rent and have nothin.
 
Cuomo was gonna speak at 1pm. He shook :lol:. Getting his acting together and speech ready.
 
:smh:

Even though Democrats have the house, senate, and the presidency they are still letting Republicans control the narrative :smh:

Why would they limit the $1400 checks for less than what Trump was doing.

They are so stupid man...

F all that the most important thing they have to do/pass is the voting rights act.

Republicans are going to go full blast to try to stop minorities from voting.

If they let the Republicans have their way they probably going to ban Democrats from voting altogether.
 
They lucky a dude like me isn't calling the shots.

I would straight up withhold the money that blue states make that the red states depend on.

Stop doing business with companies that support that BS like what AT&T and Coca-Cola is doing.

Coke ran pro voter and black ads all this time but they donated so much money to have those laws passed that restrict votes in GA.
 
:lol: :lol:

-Of course you do

Let me prove one of my points real quick...
dacomeup dacomeup
M Mark Antony
Methodical Management Methodical Management
D deleted
IATT IATT
Nike Jordan Nike Jordan
Comparison Ford Comparison Ford

Did Osh make an *** of himself when he was ranting in here for weeks about defunding the police. Or I'm I just operating in an alternative reality?

-Also....


Your response. this you right?...



-Third, when you read the Vox article Shor links to it makes the argument that Economics might be helping Trump.


Shor said you can see his theory playing out during the election. But at that time, Biden had higher polling on criminal justice and Trump's strength was supposedly with the economy.
I blocked that joker because of those stupid
Statement :lol:

over and over about how police with more money will do better. You don’t go back and forth with that logic. That’s pure bum on the street rambling you just keep walking away from
 
Back
Top Bottom