(05-04-2018 05:26 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I do think too many D's vote straight ticket democrat without a thought to doing anything else. Certainly there are R's the same way, but in much lower numbers. I think if we sequestered American voters like a jury for a year or two - no TV, no papers, no news - 35% of them would still vote straight ticket Democrat, without any good reason at all. They would vote that way if Jesus was the Republican candidate with Confusius as his running mate. They would vote that way if the Devil was the Dem candidate, with Attilla his running mate. Completely mindless.

Hmm, so you’re calling roughly 70% of Hillary’s voters “completely mindless”?

Seems kind of deplorable to me.

(05-04-2018 05:59 PM)erice Wrote:  

(05-04-2018 05:26 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I do think too many D's vote straight ticket democrat without a thought to doing anything else. Certainly there are R's the same way, but in much lower numbers. I think if we sequestered American voters like a jury for a year or two - no TV, no papers, no news - 35% of them would still vote straight ticket Democrat, without any good reason at all. They would vote that way if Jesus was the Republican candidate with Confusius as his running mate. They would vote that way if the Devil was the Dem candidate, with Attilla his running mate. Completely mindless.

Hmm, so you’re calling roughly 70% of Hillary’s voters “completely mindless”?

Seems kind of deplorable to me.

Lol.

Yes, if somebody can tell you 4-20 years ahead of time they will vote a straight ticket, seems mindless to me.

Back in the seventies, one of my employees decided to run for Justice of the Peace. One day, in a local store, he ran into a lady he had known for thirty years. He asked he for her vote, and she said, “Gene, you know you got it. You’re one of the nicest guys I have ever known, He then handed her his card, and she saw he was running as a Republican. “Sorry, Gene, I can’t vote for you. My Daddy would turn over in his grave. Hope you win, though”

Second story: Right before an election, my then father-in-law said ti me, I sure hope (the Republican)wins. I think he is the best man”. I was amazed, and said, “I never thought you would ever vote for a Republican”. He replied, Oh, I’m not voting for him. why not, I asked. he looked at me like I was incredibly stupid, and then explained, “well, if I did that I couldn’t vote a straight ticket, could I?”

What percentage of Hillary voters do you think split their tickets? Think it was 30%+?

What percentage do you think listened to the debates and then made their choice to vote a straight ticket?

I am not "racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic -- you name it." as Hillary said, but I do think she was talking about me, and most other middle Americans.

However, i do bitterly cling to my guns and religion - well, my guns anyway.

(05-04-2018 06:28 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-04-2018 05:59 PM)erice Wrote:  

(05-04-2018 05:26 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I do think too many D's vote straight ticket democrat without a thought to doing anything else. Certainly there are R's the same way, but in much lower numbers. I think if we sequestered American voters like a jury for a year or two - no TV, no papers, no news - 35% of them would still vote straight ticket Democrat, without any good reason at all. They would vote that way if Jesus was the Republican candidate with Confusius as his running mate. They would vote that way if the Devil was the Dem candidate, with Attilla his running mate. Completely mindless.

Hmm, so you’re calling roughly 70% of Hillary’s voters “completely mindless”?

Seems kind of deplorable to me.

Lol.

Yes, if somebody can tell you 4-20 years ahead of time they will vote a straight ticket, seems mindless to me.

Back in the seventies, one of my employees decided to run for Justice of the Peace. One day, in a local store, he ran into a lady he had known for thirty years. He asked he for her vote, and she said, “Gene, you know you got it. You’re one of the nicest guys I have ever known, He then handed her his card, and she saw he was running as a Republican. “Sorry, Gene, I can’t vote for you. My Daddy would turn over in his grave. Hope you win, though”

Ok. That's one...

(05-04-2018 06:28 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Second story: Right before an election, my then father-in-law said ti me, I sure hope (the Republican)wins. I think he is the best man”. I was amazed, and said, “I never thought you would ever vote for a Republican”. He replied, Oh, I’m not voting for him. why not, I asked. he looked at me like I was incredibly stupid, and then explained, “well, if I did that I couldn’t vote a straight ticket, could I?”

Good story. Ok, two...

(05-04-2018 06:28 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  What percentage of Hillary voters do you think split their tickets?

I have no idea! But based on your sample of 2, I guess i'd have to say... zero?

(05-04-2018 06:28 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Think it was 30%+?

Let's ask Google. Okay, here's something... If the 10 most populous Texas counties are a better sample than your two anecdotes, seems like yes. Closer to double that number, based on a quick guesstimate of the average. And within a few points of the red voters.

(05-04-2018 06:28 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  What percentage do you think listened to the debates and then made their choice to vote a straight ticket?

I have no idea. Do you think you do?

(04-09-2018 10:30 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  You did not respond to the question about Hillary. She basically said the smart people voted for her and the rest didn't. Also, that married white women had to vote as their husbands tell them. You may not have heard the statement on CNN.

It is that way of viewing the opposition that caused such a groundswell of anger at the "deplorables" statement, which is what I think gave the election to Trump. A lot of people wanted this or that that Trump promised them, but a lot were just tired of being looked down on and demeaned by the power people in your party. Hillary wasn't the first or the last to slip up and let their true feelings be known.

Amen to that.

(05-04-2018 09:14 PM)erice Wrote:  

(05-04-2018 06:28 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-04-2018 05:59 PM)erice Wrote:  

(05-04-2018 05:26 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I do think too many D's vote straight ticket democrat without a thought to doing anything else. Certainly there are R's the same way, but in much lower numbers. I think if we sequestered American voters like a jury for a year or two - no TV, no papers, no news - 35% of them would still vote straight ticket Democrat, without any good reason at all. They would vote that way if Jesus was the Republican candidate with Confusius as his running mate. They would vote that way if the Devil was the Dem candidate, with Attilla his running mate. Completely mindless.

Hmm, so you’re calling roughly 70% of Hillary’s voters “completely mindless”?

Seems kind of deplorable to me.

Lol.

Yes, if somebody can tell you 4-20 years ahead of time they will vote a straight ticket, seems mindless to me.

Back in the seventies, one of my employees decided to run for Justice of the Peace. One day, in a local store, he ran into a lady he had known for thirty years. He asked he for her vote, and she said, “Gene, you know you got it. You’re one of the nicest guys I have ever known, He then handed her his card, and she saw he was running as a Republican. “Sorry, Gene, I can’t vote for you. My Daddy would turn over in his grave. Hope you win, though”

Ok. That's one...

(05-04-2018 06:28 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Second story: Right before an election, my then father-in-law said ti me, I sure hope (the Republican)wins. I think he is the best man”. I was amazed, and said, “I never thought you would ever vote for a Republican”. He replied, Oh, I’m not voting for him. why not, I asked. he looked at me like I was incredibly stupid, and then explained, “well, if I did that I couldn’t vote a straight ticket, could I?”

Good story. Ok, two...

(05-04-2018 06:28 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  What percentage of Hillary voters do you think split their tickets?

I have no idea! But based on your sample of 2, I guess i'd have to say... zero?

(05-04-2018 06:28 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Think it was 30%+?

Let's ask Google. Okay, here's something... If the 10 most populous Texas counties are a better sample than your two anecdotes, seems like yes. Closer to double that number, based on a quick guesstimate of the average. And within a few points of the red voters.

(05-04-2018 06:28 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  What percentage do you think listened to the debates and then made their choice to vote a straight ticket?

I have no idea. Do you think you do?

(04-09-2018 10:30 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  You did not respond to the question about Hillary. She basically said the smart people voted for her and the rest didn't. Also, that married white women had to vote as their husbands tell them. You may not have heard the statement on CNN.

It is that way of viewing the opposition that caused such a groundswell of anger at the "deplorables" statement, which is what I think gave the election to Trump. A lot of people wanted this or that that Trump promised them, but a lot were just tired of being looked down on and demeaned by the power people in your party. Hillary wasn't the first or the last to slip up and let their true feelings be known.

Amen to that.

Nice googling, but poor reading. I suggested the percentage of split tickets among Democrats was less than 30%. You came back with 35.3% of the TOTAL vote was D straight ticket. So the percentage of Democrats (as opposed to the percentage of ALL voters who voted a straight Democratic ticket)voting a straight ticket was probably very close to 70% Ok?

So if 50% of the total vote was for Hillary, then the percentage of Hillary voters who voted a straight Democratic ticket was 35,3/50,0 = 70.6%. I don’t know if she got more or less than 50%. Still, a large majority of her votes came from people who voted a ST, and I would guess a large percentage of them habitually vote the ST without thinking or pay attention to candidates or issues, thus mindless.



way too many people in both parties vote the party instead of the person or the issue. JMHO. I try to make a point of voting split tickets, but it is getting tougher to find Democrats who are votable. Lower level slots are the saving grace. I can find good people running on the D ticket in county races. Higher level races, I am reduced to Libertarians and independents as alternate choices.

But the ones I really do not think of highly are the ones, like my ex father in law, who pull the straight ticket lever without thought, and know they will do this every chance in the future. He died at 97,having never cast a vote that wasn’t straight ticket democrat. 1933-2009, every vote ST Dem. The closest he came to not casting a ST was in the 70’s , when Jesse Jackson was running for the Democratic nomination. When asked what he would do if JJ was the Dem nominee, he allowed that he might stay home.

(05-04-2018 09:56 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Nice googling, but poor reading. I suggested the percentage of split tickets among Democrats was less than 30%. You came back with 35.3% of the TOTAL vote was D straight ticket. So the percentage of Democrats (as opposed to the percentage of ALL voters who voted a straight Democratic ticket)voting a straight ticket was probably very close to 70% Ok?

Shoot. Pesky denominators. Ruin a good fake news story. Guess I’m one of the mindless.

‘Course that correct math shifts the straight-ticket voting more towards the Repubs than my faulty math, considering the 10 largest counties, by and large, are the ones that went blue. In Harris, for example (which went Clinton 54-42, and where 35% of votes were straight-ticket blue and 30% were straight-ticket red), a higher percentage of Trump’s voters went straight-ticket than Hillary’s.

I’m not going to claim to know what that means for the U.S. voting population as a whole, but generalizations about any large group (such as “Certainly there are R's the same way, but in much lower numbers”) sometimes say more about the speaker’s perception bias than the target of the statement.

I pretty much vote on party lines, but not R or D. I've said what I'd support too many times to repeat here, and neither Rs nor Ds show much inclination in that direction. When independent looks are taken by qualified, informed, bipartisan or non-partisan analysts, like Bowles-Simpson or Domenici-Rivlin, they get a lot closer to some of my ideas. But I don't see either Ds or Rs going that way, although I would support the first one who did. Fortunately, God has blessed us with so many natural advantages that even our current politicians may not be able to screw it up.

Prediction: That won't stop them from trying.

(05-05-2018 10:17 AM)erice Wrote:  

(05-04-2018 09:56 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Nice googling, but poor reading. I suggested the percentage of split tickets among Democrats was less than 30%. You came back with 35.3% of the TOTAL vote was D straight ticket. So the percentage of Democrats (as opposed to the percentage of ALL voters who voted a straight Democratic ticket)voting a straight ticket was probably very close to 70% Ok?

Shoot. Pesky denominators. Ruin a good fake news story. Guess I’m one of the mindless.

‘Course that correct math shifts the straight-ticket voting more towards the Repubs than my faulty math, considering the 10 largest counties, by and large, are the ones that went blue. In Harris, for example (which went Clinton 54-42, and where 35% of votes were straight-ticket blue and 30% were straight-ticket red), a higher percentage of Trump’s voters went straight-ticket than Hillary’s.

I’m not going to claim to know what that means for the U.S. voting population as a whole, but generalizations about any large group (such as “Certainly there are R's the same way, but in much lower numbers”) sometimes say more about the speaker’s perception bias than the target of the statement.

The whole thing was my perception(I never said otherwise), and your whole response is your perception. You were so eager to present what you perceived as a counter to my perception bias you didn't catch the basis for the stats.

So if your point is that Republican voters are as mindless/more mindless as Democrats, fine with me. I am pretty sure we can less the third option, less mindless, out of that mix.

It has long been my thought that we could run blank slates and still get 35-40% voting Democrat and 25-30% voting Republican. Most of those are negative votes - not voting FOR a party so much as AGAINST the other party. The lady in my first anecdote demonstrates that kind of thinking.

So, what's your point? That my perception is flawed and yours is spot on? Or maybe just that I am a deplorable clinger and the Democrats are not?

I really don't care. I am not running for your vote. I post here for other reasons.

I did not want to become one of the mindless, straight ticket, party voters. I find that my positions on the issues that matter most to me most closely align with the Republican Party, but I know there are good people in both parties if one will just take the time to search them out, rather than just mindlessly pulling the straight ticket lever, like my former father in law.

I am not too happy with Governor Abbott. Here is an opportunity for the Dems to get my vote - but it won't happen is they run a standard left of left of left of center Democrat. The country is polarizing, and I prefer the middle, so that makes voting hard.

If Trump doesn't run again, I will choose the candidate from any party who best represents my thoughts on things. So far, I have not figured out who the Democrats might run that deserves a second look, but Trump says, we will see. Trump was never, for one minute, my favorite, not did I vote for him, but I think the whole witch hunt thing is shameful and partisan, and an attempt to undo a legal election.

Thanks for the stats and figures. next time I want to back up my perceptions with facts, I will ask for your help.

Weird story. I also wonder who funded this - hopefully not the tax payers.

“Revealed: Trump team hired spy firm for ‘dirty ops’ on Iran arms deal - Israeli agency told to find incriminating material on Obama diplomats who negotiated deal with Tehran”

https://t.co/YTvi4NC1Zg?amp=1

(05-05-2018 06:04 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Weird story. I also wonder who funded this - hopefully not the tax payers.

“Revealed: Trump team hired spy firm for ‘dirty ops’ on Iran arms deal - Israeli agency told to find incriminating material on Obama diplomats who negotiated deal with Tehran”

https://t.co/YTvi4NC1Zg?amp=1

Sounds a lot like the Steele dossier.

(05-05-2018 10:17 AM)erice Wrote:  generalizations about any large group (such as “Certainly there are R's the same way, but in much lower numbers”) sometimes say more about the speaker’s perception bias than the target of the statement.

You mean things like “Most Teasips are entitled a-holes”?

Or Canadians buy more snow tires than Texans?

True, I don’t have any studies on that to link to but that is my perception of them.

I guess I know which of your hot buttons I triggered.

Sorry about using the word “triggered”.

And now, back to the thread topic:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/the...li=BBnb7Kz


Strange behavior for a President who is a Russian puppet due to them publishing emails showing the DNC rigged the debates.

How does this show collusion?

No comments about the Mueller teams's 'fun' interactions with the Federal courts last week?

I was especially impressed with the "I was given super secret oral instructions that serve as my basis for bringing and overseeing charges dealing with actions from 10 years ago." That makes *everything* clear and unambiguous.

Also really impressed with the Mueller response to one of the alleged Russian hacker firms when they actually had the temerity to respond. Of course, the putative defendant asked for discovery (which they are entitled to) as part of their appearance and answer -- Mueller responded with:

Quote:“Until the Court has an opportunity to determine if Concord was properly served, it would be inadvisable to conduct an initial appearance and arraignment at which important rights will be communicated and a plea entertained.”

The sharp counter to that was provided by the Defendant as

Quote:“[Concord] voluntarily appeared through counsel as provided for in [the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure], and further intends to enter a plea of not guilty. [Concord] has not sought a limited appearance nor has it moved to quash the summons. As such, the briefing sought by the Special Counsel’s motion is pettifoggery.”

Either Mueller's team has an extremely limited and bar-fail understanding of the Rules, or is playing 'hide the wishbone' in a really fing stupid way with a defendant who is in court as Mueller's behest. So class --- i) idiots; or ii) playing a horseshit game?

Maybe actual discovery falls under the 'super duper double secret oral instruction mandate' that the team invoked in the other case last week.
[/end bloviating mode]

(05-07-2018 01:21 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Also really impressed with the Mueller response to one of the alleged Russian hacker firms when they actually had the temerity to respond. Of course, the putative defendant asked for discovery (which they are entitled to) as part of their appearance and answer -- Mueller responded with:

Quote:“Until the Court has an opportunity to determine if Concord was properly served, it would be inadvisable to conduct an initial appearance and arraignment at which important rights will be communicated and a plea entertained.”

The sharp counter to that was provided by the Defendant as

Quote:“[Concord] voluntarily appeared through counsel as provided for in [the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure], and further intends to enter a plea of not guilty. [Concord] has not sought a limited appearance nor has it moved to quash the summons. As such, the briefing sought by the Special Counsel’s motion is pettifoggery.”

I'd like to read these filings. Do you have a link or a download?

Pulling out of the Iran deal is probably the stupidest and most irresponsible thing Trump has done so far, on so many levels. You'd almost think he had a NSA and SoS who were obsessed with starting a war with Iran....

(05-08-2018 05:08 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  Pulling out of the Iran deal is probably the stupidest and most irresponsible thing Trump has done so far, on so many levels. You'd almost think he had a NSA and SoS who were obsessed with starting a war with Iran....

How so? Since withdrawing from the deal will not accelerate Iran's development of nuclear weapons, how will it make war with Iran more likely?

But in any case, good thing it's not a treaty. :)

(05-08-2018 05:08 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  Pulling out of the Iran deal is probably the stupidest and most irresponsible thing Trump has done so far, on so many levels. You'd almost think he had a NSA and SoS who were obsessed with starting a war with Iran....

Doubt he pays much heed to those two..

On the other hand...

(05-08-2018 05:08 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  Pulling out of the Iran deal is probably the stupidest and most irresponsible thing Trump has done so far, on so many levels. You'd almost think he had a NSA and SoS who were obsessed with starting a war with Iran....

How so, and why?

Michael Cohen’s newly formed consulting firm was helping drain the swamp: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/08/att-conf...ation.html

All the silence when the judge was telling the Mueller team they were off base, but now the left jumps to its feet aroaring?

It was a bad deal. Terrible deal. Getting out now may also be a bad deal, since Obama gave away all our leverage on Day One. But it may not be so bad. let's see where we are in three months or so.

Schumer then

"To me, the very real risk that Iran will not moderate and will, instead, use the agreement to pursue its nefarious goals is too great.

Therefore, I will vote to disapprove the agreement, not because I believe war is a viable or desirable option, nor to challenge the path of diplomacy. It is because I believe Iran will not change, and under this agreement it will be able to achieve its dual goals of eliminating sanctions while ultimately retaining its nuclear and non-nuclear power. Better to keep U.S. sanctions in place, strengthen them, enforce secondary sanctions on other nations, and pursue the hard-trodden path of diplomacy once more, difficult as it may be."

Chuck Schumer(8-6-15)

Evidently Obama has weighed in (“Obama was great”, says Obama), and now social media is full of ninnies repeating his self-serving drivel. How can people be so brainless?