Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Edit: Feth. I let myself get sucked in again by trolling. Not worth even pursuing it. Peace out.

Edit Two: Stupid auto-correct.

It rejected his policies so soundly that he's leaving office after two terms with approval ratings of over 50%.

Why, someone in this very thread just said Obama would have beaten Trump in the election! Now, who could that be...

 Spinner wrote:
It rejected his policies so soundly that he's leaving office after two terms with approval ratings of over 50%.

His approval rating has much to do with his personality and disposition. He also played the optics game well when the Republicans were obstructing everything in his second term. Another thing is that President Obama is not, generally speaking, an unlikable person. Trump is.

 Spinner wrote:
Why, someone in this very thread just said Obama would have beaten Trump in the election! Now, who could that be...

Both Trump and Hillary are rather unlikeable. Had Obama run again, his likeability and charm versus Trump's negatives would easily have prevented any States from being flipped. President Obama had actual platforms to run on in his previous elections where Hillary generally only had "because I'm a woman" and "because it's my turn". Also, Obama would have been an incumbent and incumbents really have to feth up big time to be kicked out of office (think Carter and Bush Sr.).

Does that help clear things up for you?

 Breotan wrote:

 Spinner wrote:
It rejected his policies so soundly that he's leaving office after two terms with approval ratings of over 50%.

His approval rating has much to do with his personality and disposition. President Obama is not, generally speaking, an unlikable person. Trump is.

 Spinner wrote:
Why, someone in this very thread just said Obama would have beaten Trump in the election! Now, who could that be...

Both Trump and Hillary are rather unlikeable. Had Obama run again, his likeability and charm versus Trump's negatives would easily have prevented any States from being flipped. President Obama had actual platforms to run on in his previous elections where Hillary generally only had "because I'm a woman" and "because it's my turn". Also, Obama would have been an incumbent and incumbents really have to feth up big time to be kicked out of office (think Carter and Bush Sr.).

That clear things up for you?

Eh, not hugely. Your previous post said Michele Obama was upset because the nation had ' rejected her husband's policies', before you deleted it.

None of that indicates a rejection of his policies.

Voting population wise his policies weren't rejected, now according to the EC (and possibly russia) they were

 Breotan wrote:
President Obama had actual platforms to run on in his previous elections where Hillary generally only had "because I'm a woman" and "because it's my turn"

HRC had actual platforms. Reasonable, well thought out platforms that continued Obama's middle of the road platforms and extended a bit of a hand to the left-ish stuff that Bernie brought out in the primaries.

Unfortunately, "check my website" was her version of getting her platform out there. Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand now President Drumpf is almost an actual fething thing. Atta girl, Hils.

 Ustrello wrote:
Voting population wise his policies weren't rejected, now according to the EC (and possibly russia) they were

The Russians/WikiLeaks didn't have as much effect on the election as the Democrats are wanting to believe. Nothing in the emails was new and I doubt any Democrat voters stayed home because of them.

 Breotan wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:
Voting population wise his policies weren't rejected, now according to the EC (and possibly russia) they were

The Russians/WikiLeaks didn't have as much effect on the election as the Democrats are wanting to believe. Nothing in the emails was new and I doubt any Democrat voters stayed home because of them.

I think over the past pages of this thread that has been debunked, lots of people who had voted for Obama did not vote for HRC

 Breotan wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:
Voting population wise his policies weren't rejected, now according to the EC (and possibly russia) they were

The Russians/WikiLeaks didn't have as much effect on the election as the Democrats are wanting to believe. Nothing in the emails was new and I doubt any Democrat voters stayed home because of them.

I know it's anecdotal, but I know people who did. It might not have been new, but it was in the news again, being shouted from the rooftops...

That was an interesting theme of the campaign.

"Trump said he'd order US troops to commit war crimes and called our generals morons."

"But Hillary's emails!

"Trump's being investigated for fraud."

"But Hillary's emails!'

"Trump posed the idea of a national database on Muslims."

"But Hillary's emails!"

"Trump bragged about sexually assaulting women."

"But Hillary's emails!"

"Trump still says the Central Park Five are guilty, despite them being exonerated by a confession and DNA evidence."

"But Hillary's emails!"

"Trump's policy is an incoherent mess."

"Yeah, but Hillary's got emails, man."

 Ustrello wrote:

 Breotan wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:
Voting population wise his policies weren't rejected, now according to the EC (and possibly russia) they were

The Russians/WikiLeaks didn't have as much effect on the election as the Democrats are wanting to believe. Nothing in the emails was new and I doubt any Democrat voters stayed home because of them.

I think over the past pages of this thread that has been debunked, lots of people who had voted for Obama did not vote for HRC

This thread isn't evidence of anything except which side of the isle Dakka posters fall on. But as long as we're doing anecdotal stuff, my very liberal friends in Facebook and Twitter show that Bernie's perceived treatment by the Clinton campaign had a much greater effect on Democrat voters than any other single issue. None of my FB/Twitter friends ever mentioned the emails as being a concern to them.

 Breotan wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

 Breotan wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:
Voting population wise his policies weren't rejected, now according to the EC (and possibly russia) they were

The Russians/WikiLeaks didn't have as much effect on the election as the Democrats are wanting to believe. Nothing in the emails was new and I doubt any Democrat voters stayed home because of them.

I think over the past pages of this thread that has been debunked, lots of people who had voted for Obama did not vote for HRC

This thread isn't evidence of anything except which side of the isle Dakka posters fall on. But as long as we're doing anecdotal stuff, my very liberal friends in Facebook and Twitter show that Bernie's perceived treatment by the Clinton campaign had a much greater effect on Democrat voter than any other single issue. None of my FB/Twitter friends ever mentioned the emails as being a concern to them.

Besides the evidence and voter numbers that were posted? The ones that showed counties that HRC failed to capture that Obama did etc

 Breotan wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

 Breotan wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:
Voting population wise his policies weren't rejected, now according to the EC (and possibly russia) they were

The Russians/WikiLeaks didn't have as much effect on the election as the Democrats are wanting to believe. Nothing in the emails was new and I doubt any Democrat voters stayed home because of them.

I think over the past pages of this thread that has been debunked, lots of people who had voted for Obama did not vote for HRC

This thread isn't evidence of anything except which side of the isle Dakka posters fall on. But as long as we're doing anecdotal stuff, my very liberal friends in Facebook and Twitter show that Bernie's perceived treatment by the Clinton campaign had a much greater effect on Democrat voters than any other single issue. None of my FB/Twitter friends ever mentioned the emails as being a concern to them.

The Wikileaks are what kept the "Bernie was robbed" story alive.

The amazing thing is that every single thing that made Hillary the worst candidate alive with people screaming "lock her up" had happened in the last few weeks with Trump and none of them appear to care now.

 d-usa wrote:
The amazing thing is that every single thing that made Hillary the worst candidate alive with people screaming "lock her up" had happened in the last few weeks with Trump and none of them appear to care now.

It is? It's amazing? I find it depressing.

 Ustrello wrote:
Yeah pretty much anyone who voted for him got played as bad as the detective at the end of the usual suspects

Spoilers!!!

Presumably people are too rapt in the latest Kardashian story, or who is winning Dancing With The Stars.

To get back to serious topic, it seems to me that the states that are very keen on states' rights are generally the more right wing states. Is this correct?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Presumably people are too rapt in the latest Kardashian story, or who is winning Dancing With The Stars.

To get back to serious topic, it seems to me that the states that are very keen on states' rights are generally the more right wing states. Is this correct?

Pretty much and it seems like it is only an issue when the democrats have a president or some sort of majority


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kronk wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:
Yeah pretty much anyone who voted for him got played as bad as the detective at the end of the usual suspects

Spoilers!!!

The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world that spoilers didn't exist

 Kilkrazy wrote:
To get back to serious topic, it seems to me that the states that are very keen on states' rights are generally the more right wing states. Is this correct?

States' Rights is generally a Republican thing, yeah. Even moreso under the Obama years, anyway, where we had lots of states constantly suing the government over just about anything for any reason. Some of the current politicians' entire careers were built off of opposing Obama in the name of their states (Ted Cruz, for example).

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

 Breotan wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

 Breotan wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:
Voting population wise his policies weren't rejected, now according to the EC (and possibly russia) they were

The Russians/WikiLeaks didn't have as much effect on the election as the Democrats are wanting to believe. Nothing in the emails was new and I doubt any Democrat voters stayed home because of them.

I think over the past pages of this thread that has been debunked, lots of people who had voted for Obama did not vote for HRC

This thread isn't evidence of anything except which side of the isle Dakka posters fall on. But as long as we're doing anecdotal stuff, my very liberal friends in Facebook and Twitter show that Bernie's perceived treatment by the Clinton campaign had a much greater effect on Democrat voters than any other single issue. None of my FB/Twitter friends ever mentioned the emails as being a concern to them.

The Wikileaks are what kept the "Bernie was robbed" story alive.

Bernie and Trump both kept harping about it and every time they did, Matt Drudge kept posting links to it on his page. He got record views during the general election so I'm still not convinced Wikileaks had any meaningful impact on voters or voter turnout.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Cite it please.

Cite what? My personal opinion that the federal government should have most of the power and states should be limited?

My opinion is just the opposite, The country was founded on limited central govt. It can be messy but local control to me seems more just than rule from far off.

Hello, I live in Southern Illinois! There is no difference between somebody 200 miles away telling me I cannot do something and somebody 1000 miles away telling me I cannot do something. It makes zero difference. Regardless of the distance, I still cannot do whatever thing it is they have made illegal.

If you want a case for why States do not need any more power, look no further than Illinois.

There certainly is, especially if those decisions are made by people who have no idea who you are, how you live, or what you mean to the country. There are big differences between Illinois and Colorado and New Jersey.

 thekingofkings wrote:
There certainly is, especially if those decisions are made by people who have no idea who you are, how you live, or what you mean to the country. There are big differences between Illinois and Colorado and New Jersey.

And there's a huge difference between Chapel Hill (liberal college town where I live) and some rural area in the mountains of western NC. Why should decisions for both of these places be made by a single state government?

 d-usa wrote:
...and none of them appear to care now.

Or they're waiting for him to commit a crime as President so they can impeach and be done with him the legal way. There's no way they can win coming out and opposing Trump. There's also no way for them to win coming out and supporting Trump. They best they can do is say that he won the election and they're going to do their jobs until something changes. I honestly think most Republicans in Congress are stocking up on enough OxyContin to last them the next four years.

 Peregrine wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:
There certainly is, especially if those decisions are made by people who have no idea who you are, how you live, or what you mean to the country. There are big differences between Illinois and Colorado and New Jersey.

And there's a huge difference between Chapel Hill (liberal college town where I live) and some rural area in the mountains of western NC. Why should decisions for both of these places be made by a single state government?

You are still even if politically different, culturally the same or near enough. Even your manor of speech is similar (or a lot closer to say how we are)

 Breotan wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
...and none of them appear to care now.

Or they're waiting for him to commit a crime as President so they can impeach and be done with him the legal way. There's no way they can win coming out and opposing Trump. There's also no way for them to win coming out and supporting Trump. They best they can do is say that he won the election and they're going to do their jobs until something changes. I honestly think most Republicans in Congress are stocking up on enough OxyContin to last them the next four years.

That's what the people running blogs, screaming on Twitter, posting on Facebook, going to rallies, posting on here are doing?

 thekingofkings wrote:
You are still even if politically different, culturally the same or near enough. Even your manor of speech is similar (or a lot closer to say how we are)

No we aren't at all the same. I have much more in common with people in other southern college towns than my fellow NC residents in the rural west, and the people in the rural west have much more in common with other rural residents a few miles over the border in Tennessee than they have with those of us in liberal college towns.

 Peregrine wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:
You are still even if politically different, culturally the same or near enough. Even your manor of speech is similar (or a lot closer to say how we are)

No we aren't at all the same. I have much more in common with people in other southern college towns than my fellow NC residents in the rural west, and the people in the rural west have much more in common with other rural residents a few miles over the border in Tennessee than they have with those of us in liberal college towns.

not calling you a liar, but I find that hard to believe, when seeing Boulder people (we call it the "peoples republic of boulder") and folks from Colorado Springs, they talk the same, eat the same, have a lot of the same traditions, though they are as opposite ideologically as you can be,.

 thekingofkings wrote:
not calling you a liar, but I find that hard to believe, when seeing Boulder people (we call it the "peoples republic of boulder") and folks from Colorado Springs, they talk the same, eat the same, have a lot of the same traditions, though they are as opposite ideologically as you can be,.

Ok, but I bet those traditions don't stop at state lines. I bet people 5 miles apart on opposite sides of the state border will talk the same, eat the same, have the same traditions, etc.

 thekingofkings wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:
You are still even if politically different, culturally the same or near enough. Even your manor of speech is similar (or a lot closer to say how we are)

No we aren't at all the same. I have much more in common with people in other southern college towns than my fellow NC residents in the rural west, and the people in the rural west have much more in common with other rural residents a few miles over the border in Tennessee than they have with those of us in liberal college towns.

not calling you a liar, but I find that hard to believe, when seeing Boulder people (we call it the "peoples republic of boulder") and folks from Colorado Springs, they talk the same, eat the same, have a lot of the same traditions, though they are as opposite ideologically as you can be,.

Having lived on both ends of the state, I can back Peregrine up on this. State boundaries are kind of an arbitrary way to say 'these people have similar mindsets'.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Presumably people are too rapt in the latest Kardashian story, or who is winning Dancing With The Stars.

To get back to serious topic, it seems to me that the states that are very keen on states' rights are generally the more right wing states. Is this correct?

I don't know, California is the sate currently threatening to leave the union. They right wing?

 thekingofkings wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:
There certainly is, especially if those decisions are made by people who have no idea who you are, how you live, or what you mean to the country. There are big differences between Illinois and Colorado and New Jersey.

And there's a huge difference between Chapel Hill (liberal college town where I live) and some rural area in the mountains of western NC. Why should decisions for both of these places be made by a single state government?

You are still even if politically different, culturally the same or near enough. Even your manor of speech is similar (or a lot closer to say how we are)

That's ridiculous. The culture in my county is extremely different from that of the next county over. Hell, there are little enclaves of different cultures in each city in this county, as in each has their own language, cuisine and etiquette. Any state is going to have multiple cultures, even just along the urban/rural divide.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CptJake wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Presumably people are too rapt in the latest Kardashian story, or who is winning Dancing With The Stars.

To get back to serious topic, it seems to me that the states that are very keen on states' rights are generally the more right wing states. Is this correct?

I don't know, California is the sate currently threatening to leave the union. They right wing?

I think threatening is a pretty strong word for an action almost no Californians want to take. By that logic, California is threatening to open a chain of marijuana ice cream parlors, based on that group of stoners who won't shut up.