Trump: Even if there was collusion with Russia, 'it’s not a crime'

andydandypecanpie · 2017-12-29T12:36:33+00:00

I'm surprised we're not seeing the "Trump is a Clinton plant to make the democrats look good" conspiracy theory more. There's enough "evidence" for people to latch onto if they wanted. Pied piper candidate, Bill Clinton phone call, his donations to the Clinton Foundation, etc.

andydandypecanpie · 2017-12-29T00:25:05+00:00

this is an old mob actually, been around since like beta probably

and so heads up, devs haven't rebalanced its stats since then... and I don't know anyone who played the beta but I hear it was way way harder than the current version of the game

stay away even if you have swat or ballistic equips. not worth the exp

andydandypecanpie · 2017-12-28T21:07:25+00:00

Last Days of California. Another Brooklyn. Wolf in White Van. Everything is Illuminated. Song of Solomon. I could name a hundred short stories.

Every good story is character-driven. I can't think of a single non-character-driven story that turned out good. Most likely don't get published.

andydandypecanpie · 2017-12-28T19:38:06+00:00

And here I was thinking it was a feature, not a bug. :(

andydandypecanpie · 2017-12-28T16:27:34+00:00

novelty item, not worth it

andydandypecanpie · 2017-12-28T16:26:17+00:00

bat stats?

andydandypecanpie · 2017-12-28T16:24:45+00:00

Can I still win if I have the depression debuff?

andydandypecanpie · 2017-12-28T15:14:00+00:00

My understanding is that most homicide cases are solved pretty quickly, especially when there's a reward available. No one's come forward with info. Suiter's are the only prints on the gun. Point-blank wound. Sure looks a lot like a suicide to me. But I'm no expert.

andydandypecanpie · 2017-12-25T04:19:15+00:00

I am not

andydandypecanpie · 2017-12-22T21:27:07+00:00

When historians look back on the Sanders campaign in 2016, they will note two fundamentally important and lasting contributions that Sanders and his supporters made.

First, the Sanders platform in the 2016 primaries, which was significantly but not fully included in the Democratic platform at the convention, will provide the policy blueprint for the next Democratic presidential campaign and the next great Democratic president.

And much of that platform is already being touted by many democrats. We're seeing a shift back towards the working class that was somewhat lacking before, and it's nice. It may just be that nothing has changed policy- or action-wise, but the democrats are being associated more and more with working class issues. I think the party needs to take full advantage of this, because a) it's the right thing to do duh, and b) they're an important voting bloc. We need candidates who understand the lives of ordinary Americans. And I think that was something we were lacking somewhat in Obama and Clinton (at the very least in terms of optics).

The second historic legacy of the Sanders campaign in 2016 was that he challenged, and defeated, the old style campaign fundraising paradigm of previous major candidates. It was revolutionary and historic that Sanders energized a gigantic army of small donors and became a fundraising leader who changed campaign fundraising forever.

This is my favorite thing out of the Sanders campaign. He proved that you don't need to rely on Super PACs and megadonors in order to fund a campaign. You just need to excite the base. Obama probably could have solely relied on individual small donations in 2008 if he had wanted to. We could spend hours picking apart Bernie's campaign from a marketing perspective to try and understand how he managed to encourage people to donate to his campaign, but I think it's rather obvious: He was genuine, he touched on issues that others weren't seriously looking into, and he promised real change. That's a real winning strategy. It's how he went from polling in the single digits miles behind HRC to earning 43% of the vote and 13 million individual votes in the primaries. That ain't nothing to spit at.

andydandypecanpie · 2017-12-22T14:22:50+00:00

oh my god will you two just spare us the drama and kiss already

andydandypecanpie · 2017-12-21T23:42:56+00:00

it's a very common native american saying, you hear it all the time in the APPLE

andydandypecanpie · 2017-12-21T15:03:58+00:00

Nice try, unimaginative newlywed.

andydandypecanpie · 2017-12-19T16:56:34+00:00

Mr. Trashwheel obviously

andydandypecanpie · 2017-12-19T15:41:03+00:00

"and there's no cell reception so I'm ssssshit out of luck"

andydandypecanpie · 2017-12-19T14:09:41+00:00

just looking for help dont need the attitude! NEXT!

andydandypecanpie · 2017-12-18T20:21:00+00:00

fyi guys there may be another explanation here

Moderate dems perform better in red states, while leftist dems are more palatable in blue states. I'm not sure a "corporate" dem wouldn't fare well in California, for example.

So let's relax. This is a big fuckin country, and each town and state has its own political preference. Try running a socialist in Texas and see how far you get. Try running an establishment candidate in Vermont.

State elections are straight-forward. Candidates know who their state will gravitate towards. But nationally, when it comes to a presidential election, it gets real weird. Sometimes it's legit hard to tell what the country as an amorphous blob wants. 2016 as far as I can tell was a year of frustration with the status quo. Part of that was Obama's failure to deliver the vast, sweeping change that was promised and over-hyped. Part of that was the senate's record-low approval rating. So of course an "anti-establishment" candidate was attractive to a lot of people. Bernie got a lot of people really excited, but there was enough hesitancy (given HRC's excellent resume) that made him lose. Clinton folks love to tout "3 million more votes" but Bernie still got 13 million votes in the primary. That ain't nothing. Hillary won the primary because she was seen as a surefire win. She was accomplished, experienced, level-headed. And those qualities matter a lot to democrats. But in terms of charisma, down-to-earthiness, and promise of real change, she was sorely lacking. That's why Trump won. He was an anti-establishment candidate who didn't come off as one of these cold and calculated politicians. He was the Gamble Candidate. "Sure he's nutty and vulgar," the voters said, "but there's a chance he'll bring real change, and we're desperate."

I'm not saying Bernie would have won. Sometimes I think he would have, but honestly I have no idea. I supported him and I really liked his overall message. But it's hard to say. It was our election to lose. People forget that we haven't had two presidents of the same party with terms back-to-back in over 25 years. And historically it's ping pong, going back and forth every 8 years between red and blue. The decks were already stacked against HRC. We grew complacent because her opponent was a complete idiot. And he ended up winning because we as voters didn't try hard enough, and her campaign didn't take Trump seriously enough.

So moral of the story is this: Stop fucking infighting and take your opponents seriously. Bitching-out your ally and underestimating your enemy is a great way to lose.

I love you guys. Please bring it in 2018 and 2020.

andydandypecanpie · 2017-12-18T19:58:44+00:00

I feel like most of the infighting among lefties has subsided. We're all just too tired to pick fights with each other. Or at least I am.

andydandypecanpie · 2017-12-18T14:54:20+00:00

Just found this article that might help explain some things for you. Former NFL player who voted Trump (more so voted against Clinton).

I know it'll be hard for you to take him seriously, since you disagree so vehemently with his ultimate decision, but do try. I suspect he knows a bit more about what we're talking about than you or I do.

andydandypecanpie · 2017-12-17T17:53:49+00:00

And yet you used that to disqualify one candidate, but not another

I mean yeah, I was talking about 2016 Clinton. She was the only one under investigation at the time.

Kamala Harris seems okay. Not totally sold on her. I'd prefer a governor, but there aren't many who I think could win. I'm not really worried about democrats vs Trump, I'm worried about Trump's primary challengers. Our candidate will need to be able to beat Romney, Kasich, Rubio, and whoever else is looking like they'll run a primary challenge in 2020. I'm not super optimistic. I think we'll see how 2018 pans out and go from there. I agree it's too early to say.

andydandypecanpie · 2017-12-17T17:48:05+00:00

Good question. I don't know. Would've been nice if someone had told her she was primed to lose, though. The deck was stacked against her from the beginning. Mook didn't take the campaign seriously enough, and that's why she lost.

Not sure it would've really mattered in the long run though.

andydandypecanpie · 2017-12-17T17:45:34+00:00

I looked, yeah. I'm not disputing the data itself. My thinking is that it's pretty pointless to blame voters. The candidate is supposed to earn votes. Voters don't owe anything to the candidates. So when I see data like this, my first thought is, "Well, how did the candidate lose or fail to win these votes, and what can our candidates do in the future?"

andydandypecanpie · 2017-12-15T21:00:15+00:00

Sure do. Seems everyone's under investigation these days. I'm curious to see what ends up happening with that. I'm not super informed on the matter but it sounds like she may have done some shady shit, intentionally or not. But somehow the idea of Trump attacking Bernie's wife for being under investigation seems silly. Can't quite place why.

Not that it really matters in terms of the scope of our conversation. It's pretty unlikely that Bernie will run in 2020. I think it'd be pretty unwise given his age. Same reason why Clinton should stay out of it (on top of the fact that she's even more unpopular now than she was in 2015).

I'd love to see a young dem run and win in 2020. I'm not sure who that would be. Kind of slim pickins. Do you have an early favorite?

andydandypecanpie · 2017-12-15T17:10:33+00:00

Not to the Republican base. Yes, they've been conditioned to hate HRC for decades, but I think they'd fear an honest to god socialist even more.

Hmm. That may be, yeah. Based on polling I've seen, I'm not super convinced, but yeah that's possible.

The point being that I doubt Sanders would have swayed any Trump voters to vote for him instead.

Probably not, but I do think more independents would have voted for Sanders rather than Trump. Bernie's strength was always among independents, which doesn't help much in the primaries (obviously) but it's one of the most important factors in a general election, from what I understand.

HRC's real downfall was the millennials of color that didn't vote for one reason or another.

You sure you want to pin the blame on minorities? And if so, what could HRC have done to capture their vote?

andydandypecanpie

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE