Trump 2024 — The second term

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • BugI02

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 4, 2013
    32,555
    149
    Columbus, OH
    Doh! You are correct.... that's what I get for mixing Wiki participation percentages with Census eligible/registered/voted.

    And I should have noticed the "extreme" result... and checked my work.

    The math is simpler, '08 Obama received 52.9% of the vote and Biden recieved 51.3%, so Biden under-performed Obama by 1.6%.

    THE NUMBER OF VOTES, is due to the growth in voting age population and increased registrations and actual voting participation.

    ETA: My original post doesn't allow editing to strike through and credit BugI for flagging my mistake... I guess older posts cannot be edited.

    Citizens 18 and olderRegistered to voteVoted
    2008 via census206,072,000146,311,000131,144,000
    2020 via census231,593,000168,308,000154,628,000
    Yeah, I thought you might have meant the 168.3 was total votes cast in that election, not total eligible voters. Taking 66.6% participation to be ~2/3, then total eligible voters should be 3 x 168.3/2 = 252.5 million or a bit more than 3/4 of the total population. That in itself gets my attention as it would mean only 1/4 of the US population is under 18, which seems a bit on the low side to be healthy

    Percentage of those registered who actually voted went up 3+ points, too - 89.6% for 2008 and 91.8% for 2020. I might try to get the numbers of total voters in senate races to see how well those totals match the presidential vote totals. One indicator of suspicious voting patterns would be a high number of ballots with only the presidential vote marked

    As far as the time limit on editing, I think it has gotten shorter. It used to be a couple of days and now it is definitely a lot less than 24 hours
     

    KG1

    Forgotten Man
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    66   0   0
    Jan 20, 2009
    26,159
    149
    Is Massie a RINO now?


    One serious question I would ask staunch Trump supporters is, besides disliking Massie and Chip Roy for backing DeSantis over Trump how do they feel in general about the job they’re doing in congress?

    I’ll start out by saying they are both strong defenders of the 2nd amendment so that should be one on the plus side here one would think.

    Massie in particular performed masterfully in the arm brace hearings exposing the Democrats for their shear lack of understanding of what they are even talking about.

    For example, the stupid Democrats in the hearing were mixing up arm braces with bump stocks trying to say that arm braces turn an AR pistol into an automatic weapon. Massie took them to task. The thick headed donkeys still insisted that they were right.
     
    Last edited:

    jamil

    code ho
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 17, 2011
    62,274
    113
    Gtown-ish
    See! Never specifics, just ducking and weaving and insisting on comprehensive lists from anyone else

    You shouldn't need to think about it, if you truly think there are unbiased sources you should be able to rattle them off ... so we can mock them

    Huh. Maybe we should take a sampling of what jamil has actually said about bias and sources, going back several years:

    "I don't think there are any sources that are unbiased."

    "No one is not biased."

    "No one is unbiased."

    "Everyone is biased."

    "I dont' think the media ever was unbiased and honest."

    Speaking of sports news, there's this regarding Kaepernick:
    "His successful performance in the NFL is the only unbiased indicator. All other scenarios are susceptible to bias."


    You've read at least some of those posts. You were involved in some of those conversations. I think it's unrealistic to think you have have a good faith doubt about what I think about bias, unless you have a severe reading comprehension problem. I don't think you do.

    You used the "list the sources you think aren't ideologically based" to divert from the point that sources like CNN and GWP are ideologically based to an extent that they are unreliable. It is irrelevant what I think about whether there are any non-idelogically based sources or not. But you introduced that irrelevant bit to the conversation, apparently as a diversion from the main point. That's ducking and weaving. BTW, I'll answer your question in the next post, as if you don't already know what's in my list.

    This bit you're doing about implied belief is an intellectually dishonest dodge at best, or at worst, just an intellectually dishonest smear. And that's not an ad hominem attack. It's a logical conclusion based on the facts surrounding your behavior. Because if you were being intellectually honest, you'd have either rebutted the actual point in good faith, agreed with it, or just not replied, or if you were genuinely curious about what I thought about your diversion, you'd have simply asked me what I think, instead of accusing me.
     

    jamil

    code ho
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 17, 2011
    62,274
    113
    Gtown-ish
    Are there any unbiased news sources? There are no unbiased people so there are no unbiased news sources.

    But the thing Bug and I were discussing is if there are no "Ideologically based sources". Bug at first conflated that with "ideologically biased" but I don't mind because, though they have distinct meanings, they're related enough, and the set of either contains the same elements.

    An ideologically biased source prioritizes stories that suit their ideology over stories that would be of a broad interest. For example, the Hunter Biden laptop when it was first reported, was of a broad interest to everyone, but mainstream sources did not widely publish that story because of their Democrat bias. Should be obvious that I did not make up the term "ideologically biased". That term is commonly used. Every source is at least a little ideologically biased. That's self-evident.

    Less common is ideologically based. It means that their reporting prioritizes pushing their ideological agenda and the lengths that they will go depends on how deep is their ideological bias. But it is a least a little. An example of that, staying with the Hunter Biden story, is--I don't recall which rag reported it, but let's say it was NYT-that the Hunter Biden Laptop story is reported by US intelligence to be Russian Misinformation. So then even outlets that are less ideologically based reported that the NYT reported that it was Russian Misinformation. I don't know if "ideologically based" is a term in common use. I just used it to make the distinction between biased and based. Other terms could be used to say the same thing. I picked that one. I guess could have called it activist sources.

    So if they're biased, they'll print a story that's pretty much true, but they will present it from the viewpoint of their biases, and their selection of stories they cover is biased. If they're also ideologically based, they'll push an agenda at least a little, and if biased hard enough, outright fabricate stories.

    Are there any sources that are not at least a little ideologically based? I'm not aware of any. But "ideologically based" is not as self-evident as "ideologicaly biased" because everyone is biased, but not everyone is an activist. But, I don't think a news source can exist in this highly charged time without being at least a little activist. And the more activist the people are who push and write the stories, the more activist the source. And then the less reliable they are.

    TL;DR the set of non ideologically based news sources is Ø. But the set of ideologically based news sources has varying degrees, ranging from meh to just making **** up.
     

    jamil

    code ho
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 17, 2011
    62,274
    113
    Gtown-ish
    That in itself gets my attention as it would mean only 1/4 of the US population is under 18, which seems a bit on the low side to be healthy

    Yeah, about that. See the graph below. I'm not making a point about the portion of children in the US during the election. But addressing your other point about what's healthy. I'm posting it to show the decline of child population. I think it's alarming.

    Way below pre-boomer level.

    I read somewhere maybe 10 years ago that for the US to sustain status quo, we need a population growth rate of 11%. So people entering employment and paying for retirees and their other societal expenses. Obviously we're charging those expenses to the debt, so we're alarmingly not sustaining status quo. Illegal immigration isn't contributing to our sustainability. If they're paid under the table they're not paying
    taxes.

    Bringing back the nuclear family and educating children to become responsible productive adults is vital to a sustainable society. And even if people started ****ing to have kids that doesn't mean they'll be raised with the ethos a sustainable society needs.


    1704561544492.png
     

    BugI02

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 4, 2013
    32,555
    149
    Columbus, OH
    One serious question I would ask staunch Trump supporters is, besides disliking Massie and Chip Roy for backing DeSantis over Trump how do they feel in general about the job they’re doing in congress?
    Not long ago, Roy voted in some very eye-opening ways on hot-button issues, enough to make me doubt that his commitment is America First rather than his big donors first

    Massie just seems like what SD4L might sound like with a bigger megaphone

    But I understand why the DeSandinistas are a bit wound up:

    As Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis’ presidential campaign flames out, he’s setting the table to blame everyone but himself. His argument? The dozens of indictments filed against former President Donald Trump have “distorted” the primary and “crowded out other stuff.”
     

    jamil

    code ho
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 17, 2011
    62,274
    113
    Gtown-ish
    Chip Roy has supported some pretty questionable ****. Massie voted against something we all thought he should have voted for...don't remember what. His explanation was plausible. He's not a pragmatic congressman. Sometimes that's good, and sometimes principle gets taken to such an extreme it becomes impractical. So I see Massie as a good guy to have around, but you know he's gonna stick to principle even if it hurts the overall cause.
     

    KG1

    Forgotten Man
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    66   0   0
    Jan 20, 2009
    26,159
    149
    Anyone is welcome to give their opinions of Massie and Roy. I just directed it toward stalwart Trump supporters mainly because it's only natural that the reason they might have a strong disliking of them now could be because they backed DeSantis over Trump. KInda like "they're dead to me now."

    Was generally curious in what they thought on their performance in congress outside of that. Don't know if it would've been different if they had backed Trump.

    Wasn't trying to be a "DeSandanista"
     
    Last edited:

    KG1

    Forgotten Man
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    66   0   0
    Jan 20, 2009
    26,159
    149
    Now IDK if certain Trump supporters might take an issue with my referring to them as "Staunch/Stalwart." but I would ask them if they wouldn't consider themselves to be "Loyal and Committed"? Now I can understand them taking an issue with being referred to as "Cult Like" but I've never done that.

    As far as the "DeSandanista" thing goes I've never been "loyal and committed" to any one candidate let alone DeSantis.
     

    jamil

    code ho
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 17, 2011
    62,274
    113
    Gtown-ish
    Now IDK if certain Trump supporters might take an issue with my referring to them as "Staunch/Stalwart." but I would ask them if they wouldn't consider themselves to be "Loyal and Committed"? Now I can understand them taking an issue with being referred to as "Cult Like" but I've never done that.

    As far as the "DeSandanista" thing goes I've never been "loyal and committed" to any one candidate let alone DeSantis.
    I have to chuckle when I see that. How many ardent DeSandinistas can he be talking to who actively post in these topics? The demand for DeSantis fans to complain about is much higher than the supply.
     

    KG1

    Forgotten Man
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    66   0   0
    Jan 20, 2009
    26,159
    149
    I have to chuckle when I see that. How many ardent DeSandinistas can he be talking to who actively post in these topics? The demand for DeSantis fans to complain about is much higher than the supply.
    Well I like said. I'm not a 'DeSandinista" "loyally committed" to him or any other candidate. I can and have praised (when warranted) as well as been critical (when also warranted) of both DeSantis as well as Trump.
     
    Last edited:

    KG1

    Forgotten Man
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    66   0   0
    Jan 20, 2009
    26,159
    149
    I was fine with Bug giving his opinion of Massie and Roy. My issue was what prompted him to include the bit about "DeSandinistas"
     

    KG1

    Forgotten Man
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    66   0   0
    Jan 20, 2009
    26,159
    149
    Trump says the civil war could've been avoided through negotiation.

    "If I were president the civil war would've never happened" :):

     

    jamil

    code ho
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 17, 2011
    62,274
    113
    Gtown-ish
    Trump says the civil war could've been avoided through negotiation.

    "If I were president the civil war would've never happened" :):

    I don't think that could have been negotiated. Any negotiation would have resulted in some continuation of slavery. I know BigRed (rest his screen name's soul) thought it was about state's rights, which, generically, could have been negotiated. If it was about states' rights, it was about the Southern States' rights to continue slavery.
     

    HKFaninCarmel

    Expert
    Rating - 100%
    6   0   0
    Jul 7, 2019
    1,015
    113
    Carmel
    Trump says the civil war could've been avoided through negotiation.

    "If I were president the civil war would've never happened" :):


    This is what we need. Ron DeSantis isn't tall enough to negotiate away a civil war. Nikki Haley couldn't have even voted then. Trump would do it like he did the wall. Losers. Only Trump can save us.
     
    Top Bottom