![]() |
Something that hasn't been mentioned/highlighted so far - Trump is perceived as much more willing and able to go after special interests than Clinton. It doesn't help that she's courting Bush's campaign financiers.
|
Quote:
|
Did anyone else read about the idea that in order for Clinton to get the nomination this election she purposefully planted her own people in the DNC, specifically Debbie Wasserman Schultz (her old campaign chair from '08) as the chair of the DNC? The person who was the chair before DWS (not counting the short interim) was none other than Tim Kaine. One has to wonder if Clinton asked him to step down from the chair and as a reward offered him the VP spot.
Now, that might all be conspiracy nonsense, but the fact that it's so easy for it to be believable in the first place is a problem in itself, i.e., the smell of oligarchy and nepotism at the top of the party. In a democratic system is seems wrong to see the same elites shuffling around the positions of power. That aside, something I heard briefly on the radio the other day made me think that there's something that Clinton can do, probably something she might even want to do, to get more people behind her. If Clinton could back a push for getting the ERA (Equal Rights Amendment) passed I think that 1) a lot of progressives would get behind that and 2) it would feel like a genuine thing for her. |
I want to add that having an entire convention dedicated entirely at explaining why Trump is horrible right on the hells of the Republican week of "Lock her up" would be far more likely to make people despair and say "both are exactly equally as bad zero difference between both sides I don't care if Trump wins" than if you actually spend some time explaining why Clinton is good. It's good to have someone like Biden ripping at him, but it's also important that you have someone lifting Clinton up, so you not only can say "Trump is worse" but "Clinton is better".
An old adage is "the most optimistic campaign wins the election". Focusing only on attacking the contrary isn't going to help. Oh and yes, don't bother looking at 538's "now-cast" prediction. it's only a measure of "momentum" and, with a convention bounce going on, it's essentially meaningless. Polls-Plus actually ticked up for Clinton today, she's on 61% now. NYT's The Upshot has her on 69% and Princeton has her on 80%. |
Quote:
|
Before I begin the point-by-point discussion, I think it would be important to point out that at least to some extent, we seem to be talking past each other. When I said there needs to be more offense in the DNC, I didn't mean the entire engine should run only on aggressive Trump-bashing. There needs to be a balance between that and extolling the virtues of Hillary as a candidate- at least equal coverage, if not with more emphasis on the former. I think I made this clear in the second post when I said
Quote:
Quote:
Here's the progressive phenomenology. To the progressives, Hillary had low prior acceptability from the get go. She's a part of the establishment (when populism seems to be in vogue in the current climate), she accepted money from Wall Street (which was the model for political activism until Sanders came along and showed them another way), she voted for the Iraq war, the Patriot Act, and was for exclusively traditional marriage until 2012. So going into the campaign, she had low acceptability among the progressive bloc, especially given the Sanders alternative. Throughout the course of this campaign, she exacerbated all of these concerns by repeatedly refusing to release her GS speech transcripts, pulling stunts like this (link), laughing off concerns of climate activists (link, and other link), cozying up to Henry freaking Kissinger, and the list goes on. All of this is compounded by the role the democratic establishment and media has played in all this, now exposed by the email leak, as well as complaints of election fraud and voter suppression in a number of states. To top it all off, the MSNBC Town Hall answer that I alluded to earlier (apparently you didn't understand the reference, link) pretty handily demonstrates her concerns for the progressive bloc. Given this entire picture in the background, as I said in the earlier post, there's only so much extolling Hillary's virtues can do to woo the disgruntled progressives. Which is why I repeatedly keep saying- the strongest arguments for Hillary are not the ones for Hillary. Which brings us to the next topic. Quote:
Debate among the members of The Young Turks Network after the NY primary Debate between Secular Talk's Kyle Kulinski and an Illinois Wolf Pac activist If you pay attention to the arguments made for Bernie or Bust, it's evident that they don't understand the threat of Trump. They either believe he's not that bad, or think even if he is elected, there's only so much damage he can cause. The problem, as I said, is simply an issue of not taking the enormity of the problem seriously. When these folks think of Trump, I am pretty sure the first they're thinking of is not that this is the person who said the Geneva convention is a problem, who promised to kill civilians, and advocated torture even if it doesn't work. They think of an out there guy who thinks building a wall would solve all the problem with racist tendencies. They're a disconnect between their perceptions of Trump and what Trump actually is. Secondly, as Kanzler pointed out, Trump uses populist, anti-establishment rhetoric. He has consistently attacked things like money in politics and TPP. Now do I believe he will come anywhere close to solving these problems? Heck no. But do I believe he has his rhetoric on these issues on point? To an extent, yes. One cannot underestimate the growing distrust of the establishment and support for economic populism among the masses. Trump has something of a crossover appeal especially among independents. There are other arguments for the disgruntlement among progressives or independents about Hillary as well (consider the "moral red lines" argument Kulinski made, something I believe many first time voters would relate with- link), and many of them have to do with not understanding the seriousness of Trump as a threat. The only remedy, or at least most effective remedy of all this is to push a very consequentialist ethic-based argument. Quote:
And to be sure, I believe we had effective, offense-oriented campaign strategies just of this sort in the past. The one example that comes to my mind is the Johnson-Goldwater election. I don't want to boil down an entire campaign strategy just to one point, but a significant appeal of a potential LBJ presidency was- at least there would be no nuclear war. This was encapsulated in the famous "Daisy Girl" attack ad for LBJ (link). Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
You made a point that talking solely about Trump may not convince the voters to flock to Hillary, but to align with third party candidates. So in other words, your point is- attacking Trump is necessary, but not sufficient, as arguments for Hillary. I think that's a fair point. Regardless, due to the reasons I laid out in this post and the earlier one, anti-Trump offense must form an important part of the campaign strategy. |
Quote:
But, while Silver kept talking as a pundit... his polling model kept saying that Trump, indeed, was going to win. He called 52 of 57 races (90%) adding both parties (considering how volatile polling is in those, it's not bad), and in some cases (see: Iowa), he overestimated Trump's result by 3-4 points. He might have been saying "Trump can't possibly win- something will alter the state of the polls at some point, surely!", but his statistical model, the one working with polls and actual data, not pundit's guesses, called the race just right. By Indiana -when he effectively won the race-, Trump had 98% of the delegates Silver's model expected him to have won by then- and the actual percentage is probably 100%, since it doesn't include the PA "uncommited" delegates that had pledged to vote for him. So yes, with a few wobbles, Silver's polling models called the race just exactly right while he embarrassed himself by saying that it couldn't be possibly happening. So it's okay if you don't want to listen to his words (because he did fuck up), but you should actually respect his polling model which has a pretty fantastic track record. Better than his author, in fact. |
Thanks, that makes sense.
|
The DNC and the progressives are playing chicken. Clinton and the DNC are saying that the progressives will have to come around eventually, but the progressives are threatening not to support Clinton if she doesn't change. It's just a matter of who will blink first. If no one does though, that will be bad because then Clinton is out of a lot of votes and Trump will have a much bigger chance of taking purple states. There was something I read on Michael Moore's site which said that when people don't like the candidates and their options they might just feel like fucking with people and voting for, for instance, Trump just because they can.
I saw Clinton's speech last night and I was surprised by the number of Sanders-esque elements in it. From what I've read, he and Clinton had a discussion about what it would take for him to but his support behind her (like getting money out of politics) and you heard some of that in her speech. I just wonder if it will be something that the rest of the party and the surrogates will continue with. Will Kaine go out in speeches and say that Wall Street has too much influence in politics? If he does, will people believe him or take his words seriously? Will Clinton follow through on these goals when the official party platform doesn't really include them? |
I think we agree, Colours, on the broad point of the need of there being both pro-Hillary and anti-Trump arguments being used as part of the campaign strategy. Where we disagree is the extent to which the latter should be emphasized. Rather than writing out a point-by-point counter this time around, I think it would be better to just point out key areas of our differences. We've both said our pieces and I doubt I'll be able to add more without the discussion getting repetitive.
So as I see it, our disagreements can be boiled down to three interrelated issues: 1. The effectiveness of a negative campaign against Trump in getting people to vote. You think it's not motivation enough to increase voter turnout, while I think given who Trump is and the existential threat that he poses, that would be incredibly effective. Cf. my point on the LBJ-Goldwater election. 2. The effect of criticisms against Trump. You think they wouldn't be very effective because throughout the campaign trail he has been sapping up all criticisms and thriving on them, while I think that's only because the criticism hasn't been done in the right way. 3. The effect extolling the virtues of Hillary as a candidate would have on the disgruntled voters. While Bernie or Bust is indeed something of a fringe movement, I think a general feeling of unconscionable distrust towards Hillary has spread over a significant part of the constituency, especially given her past track record as well as her actions this season. You disagree and think a happy-go-luck pro-Hillary parade would be effective in winning them over. Again, none of this is to suggest that I'm calling for the democratic campaign to rest solely on anti-Trump tirades, but rather to emphasize and bank on it more than they were doing, say, during the first two days of the DNC. |
(Hope this doesn't count as double post)
I found this video on my YouTube feed. This is by no means an endorsement of all the positions Dave Rubin has adopted, but this short video encapsulates pretty much all of my thoughts about this election, and especially Hillary's nomination. |
Trump is going to win :^)
Crooked Hillary has no chance, no energy at all! Sad! |
I hope his losing streak keeps going. I just heard about how he was all coy and non-committal on the use of nuclear weapons, as in he teases and intimates that he would use them so that voters who like that idea will vote for him, but then when pressed said he wouldn't use them. Seriously though, this is more dangerous and worrying than anything else he has said in this entire campaign.
But this is America and anything is possible. I would have said that Trump couldn't be nominated in the first place and look at where we are now. The depths of American craziness are so much deeper than I think anyone knows. Trump could easily jump back up in the polls. |
Elections become more or less locked two weeks after the last convention. The candidate who led the polls after that always (since there are scientific polls) ended up winning the popular vote (obligatory Gore asterisk here). So Trump has essentially one week to recover his lost ground, except he already wasted his Convention card, so... I don't know what else he can do. I don't think continuing to act like a deranged socipath is helping him in any way, shape or form, and it's only reinforcing Clinton's campaign, which is laser-focused on Trump being completely off the rails and utterly unfit to become president. And it's working.
It's also worth mentioning how Trump is running fourth with Blacks (with a surreal 1% support) and Under-29s (41 Cl - 23 Jo - 16 St - 9 Tr). Clinton is also winning the non-white vote 83%-12%. This is completely devastating. |
I'm worried regardless. Clinton has an absolutely abysmal track record of standing for racist policies, against gay rights, massive war mongering and heavy corruption. I don't want her dragging my country into another illegal war for profit, I don't want my friends who are serving dying for her bottom line.
On the flipside, Trump is Trump. I don't really need to explain why he worries me. |
It seems that the media has finally turned against Donald Trump. Now that he's Republican nominee and is unlikely to drop out, they have an endless supply of negative media attention against him which is just as profitable as the positive media attention they gave him in the primaries. Besides, the Republicans at this point are well divided while the Democratic leadership is well united, so it's obvious who can win the media war and who is responsible for the media failure Trump is experiencing right now.
|
As a member of the Dishonest Media™ who is covering the race for a newspaper (boo! hiss!), I want to comment on that. It's not that we all have decided "lol let's make Trump lose the race to sell more newspapers!", it's that Trump is... abnormal. It's hard to have a "fair and balanced" coverage when, on a side, you have a perfectly normal politician, with her pros and cons, running a perfectly normal campaign; and, next to her, a guy who knows nothing about etiquette and who keeps making outrageous, outlandish, outright dangerous and utterly unbelievable comments every day. It's hard to treat this race as a normal political debate between left and right when you have plenty of conservatives running away from the guy who is supposed to be the "conservative". It's hard to treat this race as a normal political debate when one goes out and say "maybe... Clinton... guns... stopping her... wink wink". Trump is not a normal politician running a political campaign, and that's why he gets such an abnormal coverage- because he's an abnormal candidate doing abnormal things.
Look, eight years ago, McCain said during a rally that Obama wasn't "someone to be afraid of" and that he just happened to be "someone he disagreed with on political issues". Nowadays we have Trump calling Clinton "unhinged", "the devil" and hinting that someone shoot her. That's the difference. |
Quote:
I think the feeling that the media is now being harsher on Trump is just that before people didn't think he was a serious candidate and now they have to treat him like one since he's the nominee. That means you've got to, you know, point out the really obvious flaws he has. You've got to try to give equal weight to your criticisms of Trump and Clinton and Trump is just made of brittle stuff so the cracks show pretty easily. |
I basically nodded along almost the entirety of Ivysaur's last post. In a recent interview Rudy Giuliani made a big deal about media not being "fair" towards Trump. What him and his ilk fail to realize is when you have someone openly calling for war crimes (compare that to W who, regardless of the havoc he proceeded to wreak after he stepped into office, sold himself as the 'compassionate conservative'), neutral coverage is 'negative coverage'. Saying Donald Trump is "calling for war crimes" or "joking about killing his opponent" are as matter-of-fact reports as they come. That's not being biased against Trump, that's being neutral towards him.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
I mean, I hope you can see the difference between "candidate I think is too moderate/gets money from rich people/looks untrustworthy/has some policy positions I disagree with" and "candidate who suggests murdering a political rival during a rally". |
Quote:
Arguably, Clinton's remark in May 2008 rg. Bobby Kennedy's assassination and the chance it could happen to Obama as justification to her not dropping out is on par with Donald Trump's comment about second amendment activists stopping the appointment of judges (I'm not sure if he was suggesting the assassination of Clinton or full scale armed retribution, both are not good things to suggest) Edit: (Forgot to address this) I do understand there is a difference between a bad candidate and outright suggesting unstable people should take up arms. I think Trump and Clinton are both terrible people, but I also think they might be in it together. They've been friends for decades, and up until 2010, Trump was a long time Democrat and donor to both the party and the Clinton foundation. Clinton bombed hard against Trump, and we all know how dirty the DNC played things against Sanders. It stands to reason that she'd need an easy opponent to win and she has that in Trump, a man who seems to be deliberately sabotaging his own campaign time and time again. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
The really scary thing is the pair of them lie so much you never know what's real and what's lip service. |
Quote:
Her changing on issues to align with what'll get her the most votes and make her seem the best isn't a thing i think will disappear magically once she becomes president, she'll stick to the mindset that got her elected and hope for a second term more than she'll do a 180 and reveal her true cackling witch self or something |
Quote:
Of course, the party that is full of anti-ssm members and which is running on a platform that supports discrimination laws against lgtb people, the Republicans, have nothing to lose from enacting those laws because their own supporters like them. So Trump would be fine doing that (or "leaving it to the states"). But yeah, if you believe Clinton could possibly think that undoing marriage equality is anything worth considering, then it's pretty obvious you have bought her "She's The Devil Incarnate" caricature so there isn't much hope, sadly. |
Quote:
Quote:
It's far from the only time she's "misspoke" or "misremebered" something that was significantly different to what happened. |
Quote:
She lies, she lies a lot. She gets away with lines like "I misspoke" which is of course political talk for "i was caught lying". She also constantly flip flops on issues, there's no consistency and there's a lot of hypocrisy. She's not a trustworthy person, and sure, you could argue a lot of politicians aren't, but a lot of politicians aren't running to be POTUS. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2016/03/16/4-Hillary-Clinton-Flip-Flops-Will-Make-Voters-Think-Twice https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/10/15/hillary-clinton-gave-the-exact-right-answer-to-explain-her-flip-flops-it-still-might-not-work/ http://uk.businessinsider.com/hillary-clinton-gay-marriage-and-immigration-flip-flops-2015-4 It's not me calling it flip flopping, that's what the universally used term for behavior of this nature is. https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=compromise&oq=compromise&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.3343j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 Completely changing your stance to an opposite of positions you've held for years because another candidate's popularity increased isn't compromise, its outright flip flopping. I want someone who really believes what I believe as a leader, someone who's history backs it up. Not someone who is fickle. I want a rock, not a weather-vein. |
I just want to add my own $0.02 about how Politifact is not without bias. Anecdotally, I've seen some of their reasoning for labeling something false are based on very narrow, cherry picked phrases not taken in the context they were spoken in. On the whole they're probably correct more often than not, probably even most of the time, but they are not infallible and I wouldn't agree with their statement that Clinton is more honest than Sanders and others - itself a troubling statement since that comparison doesn't state what statements they are drawing from and we're meant to take their word for it without being to check ourselves.
I don't doubt their motives, but I don't think they're as reliable as they could be since they have to deal with making their analyses easy to digest for the widest group of people interested in this kind of political stuff - and not everyone who is is going to have the same degree of critical thinking to understand a more nuanced answer than "pants on fire." |
#jigglypuffforpresident2016
|
Okay, in an attempt to Correct The Record, when did Politifact say that Clinton was more honest than Sanders?
|
One thing constantly over looked is the fact that 80% of congress is up for re-election in November as well. You honestly think that Trump will be able to pass any of his more radical policies with a hostile Republican congress? or do anything at all with a Democrat majority? If you remember EO's are not law. With Hillery I'm worry about entering the realm of wrong thought policing that Canada and Australia has wondered into as of late.
|
Quote:
Quote:
If we look at the records now, Bernie's file has 52% True and Mostly True, and 28% Mostly False and False. Hillary Clinton has 50% True and Mostly True, and 26% Mostly False and False, but 2% Pants on Fire False. To Correct the Record, it looks like that, yeah, Bernie Sanders is more honest than Hillary Clinton, give or take. Sarcasm aside, I don't think that Politifact had any opinion one way or another about the relative trustworthiness between Sanders and Clinton at all. For that reason, I don't think Politifact's reputation is at stake. I also think there's not much value in comparing quantifiable, yes, but ultimately highly abstract and decontextualized data points. But I think it's worth pointing out that a highly reputable source can come up with ideas or data that aren't very valuable, and I'm sure they never meant for it to be taken too seriously. |
Quote:
I wouldn't agree that how serious you take the Politifact numbers depends on individual preference - data, depending on the context, can be more or less rigorous and I don't think either of us disagree that the numbers aren't very rigorous. If the data isn't rigorous, how meaningful can any conclusions derived from said data be? I am pleased that we are in agreement, however, that it's each statement, in its own specific context, that counts. |
Quote:
There's been claims that climate change helped cause ISIS and Politifact said that was a lie, but when you get into the nitty gritty details about how climate change forced lots of agrarian people into cities and ruined many people's livelihoods and such that means that, yes, climate change did help push people into desperate situations like forming terror groups. ISIS wouldn't say "We're doing this because of climate change" and there are other factors that come into it, but it did play a part. But that's all very messy and my summary of it is very brief - not the kind of thing that the average person would be willing to learn about just to see if a politician is being honest or not. When you have to simplify the narrative about the founding of ISIS it's all about the political/military events of the Middle East, the US invasion, and that sort of thing - so Politifact says "Climate change cause ISIS? Wrong!" because there's no room for that factor in the simple explanation of it. Basically, I would say that a lot of what politicians say isn't just direct yes or no statements about very narrow topics - it's more nuanced, which is how you can have confusion about honesty and I don't think Politifact is as nuanced as I would like it to be in order for them to be considered as accurate and authoritative as they are taken to be. |
Here are my thoughts on Hillary's honesty.
In my experience, the allegations of out-and-out lying against Hillary Clinton usually come not from the progressives or the left, but primarily from the right (on issues like Benghazi) or right-leaning independents. The main gripe the left has with Hillary is that she's a standard establishment politician- whatever major downsides she has ultimately have to do with that fact. Being a standard politician comes with having to be flexible, to an extent, with one's principles. You can only be as good and revolutionary as the donor money and the establishment strictures allow you to be. When these subvenient causes change, so would your policies, thereby explaining the flip-flopping characteristic of the establishment politicians. This means even when you make appeals to change in the right direction it sounds disingenuous. So Hillary, according to the phenomenology of the left, is untrustworthy, compromising, flexible, manufactured, and inauthentic- but all of these come only because of her being a politician. Now people- democrats, at least- would probably have been accepting of all of this were it not for Bernie Sanders and the political revolution he speaks of. It's because of Bernie setting a different, higher standard than what people are used to is why Hillary is getting so much flak. That's the only reason. Hillary is not more evil than the usual standards, but Bernie came and threw a wrench into those standards that all of us probably considered normative. Sarah Silverman explains it nicely (link) when she says Hillary's taking corporate donor money really wasn't an issue for her, since it's a necessary evil for the system there is. But when Bernie came along and showed a new way, what was once 'necessary evil' just became 'evil'. Finally, I posted this video earlier in this thread, Dave Rubin basically encapsulates pretty much all of my thoughts on her becoming the nominee (link). |
Quote:
Of course, there's also her own political record to take into account, the fact she hired DWS literally a day after she had to step down from the DNC Chair for attempted antisemitic attacks against Sanders and her Super PAC paying people to post child porn to Bernie Sanders facebook pages which haven't helped her credibility either. The western world is getting tired of it. We saw it in Greece, in Spain, in Britain (Jeremy Corybn, a borderline socialist, won a landslide victory to lead his party and is set to win it again) and have already seen a far more left Germany, France, Sweden and Holland. America is playing catch up, but rest assured, people have had enough. |
Quote:
Second, the places where insurgent left-wing parties have been most successful (Greece, Spain, Italy) are countries that -albeit with bonuses to the winner in G and I- approportion their seats in a proportional way to the vote. You get X votes, you get X seats (again, there are some distortions, but the base is that). So you actually can afford to vote for a new party. In Spain, the Socialists (the equivalent to US Democrats) got 44% of the vote in 2008 and 47% of the seats. This year, the Socialists and Podemos got a combined 43% of the vote... and a combined 43% of the seats. Fair enough! The US, on the other hand, has a First Past The Post system- or Winner Takes All. Meaning, if the Democrats split their votes according to the primary results (55-45), then the resulting two parties would end... with a combined handful of seats in Philadelphia, California and little else. Ever heard about deranged and hated Republican Paul lePage winning blue Maine twice with 30-odd percent of the vote because the left wing split up their votes between two different candidates? That, in all levels of Government, accross all the country, times ten. And this is exactly why the Labour party is trying to kick Corbyn away, fearing a complete wipeout in the next election if they are seen as "too radical" and moderate voters choose to pick the safer-sounding Conservatives, as it already happened in the UK during the 80s. Third, not only the US has an electoral system that punishes divisions and parties whose leaders seem too radical (see: McGovern, Goldwater), the legislative system is designed to force parties to compromise, drop part of their proposals, pass wishy-washy bargains and flip-flop inside dark rooms. Why? Because, unlike in European systems where Parliament is all-powerful and appoints and removes Governments (and usually the House-equivalent alone has that power, even if there is a Senate), ensuring that both wings are on the same page and can pass laws without too much trouble, in the US there is a complete, absolute division of powers. What does that mean? That one party with barely 41 senators (which is 41% of just 1/3 of Government) can veto every single bill from ever becoming law - even if the other party controls the presidency and has majorities in both houses of Congress. When you give veto power to such a tiny piece of the system, you are essentially forcing both sides to deal. Even if only one of the two sides becomes crazy (see: Republicans), the entire system is doomed into gridlock forever unless both sides compromise in everything. In other words, the US Constitution was written to encourage moderate, centrist leaders who can deal in the shadows and who can appeal to the largest share of the population by not looking too extreme or radical, and to encourage a "lesser-of-evils" mindset on the voters. Thus, Hillary Clinton. Hence, Trump is tanking. Therefore, insurgent parties simply cannot grow. The US can wake up, but as long as the Constitution is intact, it won't do much good. Also good luck changing the US Constitution. |
Quote:
The Political system differences are irrelevant to the tides of people who are disenfranchised. Whether or not the constitution pushes moderates is of little value to the millions of Americans who back Sanders, Stein, Johnson or don't vote. The sentiment is still there. |
Quote:
And second, the differences are profoundly relevant, as in a Parliamentary system, Sanders could easily build his own party and win well over a hundred seats in the House without needing to jump into the hoops of the Democratic Party, and Stein and Johnson could have a seat (or a dozen) each and actually get a voice in Congress. In the US, disenfranchised voters can only cry and resign themselves to try and take over a major party in the primaries. |
Quote:
|
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/31/us/politics/donald-trump-mexico-enrique-pena-nieto.html?_r=0
Quote:
|
I'm not surprised. There needs to be the continuation of policy on the part of both Mexico and the US since their relationship is so comprehensive with such close trade, economic, and security ties. It's also an opportunity for both parties to gauge the actual positions of one another, filtered from all the public rhetoric.
|
With the first presidential debate happening in exactly two weeks, do you guys have any predictions about how things will go? Do you think that there will be any real bombshells dropped?
|
Quote:
I just hope Hilary doesn't sink down to the same level and rely more on personal attacks and bullshit than discussion of political issues... but I don't know if I see that happening either. |
Hillary Clinton Has Pneumonia.
Expect relentless attacks upon her fitness to be President. |
Quote:
The only real reason why this is an issue is because the Republicans and Democrats are having a contest on who's side is the shiniest pile of shit, and they need to put any reason possible on why someone shouldn't be in office. Then again, this has been an issue in politics since Nixon vs Kennedy and will probably not stop any time soon. |
People are acting like she has Stage IV Cancer or Alzheimer's, it's ridiculous. Although, it does raise an interesting ethical issue between a person's right to privacy, particularly when it pertains to their health, and the ability to be commander in chief sanely and free of any physiological or mental roadblocks. That one time you got sick in the summer on a long and brutal campaign trail has nothing to do with one's mental and physiological ability to be President. Hillary with pneumonia, doped up on Amoxicillin would still make more sane choices than Trump regardless, not sure how that affects one's character or judgment, haha.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Another point: since May, polls have been stubbornly flat, save for the conventions (where polls have always gone haywire since there are records, so it doesn't really count). Picture from HuffPost Pollster. http://i.imgur.com/fUcXMpv.jpg What are the chances Trump suddenly shoots past Clinton when nothing in these past months have caused any of them to budge? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
And now there's a conspiracy theory that Hillary Clinton has a body double because of her illness. I know someone who will definitely believe this since he also believes in the 9/11 conspiracy theory. >_>
|
Even if she has an illness it's not like we haven't had presidents will disabilities or anything before. I just wish Clinton were better about being transparent in general so there wouldn't be so much ink wasted talking about these crackpot theories. I know she's done better than Trump at showing her financial and medical records, but for the sake of convincing people she's really got to make the whole campaign feel more transparent.
|
Apparently Colin Powell's got some beef with the Clintons and now it's out in the public for everyone to see.
|
Looks like Obama is out touring in place of Hillary Clinton. Do ya'll think she will lose steam because of her sickness?
|
Quote:
|
You'd think that after all this fanfare people would mostly have made up their minds by now anyway. How big a difference could it make, same as Went said.
|
Quote:
ATM the margin between Trump and Clinton appear to be several percent, from 1% to 5% IMO, so even something that changes the margin by 0.5% is a very big deal. But Trump still needs to get ALL the swing states so there's that. |
Quote:
|
The overall trend, not counting the Conventions or the FBI findings on Benghazi episode, is Clinton +3 nationally which is in line with turnout and with what Obama did in '12, and it's held up. Nevada/Iowa might go Red, as there's always a state or two that switch sides every election, but the overall polling has her up in FL, PA, VA, OH, etc. And, Trump's interaction with the preacher who shut him down yesterday and his dipshit son's holocaust joke haven't had a chance to make the news yet, once that does, expect a hit in his polling.
|
Spoiler:
Edit: spoiled milk is just early cheese. |
Political polarization has made me more disillusioned with politics than I ever have been. Most of the Republican Party has decided that it is better to support an unqualified, racist demagogue than a liberal. This is terrifying.
Thank goodness I can at least get a chuckle out of Pepe the Frog improbably going mainstream. |
Two new live polls, Clinton +6 in Minnesota (which voted exactly the same as Wisconsin in 2012, almost down to the first decimal point) and +8 in Pennsylvania despite the recent shocks, coupled with a Virginia +10 in Ipsos, show the point of the story: Trump can win in all the swing states, but sadly there aren't enough swing states to get to 270.
Now I want to see a few more live polls in Colorado and NH. |
Spoiler:
|
Quote:
Look, here is a list of all racist things Trump has done, such as ordering that blacks be kicked out of his casinos, refusing to rent homes to blacks and saying "laziness is a trait on blacks". And a hundred more things. Honestly, look at that list and then tell me how you want to redefine the word "racism" so Trump doesn't get covered by it because if we look at the current definition he falls squarely within it. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
So yeah. Everything you dislike about Clinton? Trump also does it, except wholeheartedly, and 100 times worse. |
Spoiler:
Edit: spoilers, like on the back of a 1993 Honda Civic. Also, reddit. |
Quote:
BLM doesn't want to abolish the police either, that's an insane statement to make. They want to abolish police brutality, against all people. It just so happens that black Americans are usually on the receiving end of it. This is literally the most misinformed post I've ever seen on the internet, and I'm aware I'm going off topic to take this part into the spotlight but I really had to do something other than laugh till i cry. as for your second post Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Spoiler:
Edit: spoilers. Should have done it sooner. Ah, well |
Quote:
Also, the US has the biggest gangs in the world? Biggest drug cartels? Have you ever been in Mexico or Colombia? Or Italy, for that matter? Quote:
Well ionno, but this graphic looks pretty downward... until 2010, when the handgun ban is overturned. Then you get a small spike and then it flattens out at the same level it was in 2010! Quote:
And anyway, this topic should go in another thread. This is a thread about the elections, not about the US's horrible violence issues. |
The UNODC Global Study on Homicide 2011.
Spoiler:
Anyways, this is all a huge digression from what the thread was entirely about, like you said so I'll shut the hell up about it and let everyone be about their merry way. What are your thoughts on the candidates meeting foreign nationals and officials? I think it could have been better considering there were two bombings recently. I don't know how I feel. Pissed off people think that blowing up people needlessly is a 'good' result. Sickening. I thought Clinton actually handled herself better and saw positive results from the Japanese. Good for her. Don't want her to win, but she's handled the forming delegates a tad better than Trump but that was expected. |
Quote:
Whilst it's irrelevant to the discussion to add the gun "manufactures" of the Khyber Pass and Kirkuk I will say this, the Kalashnikovs, alongside virtually every other gun produced there are not "superb" they often break as soon as live rounds are fired through and are rarely machined to an even semi professional standard. Also don't do the whole "have you....? no?" crap with me buddy. Quote:
Where are your sources of BLM officially calling for the mass killings of whites? |
Whilst Gun control might come up as a political thing relating to election, I think if you guys really want to get into that it's time for Gun Control Thread #3042
|
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/09/20/politics/george-hw-bush-hillary-clinton/
So that makes four of the five living presidents to vote for Clinton in this election. Bush Jr. hasn't announced his vote either way. As someone said, it's a very bad rebuke when none of the previous guys who did the job you are applying for think you can do it. Also of note is that an analysis of the Trump-Ryan tax plans by the non-partisan Tax Policy Center "99.6 percent of the tax cuts would benefit the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans, according to the analysis. This group would enjoy the greatest relief as a share of their income (increasing their incomes after taxes by 10.6 percent on average) and in terms of dollars (an average annual savings of $240,000 for each household). Poor and working-class households would gain more modest benefits. The poorest 20 percent of Americans would see an average increase of 0.5 percent in their incomes, or about $120 a year. Households in the upper middle class, those in the 60th percentile through the 95th percentile, would pay more in taxes on average." So do you want more taxes for the middle classes and a millionaire windfall for the 1%? Vote Trump! https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/09/16/analysis-by-2025-99-6-of-paul-ryans-tax-cuts-would-go-to-the-richest-1-of-americans/?wpisrc=nl_wonk&wpmm=1 |
Spoiler:
My apologies almighty Pie, please allow me this one last salvo... Hm. Looking at the WP article it is hard to say at this point. Reading through it it seems like both sides are being petty. The group that they chose to provide estimates seem pretty leery of their own estimates, unfortunate. I would have preferred if they released both at the same time. Even if I was for Hillary I'd still like to see both side by side and not shuffled one after another. It risks miscalculation, misdirection (some articles can get buried under current events) and it's far easier to spot mistakes when you make them twice I guess. Well, I don't think this will change my mind in any case. I was pretty angry at the bank bailout and the auto bailout back in '08. We'll be seeing that damage for decades to come. Taxes suck, but I'd at least liked to have seen both equally sucks tax proposals side by side. EDIT: as always, auto corrections blow chunks. Errors be damned, I'm leaving them. |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Point is, just googling it doesn't provide any proof at all. |
Quote:
|
I'm sure some BLM members are virulently anti-white, but I honestly find it difficult to misconstrue its overall purpose - to defeat disproportionate police brutality upon black people and realise racial equality in the justice and law enforcement system. None of that requires one to be anti-white, or racist at all. I mean, were abolitionists anti-white? Tbqh the degree of social change they advocated for goes much further than what BLM is advocating for now. Not sure what the argument is associating BLM (as a movement) to anti-white racism.
|
Quote:
|
Friendly reminder that this is an election discussion thread not a debate about the validity of the Black Lives Matter movement.
|
So what are your thoughts if Gary Johnson wins the election instead. After watch this video, it sounds like there's a chance for a third-party candidate to win the election, leaving those who dislike both Trump and Clinton satisfied.
|
Quote:
Remember youtube videos are rarely good sources. |
Quote:
Also, Johnson's positions including cutting the budget by 43%, cut corporation tax to 0% and replace income taxes with a 23% sales taxes (who hit poorer people more, as they spend a larger share of their income in consumption); supports displays of Confederate flags, abolish the Department of Education, end public education and instead give vouchers for young kids to go to basic and high school, and ban public loands for college students (tuition? Hope you have deep pockets!); wants to remove all regulation about energy, do nothing about climate change, fracking is good; wants to leave parents to choose whether to protect their kids from vaccinable diseases; is against all tariffs or trade restrictions of any kind; wants to completely privatize health care (aka kill Medicare, Medicaid and any sorts of subsides, if you can't pay out of pocket, you are free to die on the streets); supports cutting unemployment benefits, raising retirement age to 75 and privatizing Social Security; wants to give no federal funds for a public mass-transit system, but build more highways for private cars instead; http://www.ontheissues.org/Gary_Johnson.htm So yeah. You know Bernie Sanders? Then picture the opposite in everything except in legalising drugs. |
Quote:
|
Meh, I can't fathom how a third party could ever win, and this late in the game even. Most voters are pretty much locked in on who they want to vote for I think. Having a new face would have a couple people scratching their heads but it won't change much of anything I imagine.
Mr. King certainly has a... way with words, doesn't he? What are the thoughts on that? I thought it was funny as hell. I think the aftermath is even funnier. All the folks don't bat an eye when Kanye West goes all like "N this N that" (I would use the N word, because I'm allowed to because of my skin, apparently, but I wouldn't want to offend Whitey) but when Don King says it on accident everyone flips out. That's Hella funny. It's even more funny that he's black and talking about good ol' Michael J. I don't think I'll worry too much about that. I mean, what can you do? You can't control what the guy says. |
Quote:
Hell, when you come to think of it. If you want true data, see outside news sources. Non regional nor national, since ABC, NBC, and many others in the US are bias to what you want to hear and say. If you really want to avoid bias and listen to professional news stuff, look to Japanese cable, a lot of their sourced stuff is pretty good. |
Johnson has a snowball's chance in hell. All the third party candidates do since they have to take extreme positions and that's only going to appeal to a minority of voters. Especially in this election where it seems like there is a great concern regarding stable or otherwise properly hinged candidates. Half of all the worry and attacks are against the suitability and temperament of the candidates so for someone to be seen as advocating what is essentially throwing the baby out with the bathwater is not going to play well with the electorate.
If he somehow were able to manage to win though, I think it would be worse than having Trump win in most ways except that I don't think Johnson would have any support from Congress no matter how Congress swings. Quote:
|
My Expectations today:
Spoiler:
|
No pressure or anything but... Clinton needs to do well or else Trump will probably take the lead sometime soon:
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/ |
I don't even know what to expect from this debate. What will it accomplish?
I was listening to the news this morning and they were interviewing a couple from Georgia who were voting for Trump and all their stated reasons were things that weren't based in reality, just their feelings. Like, they feel that immigrants are taking all the jobs even when immigrants are taking jobs that existing American citizens don't want. How is a debate supposed to help inform the voting public when a bunch are making their decisions based on fantasies instead of reality? |
Quote:
my school is hosting the debate and it's already crazy here, oh my goodness, Netto help a cop saw the button my friend made for me that says "Tenorio 2016" (Tenorio being my sock monkey) and he just saw the big "T" on it and mistook it for a Trump button and he complimented us for being Trump fans and he's stationed on the street right outside my dorm and 911 send better help |
Quote:
My predictions are that Trump will absolutely destroy Hillary. Even if he has worse ideas, he will still win. I dont think it will even be close because of Hillary's health and Trump... being Trump. I have two homework assignments for two different classes, so ill be watching the whole thing and looking at everything they say. Im pretty excited! I want to see if Trump can make me change my pre-registration from the Libertarian Party to the Republican party when i turn 18. Im considering it simply to have a say and because the LP has been terrible recently. Johnson and Weld are a joke and fake libertarians. |
It's been noted that challengers tend to do well in the first debate (I guess since they share a stage with the incumbent and that lends to their credibility) so I wouldn't be surprised if Trump appears to come out on top. I'm happy that Clinton isn't very arrogant (as I've seen her so far) and is also a woman, because it'd be very easy to act as if Trump doesn't belong on the stage (like how Al Gore would have possibly treated him) and that would really synergize with the fallout from the "basket of deplorables" comment.
Trump might be able to hype up Clinton's health, and if she tries to dodge and assert that it's irrelevant, he might be able to point a finger at her and denounce how all she does is hide things from people. That could play out a number of different ways. Also, as the race stands, it seems like the election will be decided in Colorado and New Hampshire. If either one defects to Trump he'll have his 270. This is all based on the analysis on 538, btw. I have a test on Wednesday, so as HYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYPE as the debate probably is (and will be lol), I have to abstain even though it would be very fun playing debate bingo and a drinking game at the same time. Ahh who am i kidding |
Watching now. Clinton just asked everyone to go online to fact check. Smart. You can't really rely on the moderators or networks to do that properly. She's been doing it pretty well, and Trump seems to be a little bit angry and uncontrolled.
Although it just devolved into bickering for a moment. Clinton is sometimes coming off as dismissive and Trump as whiny. |
This debate is just... weird. Most of them are. I've been taking notes, and half of them don't even make sense.
Clinton's website was pretty smart, great way to think ahead. |
Ayy this debate needed the pizza and root beer. Have some wine too with all the Politifact rated Falsehoods
|
I think Trump managed to tank this debate. Clinton was on her A game.
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:52 AM. |
![]()
© 2002 - 2018 The PokéCommunity™, pokecommunity.com.
Pokémon characters and images belong to The Pokémon Company International and Nintendo. This website is in no way affiliated with or endorsed by Nintendo, Creatures, GAMEFREAK, The Pokémon Company or The Pokémon Company International. We just love Pokémon.
All forum styles, their images (unless noted otherwise) and site designs are © 2002 - 2016 The PokéCommunity / PokéCommunity.com.
PokéCommunity™ is a trademark of The PokéCommunity. All rights reserved. Sponsor advertisements do not imply our endorsement of that product or service. User generated content remains the property of its creator.
Acknowledgements
Use of PokéCommunity Assets
vB Optimise by DragonByte Technologies Ltd © 2023.