|
Levitate posted:Leftover Bernie supporters are taking up the "Clinton is a murderer" charge and claiming that she and the DNC are literally killing everyone who questioned them over the email leaks or complained about the primary being "rigged". I haven't looked into it (because why the gently caress) but a guess a few people have supposedly died lately and suddenly it's Vince Foster all over again except This is a tremendous image nut I think you're looking for Vince "Foster" there. (Ha ha! Got this in right before the edit!)
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 17:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 14:55 |
|
|
Seeric posted:As much as I'd be inclined to say that skipping out on a debate seems like it would obviously be the more damaging move, I'm beginning to suspect that showing up for a debate, at least the first time around, would actually damage him more, but not necessarily because of anything he says. Debates are held in front of a live audience, presumably consisting of supporters of both candidates, and Trump has managed to cultivate a mob-like, cult-like following whose members get high on hatred and bloodlust and whose extremism seems to still somehow be escalating. While the most blatantly unhinged people will almost certainly get turned away at the door, this would be the first time that they'd be in the same room as the Hillary Clinton and her supporters as she attacks their idol of worship. See also "HATE TRUMPS LOVE!"
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 17:23
|
|
|
Sarcastro posted:This is a tremendous image nut I think you're looking for Vince "Foster" there. (Ha ha! Got this in right before the edit!) try typing that again without the quotation marks. be amused.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 17:25
|
|
|
Can someone explain to me the dislocation between Obama and Hillary on the TPP deal? I didn't see another thread discussing it, but it's interesting that it's one of the few areas where they sharply differ (in rhetoric at least). From what I have read, there is a lot of controversial poo poo in the TPP that makes me reflexively oppose it, but these two provisions stood out to me especially: * Create an "ISDS" (investor-state dispute settlement) mechanism, which allows "investors" to sue governments for treaty violations, couched in terms like "freedom from discrimination", "protection against uncompensated expropriation of property", "protection against denial of justice" and "right to transfer capital". This seems like a complete sop to MNCs who oppose state actors creating new law or acting in a way to protect their domestic industries and seems insanely shortsighted. How can the provision of a mechanism for corporations to sue governments be considered a good thing? For example, couldn't governments be sued by corporations for creating "undue burden" with tighter climate control, worker protection regulations, or a higher minimum wage? Even if ultimately unsuccessful, giving corporations the ability to bring suit seems like it would have a strong dampening effect on governments who want to strengthen their social safety nets. *Enforce binding obligations for labor standards. Given that the U.S. would be responsible for enforcing labor standards within the bloc, and its own abysmal record pertaining to unionization and minimum wage laws, I have zero confidence that the U.S. would willingly attempt to enforce "fair" labor standards throughout the member countries, which will further increase competition and pressure on low-wage workers in all member countries, but especially in the U.S. This is without mentioning the IP issues. The TPP seems several steps beyond a "free trade" agreement, and I'm just wondering why it's necessary or even beneficial, especially to U.S. workers. It feels like a stealthy, significant increase in corporate power for questionable benefit.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 17:26
|
|
|
Seeric posted:As much as I'd be inclined to say that skipping out on a debate seems like it would obviously be the more damaging move, I'm beginning to suspect that showing up for a debate, at least the first time around, would actually damage him more, but not necessarily because of anything he says. Debates are held in front of a live audience, presumably consisting of supporters of both candidates, and Trump has managed to cultivate a mob-like, cult-like following whose members get high on hatred and bloodlust and whose extremism seems to still somehow be escalating. While the most blatantly unhinged people will almost certainly get turned away at the door, this would be the first time that they'd be in the same room as the Hillary Clinton and her supporters as she attacks their idol of worship. Do you think the first debate would be meaningfully different if there was no physically present audience?
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 17:27
|
|
|
Eric Greitens is under attack by Obama's left-wing machine, but when he fights back he brings the big guns. I don't see how this means anything other than "I will loving shoot people who disagree with me."
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 17:28
|
|
|
pathetic little tramp posted:Eric Greitens is under attack by Obama's left-wing machine, but when he fights back he brings the big guns. The gun is good, the
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 17:30
|
|
|
pathetic little tramp posted:Eric Greitens is under attack by Obama's left-wing machine, but when he fights back he brings the big guns. Help! I don't know what a metaphor is!
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 17:31
|
|
|
Eric apparently hasn't been following whats going on in Kansas very closely. Probably cause he can't do anything but spout Tea Party nonsense.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 17:34
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Eric apparently hasn't been following whats going on in Kansas very closely. While I hope you're right, I think KS was more of a specific single instance than indicative of a trend.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 17:35
|
|
|
Malloreon posted:Do you think the first debate would be meaningfully different if there was no physically present audience? I specified the first debate because I figured it would be similar to the DNC where they were caught a bit off guard the first time people acted up, but they took measures against it after that. I guess I should have clarified that as "the first debate in front of a live audience consisting of supporters of both candidates". I didn't mean to imply that I thought the first debate would hold any sort of special significance in and of itself over later ones.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 17:38
|
|
|
a shameful boehner posted:Can someone explain to me the dislocation between Obama and Hillary on the TPP deal? I didn't see another thread discussing it, but it's interesting that it's one of the few areas where they sharply differ (in rhetoric at least). Honestly, the reason people latched on to the IP issue is, well. Consider the people who were opposed to it. Most of the are millenials. A lot of them grew up with the internet. And I'd be willing to bet that a significant portion of those who protest the IP portion of them are pirates, and don't want their  going away.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 17:43
|
|
|
I honestly dont know how well a debate would go for Trump. I can honestly see him working with his campaign for hours going over different topics and responses for them. But as soon as you get to a topic that he isnt prepared for or he gets questioned on some of his previous buffoonery him going completely off script and saying something really dumb that then just snowballs from their. But at the same time in the primaries he just kept doubling down on his attacks on the other candidates and it worked well enough to get the nom. His best strategy would be to continue to bring every issue back to the "Crooked Hillary" narrative. Repeat that ad naseum so that it sticks with voters. I would say that the most likely outcome is the first scenario. But if he can pull his head out of his rear end for even a night it could do him a world of good. Granted im also saying this as someone who thinks that Clinton will win but is also terrified that something will happen that will swing the election.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 17:46
|
|
|
Requiring significantly tighter enforcement of IP law seems almost impossible for ISPs anyway, which is why I'm more concerned with the other provisions.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 17:47
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure after all the crazy poo poo that's gone on they're prepared to handle kooks acting up on either side at a nationally televised debate.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 17:47
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Eric apparently hasn't been following whats going on in Kansas very closely. The current Democratic governor is the only reason Missouri isn't Kansas right now. The legislature went absolutely insane in recent years. Their speaker of the house from 2012 to 2015 was an unapologetic Birther.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 17:48
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:try typing that again without the quotation marks. I see. Most amusing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 17:48
|
|
|
a shameful boehner posted:* Create an "ISDS" (investor-state dispute settlement) mechanism, which allows "investors" to sue governments for treaty violations, couched in terms like "freedom from discrimination", "protection against uncompensated expropriation of property", "protection against denial of justice" and "right to transfer capital". I'm not going to say ISDS is a good thing, but generally speaking the argument is that such provisions improve the confidence of investors to do international business, safe in the knowledge that they would at least get a day in front of a tribunal if a foreign government does something abusive or unfair. What constitutes abusive or unfair can be vague, but in principle is what the state agreed to in the first place when they signed the treaty. The ISDS clause thus adds a sense in which the rest of the treaty gains legal weight, because otherwise the company would have to get their own government to do *something* on their behalf, something that is unlikely to be available for all but the biggest and most well connected corporations.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 17:50
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSYZ12LGVxw
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 17:51
|
|
|
OxySnake posted:I can honestly see him working with his campaign for hours going over different topics and responses for them. But as soon as you get to a topic that he isnt prepared for or he gets questioned on some of his previous buffoonery him going completely off script and saying something really dumb that then just snowballs from their. One of the things in the article from the guy that ghost-wrote his book was that Trump had almost no patience or tolerance for something that didn't immediately amuse or engage him. He couldn't get a decent interview because Trump would just walk out after ten minutes because he was bored, which is why the guy ended up ghosting him for months instead. It that's true it means that Trump won't be cramming for the debates because he literally doesn't understand how to tolerate activities that bore him.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 17:51
|
|
|
Seeric posted:I specified the first debate because I figured it would be similar to the DNC where they were caught a bit off guard the first time people acted up, but they took measures against it after that. I guess I should have clarified that as "the first debate in front of a live audience consisting of supporters of both candidates". I didn't mean to imply that I thought the first debate would hold any sort of special significance in and of itself over later ones. From what I'm reading Hofstra is spending $700,000 on security, and they're a private campus who can rest it who is on the grounds. I'm sure some rowdy folk will sneak through but I don't expect bedlam.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 17:52
|
|
|
I've seen a bunch of worried conservative posts saying basically "Obama is the most narcissistic, vain, and self centered President in history! But Trump might be worse!" I know this is literal talking points they've been using for eight years, but where the heck does that view of Obama come from? I can't think of any particularly holier-than-thou comments that Obama has ever made outside of some trumped up quotes taken out of context (i.e., "Michelle said she hates white people!!!"). I really can't fathom how someone could describe Obama as either a narcissist or particularly self centered.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 17:55
|
|
|
Donald Trump is a combination of every Bobby Moynihan character.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 17:55
|
|
|
Violator posted:I've seen a bunch of worried conservative posts saying basically "Obama is the most narcissistic, vain, and self centered President in history! But Trump might be worse!"
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 17:56
|
|
|
OxySnake posted:I can honestly see him working with his campaign for hours going over different topics and responses for them. Me too, and I can see him ignoring everything and speaking off-the-cuff as he usually does. The man has literally no ability to learn anything or stay "on message" unless he's in front of a teleprompter.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 17:56
|
|
|
Violator posted:I've seen a bunch of worried conservative posts saying basically "Obama is the most narcissistic, vain, and self centered President in history! But Trump might be worse!" The word they're actually looking for when they say stuff like that is "uppity."
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 17:57
|
|
|
Bit of ancient history: how many people were still in the last Republican Debate?
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 17:57
|
|
|
Violator posted:I've seen a bunch of worried conservative posts saying basically "Obama is the most narcissistic, vain, and self centered President in history! But Trump might be worse!" Replace those adjectives with "uppity"
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 17:57
|
|
|
Violator posted:I've seen a bunch of worried conservative posts saying basically "Obama is the most narcissistic, vain, and self centered President in history! But Trump might be worse!" Obama presents himself extremely well and uses big words. But mainly the uppity thing Sarcastro said.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 17:58
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Bit of ancient history: how many people were still in the last Republican Debate? I think it was four
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 17:59
|
|
|
Was Clint talking to a reporter this time when he said things he used to do weren't called racist, or an empty chair again?
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 18:00
|
|
|
People certainly have selective memory or are absolutely terrible with history considering Eleanor Roosevelt was Hillary Clinton before Hillary was Hillary. A smart, opinionated woman who had her own agenda separate from her husband's, and whose public life only began as First Lady and continued well after she left the White House.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 18:00
|
|
|
Violator posted:I've seen a bunch of worried conservative posts saying basically "Obama is the most narcissistic, vain, and self centered President in history! But Trump might be worse!" The view comes from the fact that the right wing media barrages them with anti-Obama stories 24/7, and then claim that Obama is in the news too much.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 18:00
|
|
|
Mahoning posted:People certainly have selective memory or are absolutely terrible with history considering Eleanor Roosevelt was Hillary Clinton before Hillary was Hillary. A smart, opinionated woman who had her own agenda separate from her husband's, and whose public life only began as First Lady and continued well after she left the White House. Yes I'm aware of the existence of Eleanor Roosevelt.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 18:00
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Bit of ancient history: how many people were still in the last Republican Debate? Trick question. 2
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 18:01
|
|
|
Clevermuldoon posted:Who spells friendship as two words? Morons
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 18:02
|
|
|
Is picking on Trump supporters considered punching down if you're an educated white liberal?
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 18:03
|
|
|
Noam Chomsky posted:Is picking on Trump supporters considered punching down if you're an educated white liberal? The joy of an election is that we are all equal in the electorate
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 18:05
|
|
|
zoux posted:So the Atlah World MIssionary Church, they of the, uh Yea Jessica Williams covered it in February. I'm going to repost it because the video is great. http://www.cc.com/video-clips/dzelq7/the-daily-show-with-trevor-noah-a-homophobic-church-falls-on-hard-times
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 18:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 14:55 |
|
|
zoux posted:Yes I'm aware of the existence of Eleanor Roosevelt. I'm talking about the people in the video asking her those questions, as if she was the first. Not saying anything about you.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 18:06
|
|