|
Spaced God posted:What are the odds Trump's speech will just "sarcastically" call for an overthrow of the Clinton administration, in so many pseudo vague words? 100%, since it already happened with "Second Amendment people."
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 18:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 07:20 |
|
|
you are all bad people
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 18:52
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_tifPMzerA I hope it's good!
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 18:52
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:The Rs problem is that they can't get a decent candidate through their primary without that candidate saying ridiculous things. Not only that, but because of the huge number of grifters and people looking to sell books during this last primary, it was impossible for a well adjusted candidate to get any airtime. They simply have to say crazy things in order to get noticed.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 18:52
|
|
|
People here joke about it, but I wonder what the actual odds are that Trump uses his opportunity for a concession speech to contest the entire democratic process. Just start throwing out accusations of mass election fraud, and tell all his supporters that the Clinton administration is not legitimate and that they need to fight it by any means necessary. People think of the concession speech as a formality, but the perception of a fair democratic process kinda partially leans on the loser not fighting the system all the way down. I think there's an opportunity for Trump to really try to throw one last wrench in 2016 when he does lose.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 18:53
|
|
|
speng31b posted:I'll be interested to see if the RNC grows a pair and finds a way to unfuck their primary process so the party has more control over who is ultimately chosen. Might piss off some people, but there's no way they can keep the current system and survive. More and more batshit candidates will be chosen, utterly incapable of winning generals. If they just change their internal rules so no candidate can buy services from companies they own, and no candidate can buy books they wrote as campaign materials, they would get rid of a lot of the batshit candidates.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 18:53
|
|
|
Unzip and Attack posted:That sucks but at least Larry got to do what was in my opinion the funniest Correspondents' Dinner. Sure the Colbert one against Bush was ballsier but Larry's had me laughing the whole time. Hopefully he'll land another gig somewhere. He'll have no problem and already has several ongoing and developing projects.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 18:53
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:Good point, she is the Hawkeye to their Captain America. Hawkeye can do boats and has a dog that eats pizza though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 18:52
|
|
|
smell this posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_tifPMzerA I wonder if this will be spicy Donald with some real good sound bites about how we need to repeal a few Constitutional amendments or if it will be boring, generic GOP talking points Donald. Bad Moon posted:Hawkeye can do boats and has a dog that eats pizza though. Everyone that owns a dog has a dog that eats pizza.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 18:54
|
|
|
You guys realize it's the PAO's job to communicate on behalf of her superiors at State, right? She's not a Clinton surrogate, and it's not her job to clarify campaign issues. State doesn't want their PAO engaging with the press on individual emails, even easily shut-uppable ones like the job request that got pocket vetoed. The campaign can handle that itself.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 18:55
|
|
|
Trump won't concede. He'll almost certainly claim the result was rigged and threaten legal action. If we're lucky, he'll call for the second amendment solutions again, but I don't think he's dumb enough to say something he could actually be arrested for.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 18:55
|
|
|
TheScott2K posted:You guys realize it's the PAO's job to communicate on behalf of her superiors at State, right? She's not a Clinton surrogate, and it's not her job to clarify campaign issues. State doesn't want their PAO engaging with the press on individual emails, even easily shut-uppable ones like the job request that got pocket vetoed. The campaign can handle that itself. Instead of 'you guys' I think you really just mean me, since I'm the one with an issue with that statement. Yes, you are correct. However, my opinion is that it is presumably in the interest of the State department to dispel any notion of State department impropriety that was directly asked of it, which if true, was handled terribly. Someone else posted that the PAO may have communicated ineffectively, and that is ENTIRELY my point. It's a given that the press is going to ask redundant, inane or pedantic questions, part of the PAOs job is to effectively communicate the position of the organization - she didn't do that. Granted I may be wrong, and some here with more experience in the field than me might disagree and that's fine. It's my take on a video that lacks most context and posted in such a manner as to attempt to make a point about... something. Boon fucked around with this message at 19:02 on Aug 15, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 18:57
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:In this video a state department spokesperson gives a satisfactory and totally sensical answer to a question. Reporters are too stupid to understand that their question has been answered because they need everything spelled out for them like children. Yeah, what are those reporters doing, honing in on a specific, important question to get a clear, unambiguous answer that can be investigated, verified with other sources and reported. Shame on them. I mean, ya get what she's saying right? It was totally "satisfactory", no need to get any specifics or answer any follow-up questions. Periodiko fucked around with this message at 18:59 on Aug 15, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 18:57
|
|
|
So by now seeing as our national betting site's got odds 1,25 for hillary and 4.0 for trump, I am seriously and genuinely considering plopping down 4-5 grand on Hillary to make a couple of bucks. Yay? Nay?
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 19:00
|
|
|
Periodiko posted:Yeah, what are those reporters doing, honing in on a specific, important question to get a clear, unambiguous answer that can be investigated, verified with other sources and reported. Shame on them. I mean, ya get what she's saying right? It was totally "satisfactory", no need to get any specifics. They were already told she wasn't going to be taking specific questions about specific emails (because it would be hard to brief anyone on every loving email sent.) They could, instead, follow up with someone at State who is doing more specific inquiry requests. It's always fun when we play this game, when a bunch of people with no real understanding of the reporting/investigative process decide to blow in with dumb hottakes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 19:01
|
|
|
Boon posted:Instead of you guys I think you really just mean me, since I'm the one with the issue on the statement. It's their prerogative to determine what accusations are worth addressing and which ones aren't, otherwise they're going to spend all their time batting away every gnat Judicial Watch throws at them. This email goes exactly nowhere, and they decided not to wade into what is essentially election year campaign noise.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 19:00
|
|
|
Boon posted:Instead of you guys I think you really just mean me, since I'm the one with the issue on the statement. Except you can't open the door to answering questions about one email without taking questions on others. There is no way the PAO could have prepped for all emails individually, and the answer is given is far better than saying "this email was nbd and ethical" then next having to answer "I will look into if this other email was ethical." Which becomes a headline of "state investigating ethical breach over email" It is a huge can of worms to open in a presser and it entirely makes sense that the answer of "I won't talk about email specifics, but the state works with a bunch of people" is the one they used. Trabisnikof fucked around with this message at 19:03 on Aug 15, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 19:01
|
|
|
Minimalist Program posted:So by now seeing as our national betting site's got odds 1,25 for hillary and 4.0 for trump, I am seriously and genuinely considering plopping down 4-5 grand on Hillary to make a couple of bucks. Yay? Nay? Seems like you'd be better off looking at the odds for downticket races or betting on the spread or something. For some definition of 'better off.'
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 19:02
|
|
|
Minimalist Program posted:So by now seeing as our national betting site's got odds 1,25 for hillary and 4.0 for trump, I am seriously and genuinely considering plopping down 4-5 grand on Hillary to make a couple of bucks. Yay? Nay? I feel like any event that could cause Hillary to lose at this point would make the concept of money no longer matter, so I say go nuts.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 19:02
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Except you can't open the door to answering questions about one email without taking questions on others. There is no way the PAO could have prepped for all emails individually, and the answer is given is far better than saying "this email was nbd and ethical" then next having to answer "I will look into if this other email was ethical." Which becomes a headline of "state investigating ethical breach over email" E: I just rewatched the video again and her first response included the 'specific email piece' and I apologize for dragging this out because I missed that line. 
Boon fucked around with this message at 19:06 on Aug 15, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 19:03
|
|
|
UV_Catastrophe posted:People here joke about it, but I wonder what the actual odds are that Trump uses his opportunity for a concession speech to contest the entire democratic process. Just start throwing out accusations of mass election fraud, and tell all his supporters that the Clinton administration is not legitimate and that they need to fight it by any means necessary. Trump absolutely will do this, and his supporters will absolutely take some sort of horrible action against the "rigged" system. Pat Buchanan started echoing that sentiment the other day, so you know the evangelical leaders will be banging on about it in their sermons from here to November 8. If they're on board, and are convinced that God is on their side in whatever actions they take, there's no telling the lengths to which they'll go. Remember, literal fascists don't tend to just go away because they lost an election - if they can't win power, they'll try to take it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 19:04
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:I feel like any event that could cause Hillary to lose at this point would make the concept of money no longer matter, so I say go nuts. I bet a friend of mine $1000 straight up on the election for this reason, and he was dumb enough to give me even odds. I feel bad about taking advantage of my dumb friend but maybe this will start to open his eyes up to looking at data rather than relying on emotion for decision making.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 19:07
|
|
|
Boon posted:I get that, but if that's the tone the presser took prior to that video, why in the gently caress wasn't the answer along those lines? Why even attempt to offer an answer if the context was 'We will not be addressing questions on emails'? Instead they left the door open. Because a dry, repetitious "State works with a bunch of people" spiel makes for a piece of incredibly boring tape that nobody outside the idiot fringe can use for anything, which when you're State's PAO and the press wants you to wade into campaign bullshit is the best way to stay out of it while still being able to conduct a productive briefing about other things that actually matter.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 19:08
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:Good point, she is the Hawkeye to their Captain America. Don't insult Hawkeye, please
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 19:09
|
|
|
Bad Moon posted:Hawkeye can do boats and has a dog that eats pizza though. Not that Hawkeye, he's too cool for her
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 19:10
|
|
|
TheScott2K posted:Because a dry, repetitious "State works with a bunch of people" spiel makes for a piece of incredibly boring tape that nobody outside the idiot fringe can use for anything, which when you're State's PAO and the press wants you to wade into campaign bullshit is the best way to stay out of it while still being able to conduct a productive briefing about other things that actually matter. Yeah, I retracted my previous objection - apologies for dragging it out Trump presser starting, Guiliani opening, "Notice I said Radical Islamic Terrorism"
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 19:12
|
|
|
Guiliani opens this press conference, second sentence: "Notice I used the phrase Radical Islamic Terrorism" edit: We're a government that is "purely on defense", waiting for the next terrorist attack. lol what drone program?
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 19:13
|
|
|
smell this posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_tifPMzerA I clicked on this just as Giuliani was saying "radical, islamic, terrorism." I closed it immediately because I felt like I just heard all the speeches rolled into 3 words.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 19:14
|
|
|
But saying it won't defeat ISIS until you go full Ballmer and shout it over and over again while sweatily leaping around the stage.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 19:14
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:Reporters are too stupid to understand that their question has been answered because they need everything spelled out for them like children. Pretty much a good summary of most reporters covering most topics.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 19:15
|
|
|
I wonder what Giuliani gets from being the new, svelte Christie. Perhaps he's Trump's pick for AG as a final gently caress you to Christie?
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 19:15
|
|
|
I don't know what would be funnier: Trump announces his plan, and it truly is a simple, obvious solution that makes total sense now that he mentions it, and we're all baffled as to why we didn't do it in the first place. Or. Donald Trump announces a nuanced, carefully researched plan that clearly shows he has a detailed understanding of the politics involved.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 19:17
|
|
|
Boon posted:I wonder what Giuliani gets from being the new, svelte Christie. Constant Meg Griffin-level abuse of Chris Christie is literally the one thing I'd look forward to if Trump wins.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 19:17
|
|
|
Calls of "lock her up" from the crowd already.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 19:18
|
|
|
So is the "Crooked Hillary rigged this election!"just Trump and the RNC conceding defeat at this point and setting up for 2020 instead? Or is there a bigger plan to this particular drumbeat.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 19:18
|
|
|
Guiliani literally just said that the Clinton Foundation was a racketeering enterprise, directly Isn't that at a level that can be directly called slander?
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 19:17
|
|
|
TheScott2K posted:Constant Meg Griffin-level abuse of Chris Christie is literally the one thing I'd look forward to if Trump wins. I posted something about this last night, but this scene is a pretty brutal 10 minutes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4pu1n_S4ZM
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 19:20
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:Guiliani literally just said that the Clinton Foundation was a racketeering enterprise, directly It's a political speech, pretty much nothing in it can be considered slander.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 19:19
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:Guiliani literally just said that the Clinton Foundation was a racketeering enterprise, directly Political speech is relatively protected, and the Clintons would never bother suing him anyway.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 19:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 07:20 |
|
|
FCKGW posted:So is the "Crooked Hillary rigged this election!"just Trump and the RNC conceding defeat at this point and setting up for 2020 instead? Or is there a bigger plan to this particular drumbeat. It's a mixture of: -saving face when Trump loses -wanting to preserve the base's info-bubble that tells them they are the true silent majority, thus keeping them active and motivated -RNC leaders genuinely living in that bubble too
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 19:20
|
|
