|
GalacticAcid posted:Don't watch. Read a book or something and watch the highlights in the morning. Absolutely this. I eagerly anticipate the aftermath but watching the actual debates will make me too angry. I'm going to do something fun and catch up on the hot takes when they're over. re: the toxxing discussion from a few pages back. Why is Trump "winning" the debates by skirting his already rock-bottom expectations controversial enough to have to toxx over? Are there people who think Hillary will actually win? How?
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2016 19:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 03:03 |
|
|
vyelkin posted:Romney and Obama together took 98.3% of the vote in 2012, so if Trump had taken 42-43% of the vote Obama would have won a 55-43 victory and absolutely demolished the forces of white nationalism in a way that a narrow Clinton win this year won't do. Considering the Romney/Obama margins and the dynamics of Trump support and opposition, Obama may have won North Carolina, Nebraska's 2nd district, and Georgia, and possibly even one or more of Arizona, Missouri, and Indiana. It would have been an utter humiliation on the level of 2008 rather than the narrow but comfortable win of 2012. The whole argument is kind of moot because they needed two terms of a black president to stir everyone up into a frenzy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2016 19:26
|
|
|
canepazzo posted:Trump "wins" first debate 36 hours before it starts: Stop sending him pay checks. When he bitches say you "felt" he received one. See how quickly he learns what a fact is.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2016 19:26
|
|
|
TheBigAristotle posted:The whole argument is kind of moot because they needed two terms of a black president to stir everyone up into a frenzy. Are you kidding? They barely needed one month of a black president to stir everyone into a frenzy. If Trump had run in the 2012 Republican primary he would have won the nomination in the exact same way he won it this time.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2016 19:29
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:Are you kidding? They barely needed one month of a black president to stir everyone into a frenzy. If Trump had run in the 2012 Republican primary he would have won the nomination in the exact same way he won it this time. I don't know, the Republicans almost pretended to still believe in governing then. It took a year or so later to destroy all pretense of liking "serious" politicians in the Republicans and replace it with mindless rage and bigotry.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2016 19:32
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:Are you kidding? They barely needed one month of a black president to stir everyone into a frenzy. If Trump had run in the 2012 Republican primary he would have won the nomination in the exact same way he won it this time. He did in fact run in 2012. https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/compost/wp/2016/09/16/the-picture-of-donald-trump/?utm_term=.5ca14c08faf7 Edit wrong link: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/may/16/donald-trump-us-presidential-race
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2016 19:35
|
|
|
Geostomp posted:I don't know, the Republicans almost pretended to still believe in governing then. It took a year or so later to destroy all pretense of liking "serious" politicians in the Republicans and replace it with mindless rage and bigotry. Yeah. I mean, the Republicans still nominated Romney in 2012. I, and I'm sure a lot of people here, didn't much like Romney, thought his policy ideas were half-baked and/or misguided, etc. But, for my part, I wouldn't have woken up every day with fear and apprehension as to what a President Romney would do with the powers of the executive branch at his disposal. He might have done something I disagreed with, something that I felt was misguided or dumb, but I couldn't imagine him destroying an alliance, a country, or a world in a fit of pique like Trump.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2016 19:37
|
|
|
Romney would've been a terrible president. But wouldn't have risked destroying everything or gutting the government completely.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2016 19:39
|
|
|
canepazzo posted:Trump "wins" first debate 36 hours before it starts: There are plenty of rumors that Trump is not even practicing, that's sets the bar as low as possible, while he probably have been practicing, if not on policy, then on how to appear to act reasonable and keeping relatively calm. Being an expert conman, he will give broad, fluffy answers that are appealing but without any substance, and refuse to engage Clinton if she wants any details on his supposed solutions, claiming that his solution is sensible and fair, while harping on Clinton going to either weaken and bankrupt USA, with the moderator nodding along, keeping track of time. After the debate, people going to say that Trump exceeded their expectations, which to say he didn't call Hillary a oval office, and he came off as relatable and presidential, while Hillary was cold and distant, ending with Trump campaign proclaiming that Trump was able to match a career politician who been preparing for months whilst he been on the road talking to actual people, showing that Trump is not only able to match his opposition but at the same time listen to the common (white) man. Trump is then going to cancel the future debates, stating that he wants to talk and listen to real americans, to create policies to make America great again, not spending his time being attacked by liberal media and Hillary, and spend the rest of the campaign as the "winner", harping on that Hillary could not trump (heh) him when she had the chance. I hope that I am completely wrong and Trump lose it at stage, but.. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2016 19:41
|
|
|
Rincewinds posted:There are plenty of rumors that Trump is not even practicing, that's sets the bar as low as possible, while he probably have been practicing, if not on policy, then on how to appear to act reasonable and keeping relatively calm. Being an expert conman, he will give broad, fluffy answers that are appealing but without any substance, and refuse to engage Clinton if she wants any details on his supposed solutions, claiming that his solution is sensible and fair, while harping on Clinton going to either weaken and bankrupt USA, with the moderator nodding along, keeping track of time. I think that is definitely Trump's plan. My hope is that he will lose his self control regardless of that plan.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2016 19:43
|
|
|
I do not think he could get away with cancelling the other debates no matter what.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2016 19:45
|
|
|
Rincewinds posted:There are plenty of rumors that Trump is not even practicing, that's sets the bar as low as possible, while he probably have been practicing, if not on policy, then on how to appear to act reasonable and keeping relatively calm. Being an expert conman, he will give broad, fluffy answers that are appealing but without any substance, and refuse to engage Clinton if she wants any details on his supposed solutions, claiming that his solution is sensible and fair, while harping on Clinton going to either weaken and bankrupt USA, with the moderator nodding along, keeping track of time. the only way Trump or his fanbase consider this a loss is if he shoots Hillary on stage and goes to jail. Him being literally a murderer is what I think would have to come out for him to become completely unelectable.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2016 19:45
|
|
|
Night10194 posted:I do not think he could get away with cancelling the other debates no matter what. Sure he would. Trump literally has never had anything stick to him for more than a week. Why would this?
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2016 19:46
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:Sure he would. Ducking out of a debate lost him the Iowa caucus. That did stick to him.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2016 19:46
|
|
|
Night10194 posted:Ducking out of a debate lost him the Iowa caucus. That did stick to him. Yeah, it sure stuck to him when he won the nomination handily.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2016 19:47
|
|
|
Antti posted:The Reno speech was a trial balloon in this direction but they seem to have dropped that approach. The Great Normalization has definitely worked to help Trump so I can see why they tried to cut it off at the pass, but the white voters' capacity for self-deception can't be underestimated. Yeah. The alt right/deplorables line of attack was based on the idea that Trump is such an exceptionally bad and offensive candidate that you could peel off a significant slice of non-deplorable Republicans or at least get them to stay home. You start with the Obama/Romney baseline, peel off a few points and get an easy victory. The rationale was reasonable in my opinion, but it just failed to anticipate the fact that Republicans are just going to Republican, even with a clown like Trump. You can argue that it might have worked if not for the fainting spell, but that means the whole thing was hanging on a wisp of a thread to start with and obviously turned out not to be an effective strategy as hoped. The problem is not so much, in my view, that "deplorables" turned voters away from her, it's that the whole line of attack represents wasted time and opportunity that could have been used building a more affirmative message for her own candidacy, shoring up the base etc. I DO feel that the main emphasis of her campaign has been the unacceptability of Trump. I think that's an appropriate rationale for a Clinton vote but it turns out strategically not to be the winning plan, at least not all of it. In a way it's good that this all happened when the race still has some time left so there's still a chance to get things done.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2016 19:47
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:Trump literally has never had anything stick to him for more than a week. NBC News posted:Donald Trump left open the possibility he had broken laws with his personal foundation, saying in an interview Sunday when asked if he was "confident" he had followed all laws and regulations that he "hoped so." I see the foundation problems hitting him as well.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2016 19:48
|
|
|
Party Plane Jones posted:I see the foundation problems hitting him as well. Nope. You're going to hear "Well, he's just the same as Clinton." Edit: Look, at this point, I think we really just need to accept that Trump is controversy-proof. Everyone voting for him is voting for him and doesn't care about anything he says or does. The only change is going to be among Clinton supporters, not Trump supporters. ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 19:52 on Sep 25, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2016 19:48
|
|
|
Night10194 posted:Romney would've been a terrible president. But wouldn't have risked destroying everything or gutting the government completely.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2016 19:54
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:Nope. You're going to hear "Well, he's just the same as Clinton." Scandals aren't going to turn his voters into Clinton voters, but they might make them stay home.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2016 19:55
|
|
|
Fitzy Fitz posted:Scandals aren't going to turn his voters into Clinton voters, but they might make them stay home. Which is ever better. Hurts them more downticket 
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2016 19:56
|
|
|
Scandals won't. Looking weak might. That's the fundamental difference between a Foundation story or skipping a debate. The latter looks like weakness. ImpAtom IS right, though. No scandal is going to do poo poo to his numbers. Anyone he was going to lose to them has already been lost. E: Rather, Scandal won't do much to him unless he, personally, has some kind of crazy breakdown like the time he decided he wanted a public fight with a gold star family or asked Russia to hack the US. Those kinds of things stick for awhile and it took weeks of non-coverage for that damage to fade. Night10194 fucked around with this message at 20:04 on Sep 25, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2016 19:58
|
|
|
Are there plans for a TVIV thread for the debate? Doing it in USPol would make the thread virtually unreadable, at least for me - this thread moves insanely fast already.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2016 20:10
|
|
|
trump has survived at least fifty things that would've tanked anyone else's campaign. i think the only thing that could do him in is the release of his tax returns.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2016 20:11
|
|
|
TheKennedys posted:Are there plans for a TVIV thread for the debate? Doing it in USPol would make the thread virtually unreadable, at least for me - this thread moves insanely fast already. There will almost certainly be a cspam debate GDT.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2016 20:12
|
|
|
He survives them because this campaign, for all the cult of personality poo poo, isn't about Donald Trump. This campaign has him buoyed up by societal forces rather than a political candidate.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2016 20:13
|
|
|
TheKennedys posted:Are there plans for a TVIV thread for the debate? Doing it in USPol would make the thread virtually unreadable, at least for me - this thread moves insanely fast already. There will probably be one in C-SPAM tomorrow, yes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2016 20:13
|
|
|
TheKennedys posted:Are there plans for a TVIV thread for the debate? Doing it in USPol would make the thread virtually unreadable, at least for me - this thread moves insanely fast already. Will be shitposting in my underwear definitely.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2016 20:16
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:Are you kidding? They barely needed one month of a black president to stir everyone into a frenzy. If Trump had run in the 2012 Republican primary he would have won the nomination in the exact same way he won it this time. Two terms really let it soak in, ferment. Breitbart was dead, his death cult was yet to truly flourish.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2016 20:19
|
|
|
I want off this ride now please I've had enough
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2016 20:20
|
|
|
The future of the US. https://twitter.com/victomato/status/780119655423676416
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2016 20:21
|
|
|
People taking pictures with famous people?? Why I never!
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2016 20:21
|
|
|
i've never taken a selfie and i'll always find the practice bizarre.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2016 20:22
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:i've never taken a selfie and i'll always find the practice bizarre. I've never taken one either. It's always seemed so narcissistic that you have to put yourself in every photo you take.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2016 20:24
|
|
|
Night10194 posted:He survives them because this campaign, for all the cult of personality poo poo, isn't about Donald Trump. This campaign has him buoyed up by societal forces rather than a political candidate. Yeah. About a week ago I listened to a radio show cohosted by Michael Steele and Jonathan Capeheart. (They had a great chemistry together by the way.) Steele was talking about how the votes for Trump essentially represented his voters pointing their middle fingers at American politics. Then they had a caller who completely validated that whole idea. The guy was White Guy Seething With Smug Anger, Trump supporter. He was talking about how people were sick of both Democrats and Republicans lying to them. Capeheart asked him didn't he think Trump lied more than anyone, and tried to focus on a single example, of Trump on immigration and deportation. Angry Yet Smug White Guy basically waved him off and wasn't even interested in answering the question, telling him "none of that matters". Capeheart finished the segment telling Steele he needed to go home and down a bunch of martinis or something.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2016 20:26
|
|
|
GalacticAcid posted:Don't watch. Read a book or something and watch the highlights in the morning. I'm glad I'm going to be working during the debates. vyelkin posted:Campaign Obama would have absolutely demolished Trump. It would have never been close. I wish Obama could run for a 3rd term because if Trump had run against him holy poo poo the blowout would be insane. Luna Was Here posted:the only way Trump or his fanbase consider this a loss is if he shoots Hillary on stage and goes to jail. Him being literally a murderer is what I think would have to come out for him to become completely unelectable. I'm not sure what reality you're from but in this one Trump would be lionized by the right wing if he attempted to murder Hillary Clinton on national TV.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2016 20:27
|
|
|
SSNeoman posted:People taking pictures with famous people?? Kids these days, I tell ya. They listen to different music than I do and like different things than me. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2016 20:28
|
|
|
Hamelekim posted:I've never taken one either. It's always seemed so narcissistic that you have to put yourself in every photo you take. Pretty people like to show everyone how pretty they are and get some sweet, sweet social media attention. It staves off, momentarily, the rolling existential crisis that is modern existence.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2016 20:28
|
|
|
I kinda figured the amusing part wasn't that they're taking selfies but that they apparently have a moment during the rally specifically for everyone getting a chance to take a selfie
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2016 20:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 03:03 |
|
|
I think selfies with famous people are a cool way of commemorating and personalizing a meeting with them, but I'm so loving ugly that I avoid pictures if at all possible, selfie or otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2016 20:32
|
|