El Pollo Blanco posted:

The important thing is Hillary Clinton voted for the war, Bush who exactly?

socialsecurity posted:

The problem is they keep repeating it and people believe it despite like 0 examples, to the point where the media acts scared to ask any questions and just accepts obvious lies.

Junkozeyne posted:

But the saved taxes for the richest will sure trickle down to the poorest. Honestly it's not far off. Any minute now, you will see how great it will be.

Actually it is not at all surprising that it can still be happening in this day and age. Consider for a moment that we have with the internet the greatest store of knowledge available at any time than in any other time in history and populists like Trump and the Brexiters can spout easily disprovable lies and people still believe those lies

Dead Cosmonaut posted:

I'd like to quote what someone said in the UKMT thread

computer parts posted:

You cannot win with 40% of the popular vote.

computer parts posted:

Clinton is very likable and there is no such thing as a likable Republican.

vyelkin posted:

hahaha what does this even mean

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/759479059046883328

socialsecurity posted:

The problem is they keep repeating it and people believe it despite like 0 examples, to the point where the media acts scared to ask any questions and just accepts obvious lies.

Lightning Knight posted:

I'm totally willing to hold Hillary's hawkishness on foreign policy and total lack of even token "maybe Israel isn't perfect, yo" against her, but at least she owned that vote and said it was wrong after the fact, even when there are mitigating factors in context that could let you forgive her for it (i.e. she was straight lied to by her President).

Dirt posted:

Nocturtle posted:

Not really disagreeing, but if anyone should working under the assumption that Republicans are lying by default it's Hillary.

vyelkin posted:

So did Mike Pence.

Gyges posted:

He has one loving office in Florida, and it's in Sarasota of all the loving places. If you're only going to have one office in the Florida as a Republican, you're probably going to want it in one of the very few largish cities in the nation that's Republican dominated, Jacksonville. Especially since that city is pretty much what keeps Republicans in statewide power due to being the only place with enough votes to counter South Florida.

Cythereal posted:

I live near Sarasota, and it's not a completely dumb idea: Sarasota is filled with wealthy, snobby white people, much like Boca Raton. Jacksonville is still the better option if you're only going to have one Florida office as a Republican, but there is some logic to a Sarasota office.

Xand_Man posted:

Hilary needs to pay off a couple new programs to cover Donald Trump as "In lighter news Donald Trump said something crazy again" puff piece and watch it destroy his sanity.

sarmhan posted:

He doesn't have an Orlando or Jacksonville office. How does he expect to win the state?

Casimir Radon posted:

Florida Man Questions Resolve of Florida People to Vote Against Their Own Interests

sarmhan posted:

He doesn't have an Orlando or Jacksonville office. How does he expect to win the state?

Lightning Knight posted:

Actually they should just run that ad in every Republican-leaning state and watch motivation to vote among Trump supporters plummet.

quote:

Trump Sick And Tired Of Mainstream Media Always Trying To Put His Words Into Some Sort Of Context

NEW YORK—Emphasizing that the practice was just more evidence of journalists’ bias against him, Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump stated Thursday that he was sick and tired of the mainstream media always attempting to place his words into some kind of context. “The corrupt news media is constantly taking the things I say and putting them within the larger context of politics and global events—it’s absolutely sickening what they do,” said Trump, adding that many of the comments he has made—including his call yesterday for Russia to hack into the emails of his presidential opponent Hillary Clinton and publish the contents—had been repeatedly and unfairly contextualized with relevant facts about the world and pertinent information about the situation in which they were stated. “It’s completely shameful to take words I’ve spoken or written and try to connect them to some kind of objective reality. I say something, and the next thing I know, a crooked reporter is telling everyone what I said along with a fact-based explanation of what its implications are and why it matters. It’s ridiculous, and it has to stop.” Trump added that he would not hesitate to ban any news organization from his campaign that continued to twist his statements by implying they held any specific meaning about or relation to the world we inhabit.

Dr Cheeto posted:

There's a big window display near King Street in Jacksonville with a bunch of Trump signs and merch. I always assumed it was a campaign office but it could just as easily be an insane local businessman. I'll have to take some pictures.

Lightning Knight posted:

I mean, I don't disagree, but I'm fairly sure that the sheer brazenness with which the Bush Administration lied to push it's neoconservative tripe was unprecedented in modern history. It wasn't like they were Iran-Contra style covering up covert actions, they brazenly walked into Congress with fabricated or faulty intelligence and straight up scared them with the threat of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of a rogue state so they'd rubber stamp a war. It's easy to say they should've known in hindsight, but it was pretty loving astonishing at the time, from what I've read.

(disclaimer: I'm too young to remember the Bush years in terms of detailed politics)

Edit: Actually, the other thing I just realized is that, in the immediate post-9/11 world, the administration lied and claimed a rogue state was directly involved in some way to 9/11, of course the junior Senator from New York was going to vote for war. What was she supposed to tell her voters, "sorry guys, I just didn't feel like it was worth it?"

Gyges posted:

They had Colin Powell go to the UN with a vial of anthrax and shake it around wile talking about nuclear technology and biological weapons. Remembering that Colin Powell was widely respected at the time and his backing up of the Bush Administration's push toward war was actually a big component of why people bought the lies. He and Condoleeaza were the only members of the administration with any credibility and they just burned it like flash paper in order to get their war.

Gyges posted:

They had Colin Powell go to the UN with a vial of anthrax and shake it around wile talking about nuclear technology and biological weapons. Remembering that Colin Powell was widely respected at the time and his backing up of the Bush Administration's push toward war was actually a big component of why people bought the lies. He and Condoleeaza were the only members of the administration with any credibility and they just burned it like flash paper in order to get their war.

Lightning Knight posted:

I didn't know that. I still respected Colin Powell.

Lightning Knight posted:

I mean, I don't disagree, but I'm fairly sure that the sheer brazenness with which the Bush Administration lied to push it's neoconservative tripe was unprecedented in modern history. It wasn't like they were Iran-Contra style covering up covert actions, they brazenly walked into Congress with fabricated or faulty intelligence and straight up scared them with the threat of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of a rogue state so they'd rubber stamp a war. It's easy to say they should've known in hindsight, but it was pretty loving astonishing at the time, from what I've read.

(disclaimer: I'm too young to remember the Bush years in terms of detailed politics)

Edit: Actually, the other thing I just realized is that, in the immediate post-9/11 world, the administration lied and claimed a rogue state was directly involved in some way to 9/11, of course the junior Senator from New York was going to vote for war. What was she supposed to tell her voters, "sorry guys, I just didn't feel like it was worth it?"

vyelkin posted:

So did Mike Pence.

Nocturtle posted:

About ~40% of Democrats in congress saw through the charade, so it's not exactly a hindsight is 20/20 thing. Lots of people at the highest levels of power were publicly disputing the Bush administration's "evidence" and the need for an invasion. The US also has a long history of getting into unnecessary conflicts for dubious reasons, so I'd argue skepticism is always warranted.

I don't want to make this about Clinton, she's obviously the best presidential candidate. The US invasion of Iraq was absolutely wrong (morally, strategically, economically) and it pains me to see Democrats trying to downplay the decision to go to war because it's politically expedient.

Mahoning posted:

What are the chances that Rubio loses the Senate race in Florida? Isn't it a relatively tight race for an incumbent senator that was pretty well liked (before he was emasculated by an orange muppet in front of the entire nation)?

Lightning Knight posted:

I'm not so much downplaying the decision as much as I'm pushing against the narrative that it was as obvious in 2003 how bad it was going to be as it is today, because that's preposterous. And Hillary still has gone on the record saying her decision to vote for it was 100% wrong and she regrets it, and in spite of that people act like she cast the tiebreaking vote and we went to war over 90% of the country being against it or some such.

Edit: That said, Russ Feingold being one of the people who voted against it is one of the big reasons I'm excited for him to possibly come back into the Senate this year.

SedanChair posted:

It actually was obvious, everybody knew it was a terrible plan. Almost all US politicians went along with it because war fever was high and they believed it would excuse their actions. One of the main reasons Obama had initial support from the left of the party is the fact that even from a position of safety where he did not hold national office, he opposed the war.

Gyges posted:

Probably around the same as the chances that Hillary wins Florida. Patrick Murphy could really gently caress up, but generally there is a very low likelihood that people are going to vote both Hillary and Rubio on the ballot.

Remember that he was elected in 2010 in a 3 way race that saw him get a whopping 26k more votes than Rick loving Scott in a Republican wave year.

Lightning Knight posted:

As I read about the war, I'm starting to agree with you. Oof. I mean at least she repudiated it, and I'm not convinced the public at large knew better, but yeah, it looks pretty bad. I'm still amazed at how badly the Bush Administration fabricated a reason to go to war. I didn't realize that "Bush lied, people died" wasn't an exaggeration.

Evil Fluffy posted:

If she was up against Rubio I think he'd easily have a 4-5 point lead on her right now solely due to optics. Get him making some vague centrist speech at the RNC about jobs, the military...etc without giving some Pence-grade gently caress You Non-Christians tripe or a Trumpertantrum and yeah he'd be leading for sure.

Necc0 posted:

Powell's also since come out and said that speech was the lowest point of his life.

SedanChair posted:

The good news is, Trump is so dumb he has taken this issue away as a weakness for Hillary. If he kept his attack to "she was a senator, she had the intelligence, she should have known better" that would be effective. But because of his narcissism and stupidity, he has to insist that he went on the record as being against the invasion--which he never did. So instead of the Iraq issue being about Hillary's cynicism or poor decision making, it's about Trump lying, again.

And people who care about who supported invading Iraq actually follow news and stories, so it's not like Trump's normal idiot base is at play over this issue.

Lightning Knight posted:

I'm not so much downplaying the decision as much as I'm pushing against the narrative that it was as obvious in 2003 how bad it was going to be as it is today, because that's preposterous. And Hillary still has gone on the record saying her decision to vote for it was 100% wrong and she regrets it, and in spite of that people act like she cast the tiebreaking vote and we went to war over 90% of the country being against it or some such.

Edit: That said, Russ Feingold being one of the people who voted against it is one of the big reasons I'm excited for him to possibly come back into the Senate this year.

Evil Fluffy posted:

It means Trump's pissing on the two biggest Kingmakers and all we need is for him to piss of Adelson and he'll be on his own if not actively worked against.

SedanChair posted:

The good news is, Trump is so dumb he has taken this issue away as a weakness for Hillary. If he kept his attack to "she was a senator, she had the intelligence, she should have known better" that would be effective. But because of his narcissism and stupidity, he has to insist that he went on the record as being against the invasion--which he never did. So instead of the Iraq issue being about Hillary's cynicism or poor decision making, it's about Trump lying, again.

And people who care about who supported invading Iraq actually follow news and stories, so it's not like Trump's normal idiot base is at play over this issue.