Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Locked thread
Inferior Third Season
Jan 15, 2005

HorseRenoir posted:

Hillary's approval numbers always rise once she gets elected to a new position and people realize that she isn't a super-corrupt monster and the world didn't end.
I don't think that's going to happen this time. There is no real advantage to continue demonizing one particular sitting Senator, so they didn't do it. However, the Republicans have great incentive to obstruct Hillary as President, and then blame her for not getting anything done. Look what they did to Obama's approval ratings. They were in the toilet until this campaign season gave everyone a baseline of comparison.

The important thing for her is to get Supreme Court justices and other federal judges on the bench. And that will require a Senate majority. I think if the Republicans keep the Senate this year, Hillary can be kept to a one term presidency, and absolutely nothing of value beyond vetoing Congress's lovely bills will happen.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Inferior Third Season
Jan 15, 2005

This is like in Arrested Development. The Republicans think an obvious idiot is smart, just because they have a British accent.

Inferior Third Season
Jan 15, 2005

Xae posted:

So we've got a Sharia law praising, multiple divorcee, multiple adulterer, endorser and cameo star of pornography that is still enjoying massive support from the Evangelicals.

Can we cut the bullshit and just call the Evangelical vote the White Racist vote?
The thing is that Republicans actually support and vote for candidates based on actual policy positions, such as abortion, SCOTUS nominations, loving over minorities, immigration, low taxes for the rich, etc. A lot of these policy positions are reprehensible, but the Republicans still fall in line because of them, and ignore all personal and moral failings of their candidates, so long as they are a better method of achieving their policy goals than the Democratic alternative.

The problem is that they hold Democratic candidates to a much higher standard of personal behavior, and the media gladly plays along as though a double standard doesn't exist. And it only works one way, because leftists don't so much buy into the existence of a strict "moral" code to hold the opponent to in the first place. This gives the Republicans a distinct advantage in appealing to the low-information voter, who decide who to vote for based on the general feelings they get from headlines and overheard conversations.

Inferior Third Season
Jan 15, 2005

Josef bugman posted:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/stop-whining-about-false-balance-w440228

This seems like a very weird story from Matt Taibbi, anyone want to come in with thair take?

quote:

The people complaining about "false balance" usually seem confident in having discovered the truth of things for themselves, despite the media's supposed incompetence. They're quite sure of whom to vote for and why. Their complaints are really about the impact that "false balance" coverage might have on other, lesser humans, with weaker minds than theirs. Which is not just snobbish, but laughably snobbish. So, shut up.
Everyone's opinions are always equally valid, guys. So, shut up.

Inferior Third Season
Jan 15, 2005

Hodgepodge posted:

I still don't like how she uses "being like Scandinavia" as some bizarre impossible ideal, but that's about the only bad part.
Scandinavian countries do not have anything resembling Republicans, especially Republicans willing and able to unilaterally veto all progressive legislation. I mean, sure, Scandinavia has right-wing parties that shout racist and nationalist bullshit that would make even a white southerner get the vapors, but these right-wing parties do not generally thrive on purposefully loving over the citizenry at large in order to please their corporate masters or simply to convince the people that government can never function effectively.

Hillary should respond to this "scandal" by making it clear that the reason we have a major roadblock to universal healthcare and free college is that we have a significant number of Republicans in Congress. And if someone wants these things, maybe they should do something about that roadblock, so that the U.S. can become more like Scandinavia instead of being a special snowflake that can never have nice things.

Inferior Third Season
Jan 15, 2005

I'm convinced now that Trump has been caught up in a 25 year long Brewster's Millions scenario, and his campaign is his last-ditch effort to blow through whatever wealth he has left.

Inferior Third Season
Jan 15, 2005

Mel Mudkiper posted:

As I have said before, I think Scott Adams is wildly insecure about being famous for a comic and desperately wants to be seen as an intellectual a successful hypnotist

Inferior Third Season
Jan 15, 2005

Endorph posted:

hypothetically, what even happens if a third party candidate actually wins the election?
They become president?

Inferior Third Season
Jan 15, 2005

Conclusions posted:

Does the Secretary of State even have the authority to order a drone strike?
From what I've learned watching Homeland, the only people authorized to order drone strikes are the President and a middle-management attractive woman in her 30s.

Inferior Third Season
Jan 15, 2005

greatn posted:

Devil's advocate, doesn't arbitration have a useful societal function to keep the court systems from being more clogged than they already are?
Arbitration is fine in general, as long as both sides agree to it freely (and I mean when it is actually going to happen in real life over a real dispute, not when signing documents about theoretical issues that maybe might crop up in the future) and both sides are satisfied that the arbitration process will be fair.

The problem is that companies are forcing people into mandatory arbitration processes, where they don't agree to it freely and they don't think it will be fair (and for good reason). It is especially egregious in a business that is a necessary service like banking, where people have no alternatives if every single company in the industry is unwilling to perform the service if the customer does not agree to arbitration terms that favor the company.

Inferior Third Season
Jan 15, 2005

greatn posted:

I don't wanna drone strike Julian Assange, but is there any way we could have one always following him around and he just catches it in the corner of his eye?
Why waste all that money when he will believe this is happening anyway?

Inferior Third Season
Jan 15, 2005

Facial morphing technology has really improved. That looks like a real ugly person.

Inferior Third Season
Jan 15, 2005

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/10/04/politics/bill-clinton-obamacare-craziest-thing/index.html

wtf Bill?

Do we really need to shift focus from Trump's constant gently caress ups to Democratic self-goals?

Inferior Third Season
Jan 15, 2005

edrith posted:

Jeezum crow :stare: stay safe, everyone.

Bad thought exercise: I wonder what would happen voting-wise if a really bad hurricane hit Florida November 6th
Why the 6th specifically? Would probably be worse on the 8th.

Inferior Third Season
Jan 15, 2005

LATimes thinks there was a clear winner, and gives their well-thought reasoning.

Inferior Third Season
Jan 15, 2005

Rinkles posted:

There something to substantiate this?
Look into your heart. You know it to be true.

Inferior Third Season
Jan 15, 2005

Goatman Sacks posted:

Strickland kinda hosed himself when he truthfully said Scalia dying was awesome.
I will be making a cake next February 13th in commemoration and celebration of Scalia's death. My girlfriend will probably think it's an early Valentine's thing.

Inferior Third Season
Jan 15, 2005

Built 4 Cuban Linux posted:

If Dems get 50 seats in the senate (+Kaine), would that be enough to get through all of Hillary's Supreme Court picks? or do they need a super majority?
If the Dems get a majority, they will almost certainly get rid of the filibuster for Supreme Court nominations, if not get rid of it entirely. They changed the filibuster rules for judicial appointments a few years ago, but I don't think it applied to the Supreme Court.

Inferior Third Season
Jan 15, 2005

Pakled posted:

Supreme Court appointments are by majority, not supermajority. Even a 50/50 split means we're getting a liberal justice.
Almost every vote by the Senate is a simple majority. It is the parliamentary procedures to get to the vote in the first place that can require a supermajority to power through.

Inferior Third Season
Jan 15, 2005

cant cook creole bream posted:

Reminder that the only flaw in Clinton's debate seemed to be "over-preparedness".
She does have more flaws than that, they are just overshadowed by the terrible performance by Trump.

Hillary is not very good at conveying complex thoughts into words in the moment, and so relies a lot on rehearsed phrasing. It is obvious to everyone, which is what I think everyone meant by her being "over-prepared". And she is not good at reading the room to know that something like trumped-up trickle-down wouldn't stick, especially with her bad delivery. And even if she was cognizant that something probably won't work, I don't think she'd stray from the script anyway, because a poor delivery of a bad new catchphrase is better than stammering and pausing from trying to figure out what to say (Obama was the opposite - very good at thinking up something novel to say that perfectly fit the situation, but often had several seconds of awkward umm's and uh's before he could blurt it out).

I don't mean that she should avoid rehearsed lines entirely. It was clear she had that Alicia Machado thing in her bag, waiting to be pulled out, and it went off perfectly.

But the ability to adapt what she's saying on the fly is a definite weakness of hers.

Inferior Third Season
Jan 15, 2005

gradenko_2000 posted:

1. Assuming for a moment that the Democrats take the Senate, what are the chances that some Democratic Senators will break ranks? Like, will there be a Lieberman expy that's going to gently caress over Clinton on a Supreme Court nomination?

2. If the Senate is a 50/50 split (with ties broken by Kaine), who becomes "Majority Leader"?
1. Blue dog Democrats almost all lost their seats in 2010 and 2014. Any state or district that is conservative enough to vote for a blue dog Democrat is conservative enough to just vote Republican. Democrats have also been witness to the unified wall of Republican obstructionism of the past few years, so they know what game is being played now, unlike in 2009. So the Democrats should be able to pull off party unity votes more reliably than they used to.

2. I'm pretty sure that committee assignments are handled by vote early in the first day or two of the Senate session, so 50+Kaine should be sufficient to give Democrats the committee chairmanships and the majority leader.

Young Freud posted:

3) If the Dems take the Senate, either by majority or tie-broken by Kaine, does Mitch McConnell resign for getting the Senate Republicans in this mess?
Why would McConnell take any responsibility when everyone will be blaming Trump?

I think the best part of this whole election season will be seeing Trump's followers turn on him after he loses. I don't think he knows it's coming. He thinks they will keep following him to some new media network or whatever, when the reality is that he will be shunned and ridiculed mercilessly. And he will not take it well. The downfall will be beautiful.

Inferior Third Season
Jan 15, 2005

sarmhan posted:

And again, town halls are Hillary's best format. It was her best primary debate, it's the event type she prefers to do on the campaign trail. She is good at listening to, emphasizing with, and speaking to people's problems. Formal debates are her weaker point, because she isn't great at delivering prepared lines.
Hillary also knows things like where to stand with respect to the camera to get individual audience member reactions she wants in the shot, and what kinds of body movements she should and should not make, etc. Bill was a master at this.

Even though Trump was a reality TV star, he basically just sat in a big chair and yelled at people. I don't think he knows anything about camera placement or how to be dynamic in a town hall setting. I think if he gets off the stool and starts making those hand-wavey motions of his while standing around without a podium or microphone in front of him, he's going to look like a mentally disturbed homeless person that people purposefully avoid eye contact with and walk past as quickly as possible.

Inferior Third Season
Jan 15, 2005

comingafteryouall posted:

As a person who has never really lived near an NFL stadium, do they ever get used for things other than football games? I could maybe see a multi-use stadium that was booked up throughout the year being worth it.
I went to a music festival at Ravens stadium in the late 90s. There were 70,000+ people. They blocked off half the field to protect the grass for the football games, and covered the rest in a weird heavy tarp thing.

Inferior Third Season
Jan 15, 2005

Bushiz posted:

Trump could recover pretty easily by simply not having a disasterous performance on sunday, because expectations are so impossibly low right now. Like, if he just kept repeating the same three soundbites over and over and didn't dive for the world's most obvious bait the moment it showed up, we'd be back in the horserace by tuesday.
No.

Expectations are low, but Trump has to pull off way more than a "win" here. Hillary has to make a major error that's big enough to re-focus the media on her for the next few weeks.

This means something damning coming out of the new leaked Wall Street transcripts, or her completely whiffing when Trump goes on the attack about Bill being a rapist and her enabling him. Already, the new wikileaks thing seems to be dying out, and I'm sure Hillary has been prepared for the Bill accusations for months.

So Trump has quite a feat to pull off just to get back to where he was a few weeks ago when he was still projected to lose.

Inferior Third Season
Jan 15, 2005

Casimir Radon posted:

I have a nondisparagement agreement and don't want Donald to take my alimony away.
What are the possible penalties for breaking a non-disparagement agreement, anyway? Could Hillary just dip into her hundreds of millions dollars deep warchest, and just pay the maximum penalty amount to Ivana to release the divorce papers or whatever?

Inferior Third Season
Jan 15, 2005

Tarantula posted:

This thread usually moves pretty quick so hopefully I won't miss the answer, my mum became a U.S citizen a few years ago, she was born in the states but has lived in Australia her whole life, she's not sure how to go about voting, I assume it's some sort of postal vote?
Ummmm... if what you're saying is true, she's been a U.S. citizen her entire life. I don't know how she "became a U.S. citizen" without this coming up at least once.

Inferior Third Season
Jan 15, 2005

D1E posted:

I think this is actually a very important question. Somehow the optics of smiling warmly while shaking his hand then literally less than three minutes later advising Americans that he is a sexual predator entirely unfit for the office of the Presidency would seem... poor.
I think she'll smile and wave to the crowd, and then go completely :geno: when shaking Trump's hand. Trump will try to say something nice, and she will remain silent. She then turns back to the crowd with a huge smile and more waving.

Inferior Third Season
Jan 15, 2005

Furnaceface posted:

Apparently not. :(

I guess I havnt had my faith in humanity broken down into dust yet and still assume most Americans are actually good and decent people that know the issues but are just powerless at the moment to make the changes necessary. :shobon:
No, they are not. They are racist idiots.

But it is not unique to Americans. Wherever you live, you are surrounded by racist idiots. America just makes an entertaining show of it.

Inferior Third Season
Jan 15, 2005

Josh Lyman posted:

LOL gently caress you CNN, "we're just minutes away from the start of the debate", cut to a giant screen with the countdown still showing 39 minutes.
Politifact rates this: Mostly True

Without a number to specify exactly how many minutes, the word "minutes" by itself can be anywhere between two and infinity minutes.

In other news, we are all literally just seconds away from dying. The heat death of the universe is mere hours away.

Inferior Third Season
Jan 15, 2005

I thought Trump's answer to the combo question in the beginning about whether he has committed sexual assault and also if he would keep us safe from ISIS was pretty good...

...what do you mean it wasn't a combo question? His answer makes no goddamn sense otherwise.

Inferior Third Season
Jan 15, 2005

CascadeBeta posted:

Edit: Also it's gross how quickly they got the tapes out of the way at the debate. That's not something you should be able to deflect.
Though it went by fast for the fireworks we were all expecting, Cooper did get him to say categorically that he has never sexually assaulted any women. That opens the floodgates for anyone who denies his claim.

For example:

Inferior Third Season
Jan 15, 2005

Kubrick had to make professional actors do 20 or 30 takes to get a menacing and hate-filled stare as perfect as this one.

Inferior Third Season
Jan 15, 2005

Well, it's nice to see that he can project onto someone other than Hillary.

Inferior Third Season
Jan 15, 2005

I don't know how to interpret this. Is this to be taken literally, and we definitely won't be getting anything, or is this a wink wink nudge nudge to an underling to leak it because top-level brass can't be seen authorizing it?

Inferior Third Season
Jan 15, 2005

lol. I'd actually completely forgotten about Trump attacking the Republican fire marshall in Colorado Springs that had won some Citizen of the Year award, mere hours after the fire department rescued him from an elevator his own campaign got themselves trapped in. This is a series of events that occurred less than three months ago that I, as a healthy person in his early 30s, required a mental kickstart to recall, because this election has been just that loving bonkers.

Inferior Third Season
Jan 15, 2005

AMorePerfctGoonion posted:

Does anyone know what happened to the allegations about Melania being an illegal immigrant? Last I heard she was going to give a press conference about it and then the issue was just ... forgotten. You'd think with all these attacks on WJC that Melania would be considered fair game now.
A lawyer issued some statement attesting to her visa history, and saying that everything was in order. I don't think anyone really dug much more into it after that.

Inferior Third Season
Jan 15, 2005

freebooter posted:

Is there any movement whatsoever within mainstream politics to end the electoral college and make POTUS elected by popular vote? Because it's plainly loving ridiculous that only a handful of states matter. And it doesn't look to me like it would benefit one party over the other (the way weekend voting would benefit the Democrats, say) so I don't see why there'd be a partisan deadlock about it.
It's one of those things that people are really upset about at the moment it has an actual consequence, and then proceed to not give a gently caress about until the next time it comes up.

Like, do you see anyone up in arms right now about superdelegates in the Democratic primary process? No, and you won't again for at least another four (probably eight) years, and even then only if it happens to be a close race. And that is something that can be changed by a small group of people just deciding to change it. Fixing the electoral college requires a constitutional amendment, and that's just not going to happen. If the 2000 election couldn't do it, nothing will.

Inferior Third Season
Jan 15, 2005

freebooter posted:

Coming from a Westminster country the fact that you have a primary process at all is great, I think.

Whereas the presidential race seems like it should be a very straightforward popular vote and it baffles me that it's not and never was. The argument I always hear about it is that it makes sure smaller states and rural areas don't get drowned out, but, like - isn't that what every state getting two senators is for? And how is the current situation any better, where every other state gets drowned out by Ohio and Florida and Pennsylvania?
The Constitution doesn't really have a mechanism for a national popular vote on anything at all, much less the presidential election. This was mostly by design, as the Founding Fathers were mostly not fans of the whims of the will of the majority, and preferred that all political decisions be made by educated representatives on behalf of their constituents. It was probably also a logistical consideration, since tallying and reporting popular votes could have taken a very long time, and would have been subject to all sorts of voting fraud abuses.

Inferior Third Season
Jan 15, 2005

Is this going to be a thing?

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/fobs-hillarys-state-dept-gave-special-attention-friends/story?id=42615379

I feel like it has all of the ingredients for the Republicans and alt-right to rally around.

I really don't have it in me for even more of this poo poo. This election needs to end.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Inferior Third Season
Jan 15, 2005

Nessus posted:

Stop assuming the Republicans are ever acting in good faith with this poo poo. Because they aren't. Sure, if it's something new, give it a cursory look, but the heuristic of "a Republican's mouth is moving? Probably lies" has served me in amazing stead over the last few years.
Umm... these are State Department emails released through FOIA, and reported on by ABCNews. It's not just some poo poo Alex Jones made up.

I just want to know if it's gaining traction.

  • Locked thread