|
punk rebel ecks posted:Anything else besides vaccine and Wifi? I mean to be fair people in the "mainstream" camps believe a lot of goofyshit too. And I don't even want to bring up Johnson's camp. It's typical green party stuff, people only care because of a perceived Nader factor and she campaigns really hard against Clinton ("Clinton is more dangerous than Trump because status quo etc.") to try to pick up disillusioned lefties. The usual.
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2016 00:37
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 8, 2024 06:34 |
|
|
ImpAtom posted:"You're strong and you can handle it. Some people can't handle it (because they're weak)" is the worst possible way to frame that. He didn't say they're weak but he drat well implied. This requires a willingness to carefully parse Trump that no Trump supporter actually possesses.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2016 17:29
|
|
|
Spiritus Nox posted:It's not about people who already support Trump. I don't know why people keep saying this. It's about scaring off fence-sitters and reinvigorating dems. Trump was incredibly snide about John McCain's genuinely heroic period as a torture victim and prisoner of war, and attacked a family that lost their son in Iraq. Failing to use politically correct language to describe PTSD doesn't even register. There are a million better lines of attack than a nuanced analysis of Trump's description of suicides. Can you actually imagine a person who is "reinvigorated" by this that wasn't by the previous?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2016 17:55
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:A lot fewer Americans know a John McCain, while a lot of Americans know a depressed, PTSD suffering or suicidal Vet. And in the reply he's committing to increasing mental health assistance to those people, and sympathizing with them. So the strategy here is to attack Trump for being extemporaneously unPC in a brief aside, as part of a full clip that shows him saying things super popular with anyone that might consider supporting him. The strategy here is to encourage people to watch a clip of Trump in a sympathetic environment being likable because Donald Trump used a bad choice of words, a turn of phrase that anyone serving in military would be well-familiar with. If you actually watch the clip it's immediately apparent why that would be really ineffective, there's no edit that makes it work, it only works in text form. If you really torture the argument, you might be able to reinforce the impression that HRC is a politically correct coastal elite who'd rather police language than help people. It's a bad, slightly disingenuous line of attack in a period where there is no shortage of genuine scandalous material to work with.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2016 18:19
|
|
|
Unwatchable even for a VP debate.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2016 02:44
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:So your argument is "literally only white people matter." Gotcha. Jesus christ.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2016 16:41
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:Literally you own actual quote. You swapped your argument from "everyone dislikes Clinton, her unfavorables are so high" to "White people dislike Clinton and they're the most important demographic" in a heartbeat. They are the most important demographic politically, they're overwhelmingly the most populous and diverse in the United States. They're a solid majority of people, so while it's interesting and worth talking about, disapproval of Clinton driven by white people is still broad disapproval. It's not a "sham", it's a statistical reality.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2016 16:53
|
|
|
BaDandy posted:You didn't read the article then. The other main thrust of it was that Hillary was solidly popular until she began running for president, which the Republicans tried to nip in the bud in 2013 with the Benghazi "scandal", while Trump has always been consistently unpopular. Cuz that's silly, this is true of everyone that runs for office, and it's not like it's some weird technicality we need to skew for. Also, what bothers me about that article is the metric doesn't make sense, when people say she's unpopular historically they're comparing her to other historical candidates, but that article weirdly just compares her to Biden and herself. Like, if we you want to break it down by race, wouldn't you look at Obama, Kerry, Gore numbers by race? The thing just reeks of Slate content-milling, hoping to generate retweets with Clinton boosterism. I'm not saying there's not an interesting point about the increasing racial polarization of the parties and election, but that article seems more interested in unskewing Clinton's favorability and deriding it as a "sham" and a "meme" rather than actually grappling with it. quote:Plus, it's not representative of her being "totally unpopular with everyone" if she's only unpopular with white people, which SHOULD be common sense but apparently isn't. Who is saying she's "totally unpopular with everyone". I don't think anyone has ever claimed she was unpopular with black voters, for example.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2016 17:12
|
|
|
Luna Was Here posted:Coulda sworn the bill rape stuff was just rumors, someone wanna source me some real quotes or something? Meanwhile Trump is on camera literally admitting to sexual assault They weren't rumors, they were public accusations. There's no major physical evidence, so it's he said she said. Juanita Broaddrick is generally considered the most troubling. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/1999/03/is_juanita_broaddrick_telling_the_truth.html It's a giant can of worms that I'm afraid would be awful to discuss in the context of this election.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2016 04:17
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Hasn't she been done with Trump since, well, the beginning? I think she's just being petulant and saying Clinton hasn't "earned her vote" yet, but I'm guessing she'll vote Clinton whether she wants to admit it or not. She's been one of CNN's stable of "conservatives that hate Trump" for awhile.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2016 04:44
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:https://twitter.com/mitchellvii/status/784624008587255809 wow. just w o w
|
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2016 06:37
|
|
|
berserker posted:Yep this is why anyone who follows PEC will likely see Clinton's win % go up by a point every 4-5 days until election day when it sits at 99% (I don't think it will ever say 100% just by definition). At this point every day that goes by makes Trump's job harder. Today multiplied that by a lot. For the first time, I feel genuinely certain he won't win. He's not prepping for debate 2. His campaign is in full meltdown with scandals from every direction. He's completely lost his competitiveness in the polls. Every avenue he had to turn things around he's closed because he's incompetent and stupid and awful. It's just a question of how bad he loses, and how many Republican senate seats he takes down with him.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2016 06:42
|
|
|
PhazonLink posted:Clinton said Nancy Reagan was a nice person and the media chomped at the bit to go "Well actually..." because they were still programmed with "Everything Clinton says is a lie and hiding something." That's a really hosed up way to describe that incident.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2016 07:01
|
|
|
The Shortest Path posted:She did that intentionally, though. It caused the media to poo poo all over Nancy during her funeral period while scrambling to throw a gotcha at Hillary, which she just brushed off with a "whoops, guess I was thinking of something else". Ugh please don't do this.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2016 17:05
|
|
|
Secret Agent X23 posted:Apologies if this has been discussed here; this thread moves too fast for me to keep up with everything. But it just occurred to me to wonder if Trump has actually denied doing the stuff he talks about in that video. That video statement he released is just a halfhearted apology for what he said followed by a wholehearted attack on Hillary. So has he denied it? Would he, or his campaign people, see some reason not to? The campaign's official stance is it was just "locker-room talk" and he was joking.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2016 22:19
|
|
|
Secret Agent X23 posted:"Stance." LOL. That word's long ruined for Republicans. As always they're playing games, if you look at all the Trump defenders, they're treating it like the issue is coarse language and not that he bragged about attempting adultery and sexual assault so they can tie everything to their "PC" narrative. A common thread I'm seeing on twitter is that he was never convicted of a crime or received "formal charges" so that part of it doesn't matter. Trump-twitter is in total denial, and convinced that it's "no big deal". It's beautiful to watch, ecstatic schadenfreude.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2016 23:04
|
|
|
Bizarro Watt posted:If this video was just the result of someone from Access Hollywood looking through some tapes, how much credibility can we give to these sourced claims that oppo has a couple more drops to come that are on the same level or worse? Sorry if this was already asked. It would be really funny if they were just lying to sow panic. Supposedly the GOP is unofficially cutting ties and reps are being instructed not to defend Trump lol. https://twitter.com/Cernovich/status/784846372428128257 edit: worth mentioning Cernovich is an alt-right poo poo so take it with a grain of salt
|
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2016 23:25
|
|
|
Guy Goodbody posted:You guys remember back in 2012, when the 47% tape leaked and we were all, "drat, that dude's a scumbag" Remember the right's 2008 fantasy of a "whitey tape" with Michelle Obama? Wrong election, wrong party apparently.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2016 23:50
|
|
|
Rodenthar Drothman posted:Having never looked into the Juanita Broaddrick claims and without the time to do so before the debate, can someone sum up the evidence for/against (or if you know good links that could be quick reads)? Even if the whole situation afterwards (the threatening and whatnot) seems a bit ... overplayed? (not sure what word I'm looking for here is), it still is a very serious claim, and the claim is at least feasible inside of the power structure dynamic and (alleged) behaviors of Bill? This summarizes some of it. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/1999/03/is_juanita_broaddrick_telling_the_truth.html It's really an ugly thing because there's a huge element of he said she said. I find it haunting, every time I read about it again I come away going "ugh he really might have raped her". Not something I'd feel comfortable discussing in this thread, though. It's a big "I don't know" and that's disturbing, so I mostly just go by the things that are proven: that Bill is a shitheel who's violated a myriad of sexual ethics and I wish would just shut up and go do quiet charity work.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2016 04:14
|
|
|
swimgus posted:It just seemed to me that the mexican judge thing and the elizabeth-warren-pocahantas thing, and the mocking disabled reporter, and the joking about assasinating hillary, and a bunch of other things were all huge deals, then Trump just kept on Trumping, and people shrugged and didn't pressure him to drop out. And after this thing everyone says he should quit. I'm not saying this isn't a huge deal, and I agree that what he said in the video was beyond the pale, it's just that he should have been disqualified as soon as he said Mexico was sending rapists here in his announcement speech. They like veiled racism, mocking reporters, and insurrectionist gun narratives. You can do that poo poo in the Republican party if you get votes. You can't openly break basic sexual mores on video while also losing the election to a woman who they've spent decades villifying. If one or the other wasn't true, he'd be fine.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2016 04:23
|
|
|
Amergin posted:Also the moderators spent, what, 10 minutes on the silly leak of him being a bro and talking about "grabbing that pussy" - only democratic autists and DC mediaite nerds stuffed up their own assholes would take what was said literally. Stop with the silly Nancy Grace-esque witch hunt and focus on substance. Trying to focus on these silly leaks and then spinning around in your chairs wailing when nobody gives a poo poo is a major turn-off for people. you should try leaving the bubble some time, it's nice
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2016 04:07
|
|
|
trash person posted:The whole Bill thing was an absolute non-starter. That's why I don't get why he did his press conference with them before the debate. Do it on Tuesday or Wednesday. Not literally right before something that will inevitably be a far bigger hold on the news cycle. He's a bully, he thought it would psych her out. Remember, this is the man who thought it was a good idea to accuse Ted Cruz's dad of assassinating JFK.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2016 06:24
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:Didn't Clinton specifically say tonight she wanted single-payer or am I mistaken? No, she mentioned that medicare was a popular, functioning single payer system in passing but it was in an answer advocating revamping Obamacare.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2016 06:56
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Haha if he drops out of the third debate after weathering the relatively more hostile first and second then he really is just throwing the fight. There is no other explanation. What can their strategy even be? Is Bannon just stringing Trump along as a sacrificial figurehead for the alt-right?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2016 07:06
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:Trump blowing up so completely that the GOP abandons him is probably not ideal, honestly. It's better for him to stay just competitive enough with his own base that the rest of the party stays tethered to him. The best hope for a real down ballot blowout is for the Republicans to ride the Trump train to the end. The "civil war" dynamic would be pretty brutal. The Republican party kind of can't survive angry white men turning on them.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2016 07:49
|
|
|
cant cook creole bream posted:Jesus! 72% non-hispanic white in 2012. http://ropercenter.cornell.edu/polls/us-elections/how-groups-voted/how-groups-voted-2012/ Remember, polls like this aren't designed to reflect total demo of country, but the subset that is "likely voters" or "debate watchers" or whatever.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2016 17:36
|
|
|
In the context of the general they're pretty banal, but during the primary the main criticism was that she was too close to Wall Street and some of her positions were inauthentic, the transcripts would have definitely given the Sanders camp material to attack her over.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2016 17:50
|
|
|
computer parts posted:There was a Chrome extension made by white nationalists that put ((( ))) around the names of Jewish people on Twitter. It's an allusion to a white supremacist podcast that would throw a bunch of reverb behind the names of Jews. Some Jews and allies have adopted it in defiance.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2016 18:22
|
|
|
KitConstantine posted:If you want to see how much air he gets jumping the track, his rally in Panama City is starting soon! Wow Rudy Giuliani is a terrible public speaker. Is he just vamping to kill time?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2016 02:22
|
|
|
Is it me or does he sound really tired?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2016 02:36
|
|
|
skylined! posted:Trump would never get a nuke off the ground. Russia perceives NATO expansion as a huge "gently caress you" since the fall of the USSR (for fairly understandable reasons), and a candidate that would undermine NATO is a dream come true for them. I'm sure that's like 90% of the reason and everything else is just gravy.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2016 02:50
|
|
|
straight up brolic posted:this is kind of pointing out the obvious. Maybe it was obvious but some prominent Dem-leaning TV and paper journalists were spreading the rumor that the leaks themselves were doctored. I saw RT's from Democrats all over twitter that amounted to "don't believe anything you read in these leaks, it's been PROVEN they were DOCTORED!" Hell I think some people posted as much here.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2016 03:04
|
|
|
Inner cities: "horrible, horrible death traps, and that's what they are."
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2016 03:12
|
|
|
Trump again exhorting us to be "one American people worshipping one god." He's said this before, kind of surprised it doesn't get more play, but then again where would you fit it amidst the pussygates.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2016 03:20
|
|
|
Mr Hootington posted:The bill kristol on there makes it for me. The spineless asshat is voting trump and we all know it. Someone hasn't heard the legend of the Renegade Jew.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2016 17:04
|
|
|
blue squares posted:Literally the only thing that prevents her from winning is death I'm really afraid someone's gonna try and kill her. :\
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2016 16:43
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Yep, pretty much. American Fascism has reached its zenith, and its champion is the cheeto hitler. He's gotten worse though. He used to pull some punches and use more innuendo, now he's openly declaring that he's going to jail Hillary as a virtual campaign promise, and he's incorporated more and more Breitbart rhetoric. It was always really toxic, but the content used to be a little more dog whistley.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2016 18:24
|
|
|
He's so bad at reading a teleprompter, he just stares at the screen, then looks at the audience to deliver an adlib, then immediately goes back to being glued to the screen.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2016 18:31
|
|
|
Radical islamic terrorists entering the US "by the thousands".
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2016 18:38
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 8, 2024 06:34 |
|
|
D-Pad posted:When Trump loses what are the chances we see another tea party type movement start up? A significant percentage of the GOP base is going to believe that not only was the election stolen by satan herself but that it is the fault of establishment republicans for abandoning him. I think the base hates Hillary every bit as much, if not more, than Obama. Something to remember is that the Tea Party formed contemporaneous to TARP and the great recession, which lent it some legitimacy in mainstream culture, and there was also a strong vein of fiscal conservatism running through the movement which establishment conservatives and moneymen like the Koch brothers could get behind. A Trump Party would have basically no allies in mainstream politics and no money. It would just be the period garb and angry old white people (now a decade older) with none of the potential for power.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2016 19:49
|
|