Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
sirlynchmob wrote: boycotting the election is actually the worst thing to do, instead vote for a 3rd party. once they start pulling in enough votes to win states the whole election process will have to change.
An even better idea
Except our third party options are a joke. Gary Johnson is a total space cadet, and Jill Stein is straight out of an episode of Portlandia.
You could argue that it's a vicious circle. Small parties struggle to get exposure, so they find it hard to get a foot in the door, nobody takes them seriously, and it starts all over again.
You could also argue that the Libertarian and Green parties are incapable of nominating candidates on the big stage who are palatable to the American public. So IMHO they only have themselves to blame for not being taken seriously.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/27 15:21:07
sirlynchmob wrote: boycotting the election is actually the worst thing to do, instead vote for a 3rd party. once they start pulling in enough votes to win states the whole election process will have to change.
An even better idea
Except our third party options are a joke. Gary Johnson is a total space cadet, and Jill Stein is straight out of an episode of Portlandia.
Yeah Stein and Johnson are both pretty terrible
That is true, but the whole election so far seems to be to vote for what terrible can you tolerate? or the lesser of two weasels as it were. If people are only voting for trump because they think hillary is terrible, well here's two more people who are also not hillary and either might actually be better than trump. But then that is a really low bar to set
Maniac_nmt wrote: So, we got two hours (more or less) of two narcissistic hacks who both looked unpresidential last night. Hillary was just as bad as Trump for smirking, chuckling, and similar. However, at least she could stay somewhat on topic and not side track herself constantly.
America, we were the clear looser last night. We have two essentially identical ego maniacs who are both fear and scare mongers (both say things to marginalize anyone who does not agree with them).
America, we will get EXACTLY what we deserve this election.
Seriously, it's thinking like this that puts us in this situation. These candidates are far from identical. These parties are far from identical.
whembly wrote: The dude went to "take their oil" schitck. I think we all know what he meant... (secure it, not outright own it).
He's talked about taking the oil in the context of paying for the war, and in the context of the federal deficit and the trade deficit. I really think he means taking the oil, selling it and taking the money.
It's not a real policy, of course. I don't know whether Trump believes it or not, but even if he does it doesn't matter. It's a piece of nonsense that simply could not get past the State Dept and Dept of Defense. It's really just a bit of strong man positioning.
Possibly... but, it's gak policy/wishlisting that does a great disservice to our military. He's basically stating that we ought to be Pirates.
Then, his fight over whether he supported the Iraq war. That was unnecessary and he really didn't need to do that since he was a private citizen w/o any access to briefings/intelligence.
I don't htink Hillary hurt herself at all.
I agree that Clinton didn't hurt herself, and basically skated past her weakest points (Iraq war, emails). Trump did an okay job with creating new blather speak to cover up many of his worst position (talk to Sean is a new one). But mostly both sides traded jabs, and maybe Clinton landed a couple, and Trump managed to punch himself once or twice.
But there was no knockout blow, and ultimately debates aren't awards on points. Either there's a knock down hit, or there isn't. And there wasn't tonight. With the way polls are going, that only helps Trump.
Trump fans likes that "he fights"... even if the content of his retorts is pure vomit.
He left a hanging fastball to ding Clinton on her email scandal... so many missed opportunity.
I think Clinton did really well honestly, in the manner of remaining calm and composed (even with bs spewing outta her mouth.).
EDIT: but, then again... I'm really imbibed now... so there is that.
\_(ツ)_/¯
Drunk whembly doesn't hate Clinton so much as sober whembly. Today we've learned something
What can I say... I'm a happy drunk.
I'm a riot playing 40k. I don't give a gak about politics and just wanna throw some dice down.
I'm impressed you can do the shrug ascii thing when drunk. I can't do that thing when I'm sober.
'tis a simple thing... copying and pasting. Even though I "missed" the left hand...
So, yeah, that debate was pretty glorious. Hillary could have done better (she needs to work on some of the quips), but overall she did well. Trump was a train-wreck, and it'll be interesting to see if he gets better or worse over the other debates. I wish Holt pushed them both to actually answer the fething questions, but overall, he did OK.
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
Just to put a different perspective on 'they're equally terrible, you guys', Scientific American graded the answers candidates gave to that questionnaire earlier this month. Gary Johnson did eventually get back to them, so they graded his as well.
I'm also of the opinion that the article gave us a better 'zinger' than anything in the debate. "A healthy ecosystem—crucial to the survival of humans and other species—is not a 'special interest.'"
Kilkrazy wrote: The Japanese actually have fairly large and well equipped army, navy and air force, but they are not called by that name.
The constitution of Japan prevents its armed forces from being used for offensive operations. Prime Minister Abe has led a movement to amend the constitution to allow wider use of them.
Yes but the size is not nearly enough to defend Japan alone. And trying to change THAT is extremely unpopular. Changing that isn't going to happen quickly.
It is going to be almost impossible for any nation in that area to have an armed force capable of defending their nation on its own when, for many of them, the country they think they might be defending it from is China, the country with the largest military in the world.
Having a 5 million man army counts for nothing in this day and age when the destructive power of weapons is off the scale.
One button push, and those 5 million men are gone, as you know...
That's very true but again, if we are looking purely at the countries there defending their borders without foreign help, then China has all the men and all the nukes. It is very much holding all the cards in a scenario of it fighting against its neighbours without them having support from the USA and other western nations.
I can see Japans stance on whether their military can act outside of Japan changing in the future. Their stance on nuclear weapons? Probably not. They are the only country to experience the effects of a nuclear attack on its population and I think that will stay in their minds and hearts for a long time when it comes to the question of whether the Japanese people want nuclear weapons.
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
Didn't watch the debate, don't have cable. Checking out post debate polls seems to show that it wasn't as terrible for Trump as would have thought it would be.
SNAP POLL SUGGESTS A DEBATE WIN FOR HILLARY CLINTON - Jennifer Agiesta: “Hillary Clinton was deemed the winner of Monday night’s debate by 62% of voters who tuned in to watch, while just 27% said they thought Donald Trump had the better night, according to a CNN/ORC Poll of voters who watched the debate.That drubbing is similar to Mitt Romney’s dominant performance over President Barack Obama in the first 2012 presidential debate….Although the survey suggested debate watchers were more apt to describe themselves as Democrats than the overall pool of voters, even independents who watched deemed Clinton the winner, 54% vs. 33% who thought Trump did the best job in the debate...Respondents were originally interviewed as part of a September 23-25 telephone survey of a random sample of Americans, and indicated they planned to watch the debate and would be willing to be re-interviewed when it was over.” [CNN]
-A second snap poll also finds that viewers thought Clinton won - A survey conducted by the Democratic firm Public Policy Polling and relying mostly on automated phone calls, found that 51 percent of debate watchers thought that Clinton won, and 42 percent that Trump did.[url=http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_PostDebatePoll_92616.pdf] [PPP (D)]
[/url]
The debate was on network TV fyi. Others should be too.
I think this will give two points to Hillary from Independents and improve her "trustworthiness" by 5 points or until the next debate.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
So, looks like Trumps supporters are out in force voting on every internet poll they can find.
At least I hope that is the case because I'd like to think that nobody actually listening to the responses from an unbiased, rational position could think that Trumps answers were better.
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
A Town Called Malus wrote: So, looks like Trumps supporters are out in force voting on every internet poll they can find.
At least I hope that is the case because I'd like to think that nobody actually listening to the responses from an unbiased, rational position could think that Trumps answers were better.
Trump's Internet troll machine is almost as good as the Kremlins so those numbers aren't surprising
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Having a 5 million man army counts for nothing in this day and age when the destructive power of weapons is off the scale.
One button push, and those 5 million men are gone, as you know...
Shame on you, as a proud British man, for forgetting your Yes Prime Minister...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: I have a hangover (despite not drinking) did Trump really say he's a winner because he got Obama to release his birth certificate and Hillary is a loser because she didn't???
If you're not sure, you should ask Sean Hannity. Why won't anyone ask Sean Hannity?! He's just waiting by the phone, ready to answer everyone's Trump questions with with truthiness.
Yes there was. The guy behind it.
That was a good line
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Peace and prosperity abroad that allows American companies to trade freely and safely.
Bottom line: America can't afford to cut back on it. From purely selfish reasons, so much of your economy depends on defence spending.
You are right that US defence spending allows open international trade. But the other part of your argument, about employment and R&D is a bad argument. Any kind of government spending produces employment, and most produce more employment and additional productivity benefits beyond that. Or you could just not spend the money, not raise taxes to pay for it, and watch citizens spend that money on themselves and create employment that way.
By all means the US and every other country should spend on defense, but it should do it for the simple and obvious reason that it needs defense capabilities. The other stuff, the pseudo-multiplier argument, that stuff is total economic bunk.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Possibly... but, it's gak policy/wishlisting that does a great disservice to our military. He's basically stating that we ought to be Pirates.
Absolutely. It's fething crazy, morally reprehensible thing to say. It's actually kind of disturbing that a presidential candidate would even talk about it, and that his political party would continue to stand behind him afterwards.
But its also worth pointing out that the idea is far out there, so fething bonkers that it won't actually happen. But it is harmful enough even just being suggested.
Trump fans likes that "he fights"... even if the content of his retorts is pure vomit.
Yep, they know little and care less about the realities of politics. Trump represents a fantasy, the rich man who does what he wants, says whatever he thinks and gets away with everything. It's Duck Dynasty applied to federal politics.
I'm a riot playing 40k. I don't give a gak about politics and just wanna throw some dice down.
40k is best played hammered these days.
Thanks for watching out for me bro!
I didn't say we shouldn't do it....
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Prestor Jon wrote: Didn't watch the debate, don't have cable. Checking out post debate polls seems to show that it wasn't as terrible for Trump as would have thought it would be.
Well if you're going to go with Drudge and Fortune then you're going to find some pro-Trump results. Honestly, the most amazing thing there is that 17% of Drudge followers thought Clinton won. I suspect that's more likely evidence that 17% of Drudge readers can't reliably press the right button on a computer screen.
Meanwhile, the CNN snap poll, historically the first and most widely used poll of debate listeners, gave the debate to Clinton 62 to 27 (it did contain a 55-45 split of Democrats to Republicans, but still a strong result). A PPP survey gave it to Clinton 51 to 40.
None of this necessarily means anything, though. The bounce from a poll can be 3 points or more sometimes, but it generally fades. "Winning", as in giving the best performance, is all anyone talks about after the debate, but it isn't what people vote for in November.
Where the debates matter is when they are used to reinforce or build on the greater campaign. The best example is Romney's first debate in 2012 - he came out with a whole bunch of policy positions that were miles different to anything he'd been saying on the campaign trail before then. Obama got thrown for a loop, couldn't use any of his pre-packaged points against Romney, and so he muttered and blathered his way through his answers. Romney clearly won the debate, gave the better performance, and it looked like a master stroke for Romney. Except he was then left trying to reconcile what had become incoherent policy positions. The bounce Romney got disappeared very quickly and polls even moved the other way. Obama may have lost that debate, but he stuck to his central campaign and so won the campaign.
I'm not sure we saw anything like that in this first debate from either side. Trump got a bit rattled and incoherent, and maybe that might reinforce the 'not presidential' thing, but I really doubt it was so bad that it will harm him in any serious way. Perhaps the real debate moment might be what came after the debate, when Trump once again found himself unable to cut a loss, and doubled down on calling a former Miss Universe contestant fat. It could be another Khan moment.
This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2016/09/27 16:54:37
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
A Town Called Malus wrote: So, looks like Trumps supporters are out in force voting on every internet poll they can find.
At least I hope that is the case because I'd like to think that nobody actually listening to the responses from an unbiased, rational position could think that Trumps answers were better.
Trump's Internet troll machine is almost as good as the Kremlins so those numbers aren't surprising
The Donald trump sub-reddit is going insane trying to go after them all.
I tend not to trust open internet polls anyway. We'll see who won when some actual polling is done.
Trump: "You've been fighting ISIS your entire adult life" REALITY CHECK: FALSE ISIS only came into being in 2006 after splintering from al-Qaeda in Iraq. Clinton was born in 1947.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/09/27 17:06:53
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
A Town Called Malus wrote: So, looks like Trumps supporters are out in force voting on every internet poll they can find.
At least I hope that is the case because I'd like to think that nobody actually listening to the responses from an unbiased, rational position could think that Trumps answers were better.
Paraphrasing here:
"Clinton has been in or close to power for decades, and if she has these good ideas, why haven't they been implemented?"
"Clinton has lots of experience, but it's all bad."
These themes will play well with many Americans.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I hate to say it, but I think Trump is going to win the election. People are eating up his anti-establishment message, and many voters going to Johnson/Stein is exactly what Trump needs to defeat Clinton
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/09/27 17:17:53
The one thing that really stuck out at me was when they were talking about domestic terrorism and both candidates took the time to agree with each other that denying citizens constitutionally guaranteed rights without due process was a great idea.
whembly wrote: Possibly... but, it's gak policy/wishlisting that does a great disservice to our military. He's basically stating that we ought to be Pirates.
Absolutely. It's fething crazy, morally reprehensible thing to say. It's actually kind of disturbing that a presidential candidate would even talk about it, and that his political party would continue to stand behind him afterwards.
But its also worth pointing out that the idea is far out there, so fething bonkers that it won't actually happen. But it is harmful enough even just being suggested.
If his supporters (party and military) didn't leave him over, for example, the "I like people who weren't captured" comment, this isn't going to do it, either.
Spinner wrote: Just to put a different perspective on 'they're equally terrible, you guys', Scientific American graded the answers candidates gave to that questionnaire earlier this month. Gary Johnson did eventually get back to them, so they graded his as well.
I'm also of the opinion that the article gave us a better 'zinger' than anything in the debate. "A healthy ecosystem—crucial to the survival of humans and other species—is not a 'special interest.'"
I've been saying for a long time, the GOP decision to dig in and entrench themselves over opposing climate change (and they only oppose it because the Democrats support it) has been one of the dumbest things they've done. The smart move would have been to sidestep the whole climate change issue by just supporting a cleaner environment without making any mention of climate change in the process. No sane person would argue against cleaner air for our children to breathe, cleaner water for our children to drink, and cleaner earth to grow the food our children to eat. But, instead, the GOP had to do the dumb thing and just automatically oppose the Democrats because reasons. Can we please bring back the GOP that actually believed in science and gave us NASA and other similar programs (at least I remember reading that somewhere)?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/09/27 17:22:24
"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me." - Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks
A Town Called Malus wrote: So, looks like Trumps supporters are out in force voting on every internet poll they can find.
At least I hope that is the case because I'd like to think that nobody actually listening to the responses from an unbiased, rational position could think that Trumps answers were better.
Trump's Internet troll machine is almost as good as the Kremlins so those numbers aren't surprising
A defensive Donald J. Trump lashed out at the debate moderator, complained about his microphone and threatened to make Bill Clinton’s marital infidelity a campaign issue in a television appearance on Tuesday just hours after his first presidential debate with Hillary Clinton.
And defying conventions of civility and political common sense, Mr. Trump leveled cutting personal criticism at a Miss Universe pageant winner, held up by Mrs. Clinton in Monday night’s debate as an example of her opponent’s disrespect for women.
Mr. Trump insisted in the Fox News appearance that he had been right to disparage the beauty queen, Alicia Machado, for her physique.
“She was the winner and she gained a massive amount of weight, and it was a real problem,” said Mr. Trump, who was the pageant’s executive producer at the time. “Not only that — her attitude. And we had a real problem with her.”
Mrs. Clinton mentioned Ms. Machado by name, quoting insults that Ms. Machado has attributed to Mr. Trump and noting that the pageant winner had become a citizen to vote in the 2016 election. During the debate, he showed disbelief at the charge that he had ridiculed Ms. Machado, asking Mrs. Clinton repeatedly, “Where did you find this?”
But Mr. Trump abruptly shifted course a few hours later, with comments that threatened to escalate and extend an argument that appeared to be one of his weakest moments of the debate.
Mrs. Clinton assailed him late in the debate for deriding women as “pigs, slobs and dogs.” Mr. Trump had no ready answer for the charge of sexism, and offered a muddled reply that cited his past feud with the comedian Rosie O’Donnell.
His comments attacking Ms. Machado recalled his frequent practice, during the Republican primaries and much of the general election campaign, of bickering harshly with political bystanders, sometimes savaging them in charged language that ended up alienating voters. In the past, he has made extended personal attacks on the Muslim parents of an Army captain killed in Iraq and on a Hispanic federal judge.
Trump aides considered it a sign of progress in recent weeks that the Republican nominee was more focused on criticizing Mrs. Clinton, and less prone to veering off into such self-destructive public feuds.
Going after Ms. Machado may be especially tone deaf for Mr. Trump, at a moment in the race when he is seeking to reverse voters’ ingrained negative views of his personality. Sixty percent of Americans in an ABC News/Washington Post poll this month said they thought Mr. Trump was biased against women and minorities, and Mrs. Clinton has been airing a television commercial highlighting his history of caustic and graphic comments about women.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/27 17:25:34
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
I really dont understand what our country has turned in to with Trump being this popular, having an actual chance of obtaining the highest office in the land.
How can anything that comes out of his orange suckhole be taken seriously?
Bromsy wrote: The one thing that really stuck out at me was when they were talking about domestic terrorism and both candidates took the time to agree with each other that denying citizens constitutionally guaranteed rights without due process was a great idea.
Ugh.
Hey... cheer up. The GOP will likely retain the House (and even the Senate). So, they'll be a check on that for sure...
whembly wrote: Possibly... but, it's gak policy/wishlisting that does a great disservice to our military. He's basically stating that we ought to be Pirates.
Absolutely. It's fething crazy, morally reprehensible thing to say. It's actually kind of disturbing that a presidential candidate would even talk about it, and that his political party would continue to stand behind him afterwards.
But its also worth pointing out that the idea is far out there, so fething bonkers that it won't actually happen. But it is harmful enough even just being suggested.
If his supporters (party and military) didn't leave him over, for example, the "I like people who weren't captured" comment, this isn't going to do it, either.
Or, maybe the fact that the Trump votes not leaving him over that is more of an indictment of Clinton.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/27 17:42:50
WrentheFaceless wrote: I really dont understand what our country has turned in to with Trump being this popular, having an actual chance of obtaining the highest office in the land.
How can anything that comes out of his orange suckhole be taken seriously?
WrentheFaceless wrote: I really dont understand what our country has turned in to with Trump being this popular, having an actual chance of obtaining the highest office in the land.
How can anything that comes out of his orange suckhole be taken seriously?
Has america become this stupid?
Yes
One party is primarily responsible for the continuous attacks and degradation on teachers and education in general. No wonder that that party produces Trump and he is popular.
WrentheFaceless wrote: I really dont understand what our country has turned in to with Trump being this popular, having an actual chance of obtaining the highest office in the land.
How can anything that comes out of his orange suckhole be taken seriously?
Has america become this stupid?
Yes
One party is primarily responsible for the continuous attacks and degradation on teachers and education in general. No wonder that that party produces Trump and he is popular.
wut?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/27 17:48:56
WrentheFaceless wrote: I really dont understand what our country has turned in to with Trump being this popular, having an actual chance of obtaining the highest office in the land.
How can anything that comes out of his orange suckhole be taken seriously?
Has america become this stupid?
Honestly, I think it's because you've been riding a high since WWII when most of the competition bombed itself to smithereens. That's passed, however. The US drank its own propaganda meant to counter the Soviet Union and decided that it was unique, as opposed to just one country among many (which most if not all countries are guilty of to certain extent). Trump, and his followers, are refusing to accept that much of the US prosperity over the last 70 years was dependent on external factors that no longer exist.
It's not stupidity (well, not exclusively at least) as much as it is denial. I'd argue that Europe, too, is suffering from a certain degree of post-colonial identity crisis, as we can't push off the externalities of our economies on others as blatantly as we could in the past. We still totally do it though.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/27 17:52:11
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
WrentheFaceless wrote: I really dont understand what our country has turned in to with Trump being this popular, having an actual chance of obtaining the highest office in the land.
How can anything that comes out of his orange suckhole be taken seriously?
Has america become this stupid?
Yes
Stupidity plays a part in it but I think it has more to do with people feeling that the status quo isn't working for them so they are angry and scared.
I had a recent conversation with my boss wherein he opined that if Hillary wins things are unlikely to change much and wealthy people (like himself) would be fine but he doubted there'd be any real shakeup to help the struggling middle class. With Trump he thought there was a chance he'd be enough of a wild card and beholden to his base that something might get done. Personally I think Trump is a more of a useless joker than a wild card but I could see his point that Hillary isn't a great candidate for the current times. She doesn't convey much hope or enthusiasm and feels like an old school politician that hasn't updated her tactics/plans for the current times.
WrentheFaceless wrote: I really dont understand what our country has turned in to with Trump being this popular, having an actual chance of obtaining the highest office in the land.
How can anything that comes out of his orange suckhole be taken seriously?
Has america become this stupid?
I think that probably requires a complex answer rather than a Trump-style stupid simple answer. But if you want a simple answer, I'd probably throw out that Trump is playing really well to people who are 1) upset about something, even if they're not sure exactly what that is (although some are), and 2) don't like to pay much attention to anything.
If he wasn't a lunatic, he'd probably have this election in the bag already. Trump is more in tune with the conversations and divides in this country -- and many of those are dumb and ugly -- even if he's terrible at composing himself or presenting anything that suggests real policies or intelligence. But I think that actually helps him, because then angry people who don't pay attention can project whatever they want onto him.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/27 18:32:22
WrentheFaceless wrote: I really dont understand what our country has turned in to with Trump being this popular, having an actual chance of obtaining the highest office in the land.
How can anything that comes out of his orange suckhole be taken seriously?
Has america become this stupid?
Yes
Stupidity plays a part in it but I think it has more to do with people feeling that the status quo isn't working for them so they are angry and scared.
I had a recent conversation with my boss wherein he opined that if Hillary wins things are unlikely to change much and wealthy people (like himself) would be fine but he doubted there'd be any real shakeup to help the struggling middle class. With Trump he thought there was a chance he'd be enough of a wild card and beholden to his base that something might get done. Personally I think Trump is a more of a useless joker than a wild card but I could see his point that Hillary isn't a great candidate for the current times. She doesn't convey much hope or enthusiasm and feels like an old school politician that hasn't updated her tactics/plans for the current times.
I don't believe any rationalperson can listen to Trump for more than ten minutes and come away thinking Trump is going to help anyone but himself. He's actually rather proud of that fact.
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Honestly, I think it's because you've been riding a high since WWII when most of the competition bombed itself to smithereens. That's passed, however. The US drank its own propaganda meant to counter the Soviet Union and decided that it was unique, as opposed to just one country among many (which most if not all countries are guilty of to certain extent). Trump, and his followers, are refusing to accept that much of the US prosperity over the last 70 years was dependent on external factors that no longer exist.
It's not stupidity (well, not exclusively at least) as much as it is denial. I'd argue that Europe, too, is suffering from a certain degree of post-colonial identity crisis, as we can't push off the externalities of our economies on others as blatantly as we could in the past. We still totally do it though.
Sorry, but I really don't think this has much of anything to do with what's going on in our election.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
feeder wrote: I don't believe any rationalperson can listen to Trump for more than ten minutes and come away thinking Trump is going to help anyone but himself. He's actually rather proud of that fact.
They aren't. That's the point.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/27 18:38:57
3000
4000 
