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.
d-usa wrote: 1) she was not part of the DNC
2) the DNC is not supposed to be impartial
3) the majority of people voted for Hillary
I still believe that Clinton would have won, but from what I've seen, the margin of victory would have been shorter if the playing field had been level and not tilted in her favour.
In the long run, a closer primary might have benefited Clinton IMO, as she'd be a lot less complacent about the presidential campaign, and may have done things differently.
We'll never know.
On a general note to everybody, is there any books out about why Clinton failed? Any memoirs from key campaign workers on the inside?
In Britain, we've had a ton of these books since last year's EU referendum, and they were eye-opening to say the least.
Turns out that most of the campaign leaders couldn't find their rears with a map and compass!
There must be a few books by ex-Clinton staff floating about that dakka members may have read.
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
Hindsight 20/20, what should've the Democrats done differently?
Just IMHO, with the non-super delegate votes being pretty close, they should have seen the populist message being run on the other side, and seen how that race was going, and gone with the candidate drawing the bigger crowds. Is it so surprising that in a world where so many people say our education system is broken, that many of the young people who went to a Sanders rally may not have even known about the primary process?? And if they didn't know about it, obviously they wouldn't vote in it.
Because politics are a game of chess, I think the DNC should have seen the moves happening at the RNC, and made moves to directly counter it.
On a general note to everybody, is there any books out about why Clinton failed? Any memoirs from key campaign workers on the inside?
In Britain, we've had a ton of these books since last year's EU referendum, and they were eye-opening to say the least.
Turns out that most of the campaign leaders couldn't find their rears with a map and compass!
There must be a few books by ex-Clinton staff floating about that dakka members may have read.
I don't think US publishing houses work that quickly. If there are books about it already, I would bet that they are terribly written and would be barely readable.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/03/01 15:35:55
Hindsight 20/20, what should've the Democrats done differently?
Just IMHO, with the non-super delegate votes being pretty close, they should have seen the populist message being run on the other side, and seen how that race was going, and gone with the candidate drawing the bigger crowds. Is it so surprising that in a world where so many people say our education system is broken, that many of the young people who went to a Sanders rally may not have even known about the primary process?? And if they didn't know about it, obviously they wouldn't vote in it.
Because politics are a game of chess, I think the DNC should have seen the moves happening at the RNC, and made moves to directly counter it.
On a general note to everybody, is there any books out about why Clinton failed? Any memoirs from key campaign workers on the inside?
In Britain, we've had a ton of these books since last year's EU referendum, and they were eye-opening to say the least.
Turns out that most of the campaign leaders couldn't find their rears with a map and compass!
There must be a few books by ex-Clinton staff floating about that dakka members may have read.
I don't think US publishing houses work that quickly. If there are books about it already, I would bet that they are terribly written and would be barely readable.
I know that Obama's memoirs are out in a few months time, so that will be an interesting review of America's golf courses
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
d-usa wrote: 1) she was not part of the DNC 2) the DNC is not supposed to be impartial 3) the majority of people voted for Hillary
1. Brazile was 100% part of the DNC clique, she had previously served as interim chairperson was working for CNN as a DNC insider/spokesperson. Read her wiki entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donna_Brazile
Does that not sound like part of the DNC clique? And DWS was the chairperson.
2. Whatever, millions of Bernie voters were still appalled at the evidence of how impartial the DNC was. That is an issue for the party, and promoting Brazile cemented the image of the DNC not giving two gaks about the voting base.
3. Was that part of the issue Frazz brought up? (hint: No, it was not)
Again, the DNC clique helped Clinton. That really isn't something anyone can reasonably argue against.
You can argue the help from that clique was good, you can argue it made no difference, but frankly you can't argue that the help did not occur.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/03/01 15:50:40
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
People keep forgetting that Sanders was not a Democrat. He joined the party just to run and immediately left after the nomination process was over.
The DNC was of course not impartial: they wanted a Democrat to win the nomination. The RNC was exactly they same. The only difference was that Trump was able to convince Republican voters to support him while Sanders could not get the Democrat support.
Can we get back to dealing with the reality of a Trump presidency?
Trumps been getting high marks for his speech last night. I may have to YouTube it. Is it possible that he's willing to start acting more Presidential?
As I said a couple pages ago...great speech. Now walk the walk and quit throwing your toys every time somebody disagrees with the pearls that dribble from your mouth, Mr. President.
Verviedi wrote: No. This speech will be forgotten within the week. No changes in policy or general sanity will occur.
Clearly you didn't even give it a chance. Go watch it from a neutral perspective - or not and it's 8 years of never watching speeches.
BigWaaagh wrote: As I said a couple pages ago...great speech. Now walk the walk and quit throwing your toys every time somebody disagrees with the pearls that dribble from your mouth, Mr. President.
Exactly. All of his executive orders and actions have been a perfect way to start his term. If the president deleted the twitter account it would make this much easier.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/03/01 17:10:45
jasper76 wrote: Trumps been getting high marks for his speech last night. I may have to YouTube it. Is it possible that he's willing to start acting more Presidential?
No. It really wasn't anything special. However, his previous public pants-shittings have lowered expectations beyond the Palin threshold, so anything short of flipping the podium and lighting it on fire comes across as a triumph.
Stevefamine wrote: Exactly. All of his executive orders and actions have been a perfect way to start his term. If the president deleted the twitter account it would make this much easier.
Considering his most high profile EO was so badly thought out and constructed as to be near instantly struck down in court and allegedly has cost the US over a hundred million $'s in lost tourism already, I think it's a bit of a stretch to call them "perfect"
It would probably indeed be a lot easier for Trump's shills and apologists to keep up appearance if he stopped embarrassing himself through Twitter every other day, so I agree with you on that part.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/03/01 17:18:56
Verviedi wrote: No. This speech will be forgotten within the week. No changes in policy or general sanity will occur.
Clearly you didn't even give it a chance. Go watch it from a neutral perspective - or not and it's 8 years of never watching speeches.
BigWaaagh wrote: As I said a couple pages ago...great speech. Now walk the walk and quit throwing your toys every time somebody disagrees with the pearls that dribble from your mouth, Mr. President.
Exactly. All of his executive orders and actions have been a perfect way to start his term. If the president deleted the twitter account it would make this much easier.
I've read it. It's generic, and only considered "good" because our lovely protozoan-in-chief can normally barely make a coherent sentence. If Obama had given that speech, Republicans would be screaming about how "basic" and "idiotic" it is. And Democrats would be WTFing about it.
Peregrine - If you like the army buy it, and don't worry about what one random person on the internet thinks.
jasper76 wrote: Trumps been getting high marks for his speech last night. I may have to YouTube it. Is it possible that he's willing to start acting more Presidential?
In the same way a toddler gets high praise for making it from breakfast to nap time with gakking in his pants, yes.
Well done, Mr President. You made it through one speech without gakking in your pants. Here's your participation trophy, you special little snowflake.
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.'”
I like nearly everything I heard in his speech, and if he can start realizing some of those promises, with bi-partisan help, I think this presidency will turn out alright.He won't be able to do everything outlined though. There is just not enough money to do all of that and cut taxes.
I also think this speech has a lot less Bannon- which is a good thing. I think Bannon is responsible for a lot of the woes at the current white house. He needs to go.
Well, he's our President now. The existential crisis crowd will gak on him no matter what he does. If he gives a good speech, I think he should be encouraged for it rather than gak on for it. This guy operates on public perception, so if we want him to be a good Trump, we should encourage him when he acts like one. That's the tact the Washington Post Editorial Board said they were going to operate from, and I think it's a good one to take.
The History channel had its Tuesday night World At War marathon on. Lord Olivier, Japanese, US bombers bombing Monte Cassino, what Presidential speech?
-"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!
Frazzled wrote: The History channel had its Tuesday night World At War marathon on. Lord Olivier, Japanese, US bombers bombing Monte Cassino, what Presidential speech?
He didn't start chucking chainsaws and sawed-off shotguns into the crowd to encourage a Thunderdome style brawl... so, I can see why you didn't want to watch it.
Isn't giving him credit for achieving the bare minimum of what a president should be able to do like giving him a participation trophy?
thats how I feel largely. Didnt watch the speech myself, so I have no direct opinion on it, but people praising him basically for just making it through one public speaking event without having a meltdown does come off as something of a "participation" award trying to find *something*, anything, to deflect from the circus his administration has thus far been.
"Yay you made it through one of your chores without it turning into a shitshow, you get a gold star for the day!"
If it was a good speech, I'll take others word's for it, and hope he keeps it up. But it's hard to be terribly enthusiastic about it, or to expect such to be the norm going forward.
EDIT: also...nobody does a better presidential speech than Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbet Camacho. Not Trump, not Obama, not Bush, except maybe Not Sure.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/03/01 18:35:47
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
Frazzled wrote: The History channel had its Tuesday night World At War marathon on. Lord Olivier, Japanese, US bombers bombing Monte Cassino, what Presidential speech?
He didn't start chucking chainsaws and sawed-off shotguns into the crowd to encourage a Thunderdome style brawl... so, I can see why you didn't want to watch it.
Now you understand.
-"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!
jasper76 wrote: Well, he's our President now. The existential crisis crowd will gak on him no matter what he does. If he gives a good speech, I think he should be encouraged for it rather than gak on for it. This guy operates on public perception, so if we want him to be a good Trump, we should encourage him when he acts like one. That's the tact the Washington Post Editorial Board said they were going to operate from, and I think it's a good one to take.
Praise him when he does well? Sure. Praise him when he does the bare minimum? And spoil his character by rewarding mediocrity? You want to let him be a Recognition Welfare Queen?
jasper76 wrote: Well, he's our President now. The existential crisis crowd will gak on him no matter what he does. If he gives a good speech, I think he should be encouraged for it rather than gak on for it. This guy operates on public perception, so if we want him to be a good Trump, we should encourage him when he acts like one. That's the tact the Washington Post Editorial Board said they were going to operate from, and I think it's a good one to take.
Praise him when he does well? Sure. Praise him when he does the bare minimum? And spoil his character by rewarding mediocrity? You want to let him be a Recognition Welfare Queen?
I haven't seen the speech yet so I'm not in a position to comment on whether or not it was either mediocre or the bare minimum.
It has subtitles... so you can play it a work w/o sound.
Few good snippets if you don't want to watch the whole thing:
---started with Black History month and condemnation of bigotry. Is this Trumpo? 'cuz, that doesn't seem very Bannony to me...
On Obamacare:
--Solid. But, really, it takes Congress to fix this so this is somewhat a backhanded swipe telling them to get their gak in order.
Most powerful part of the night:
--He went off script there a bit... but, the whole thing was touching.
What does it all mean? Nothing really... these has always been a side-show. But, at least Trumpo is more Presidential here, rather than the combative counter-punching Trumpo on the campaign.
jasper76 wrote: Well, he's our President now. The existential crisis crowd will gak on him no matter what he does. If he gives a good speech, I think he should be encouraged for it rather than gak on for it. This guy operates on public perception, so if we want him to be a good Trump, we should encourage him when he acts like one. That's the tact the Washington Post Editorial Board said they were going to operate from, and I think it's a good one to take.
Praise him when he does well? Sure. Praise him when he does the bare minimum? And spoil his character by rewarding mediocrity? You want to let him be a Recognition Welfare Queen?
I haven't seen the speech yet so I'm not in a position to comment on whether or not it was either mediocre or the bare minimum.
I had it on while cleaning and doing laundry. In all honesty, I thought he started strong at the beginning and just slid into Trump Classic as it went on, and I really hate his speaking cadence, which comes across like a high school sophomore reading Old Man And The Sea out loud in class.
4000+
6000+ Order. Unity. Obedience.
Thousand Sons 4000+
