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.

Fixed!

Seven out of ten.

 Breotan wrote:
So, the media is all about how Trump is cratering. Assuming this is so and not just wishful thinking, is it deliberate or just inevitable?

Do you mean, is Trump deliberately sabotaging his own campaign with a series of ill-judged comments and tweets?

Why would he do it? I think it's more likely he thinks the sort of things he has been saying will play well. They are the same sorts of things he was saying throughout the campaign prior to the conventions.

 Breotan wrote:
So, the media is all about how Trump is cratering. Assuming this is so and not just wishful thinking, is it deliberate or just inevitable?

I really think its possible that he realizes he's in over his head, and is subconsciously (or perhaps consciously) tanking his own campaign. Like the guy who starts fething up at work, because deep down inside he wants out and want to get fired.

Admittedly all I'm offering is a big helping of armchair psychiatry here.

(I bet the DNC absolutely dreads the scenario where Trump drops out and a more typical GOP candidate takes his place)

Well... Trump formally endorsed Paul Ryan, John McCain and Sen. Ayotte.

How long with that last?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jasper76 wrote:


(I bet the DNC absolutely dreads the scenario where Trump drops out and a more typical GOP candidate takes his place)

Stop giving me hope!

STAAAAAHP!

 jasper76 wrote:
(I bet the DNC absolutely dreads the scenario where Trump drops out and a more typical GOP candidate takes his place)

Nah, they'd love it. Trump's awful followers will riot (metaphorically, possibly literally) and reject a mainstream candidate, and the sheer chaos of trying to replace Trump at the last minute and get the new person on the ballot/prepared for debates/etc would put them at a huge disadvantage. And that's assuming they can even agree on a candidate, when the second-place finisher in the primaries (Cruz) and default alternate is someone who is so awful that only Trump's existence spared him the "worst possible" title. The minor loss of "I'm only voting for Clinton because of Trump" votes would almost certainly be offset by the complete disaster in the opposing party.

If Trump resigned from the campaign, which would be highly irresponsible of him, who would the Republicans be able to find to replace him?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
If Trump resigned from the campaign, which would be highly irresponsible of him, who would the Republicans be able to find to replace him?

This guy:


He can run a "I told you so™" campaign.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Breotan wrote:
So, the media is all about how Trump is cratering. Assuming this is so and not just wishful thinking, is it deliberate or just inevitable?

Do you mean, is Trump deliberately sabotaging his own campaign with a series of ill-judged comments and tweets?

Why would he do it?

To ensure Hillary gets elected? To ensure the Republicans can't put in someone else before the election? People have speculated he was a plant in the beginning, I'm just going where that line of thought leads.

They would probably try to draft Ryan but he wouldn't take it because it would likely tank him running on his own terms down the road. Before the convention, I would have said Cruz, but he sort of burned those bridges (granted he would jump at the chance if given.) Likely, it would be Kasich.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
If Trump resigned from the campaign, which would be highly irresponsible of him, who would the Republicans be able to find to replace him?

Cruz would be the obvious choice, given his second-place finish. He's a pretty awful candidate that only looks remotely appealing compared to Trump, but the republican party seems determined to go all the way to the right and he can certainly be trusted to support their awful platform.

Kasich is the other obvious choice, he got enough votes in the primaries to be a credible pick and has some "only reasonable adult in the party" appeal with moderates (mostly because the existence of Trump and Cruz obscure just how not-moderate he can be). On the other hand he was a fairly distant third-place finish and only really got anywhere by staying in long enough for everyone else to drop out and the entire "OH GOD WHY ARE THESE TWO IDIOTS RUNNING" vote to consolidate behind him.

Bush/Romney/etc make up a pile of "assorted rich white guys who failed at running for president" options. They have some "reasonable adult" appeal with moderates, but they're kind of bland and their most prominent attribute is that they already tried and failed. And moderate republicans don't seem to be very popular with the far-right leadership.

All the way down at the bottom of the pile are various governors, senators, etc, making up a "let's try something new" option. There are probably quite a few people who might be relevant in 2020 and beyond, but trying to get them from "who is that" to "legitimate presidential candidate" by november would be kind of wishful thinking.

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
They would probably try to draft Ryan but he wouldn't take it because it would likely tank him running on his own terms down the road. Before the convention, I would have said Cruz, but he sort of burned those bridges (granted he would jump at the chance if given.) Likely, it would be Kasich.

Oooooooooo... yeah, Kasich would be "the guy", as he hits the right buttons.

By, alas, not going to happen.

Get use to it... Madame President is happening.

 Breotan wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Breotan wrote:
So, the media is all about how Trump is cratering. Assuming this is so and not just wishful thinking, is it deliberate or just inevitable?

Do you mean, is Trump deliberately sabotaging his own campaign with a series of ill-judged comments and tweets?

Why would he do it?

To ensure Hillary gets elected? To ensure the Republicans can't put in someone else before the election? People have speculated he was a plant in the beginning, I'm just going where that line of thought leads.

I don't buy it. Trump doesn't seem like the kind of guy who would intentionally tarnish his own name for someone else. I could perhaps see him being an unwitting dupe (Bill playing him by recommending he run like he is being played by Putin).

 Breotan wrote:
To ensure Hillary gets elected? To ensure the Republicans can't put in someone else before the election? People have speculated he was a plant in the beginning, I'm just going where that line of thought leads.

Nah, I think Trump is too much of a genuine narcissist to embarrass himself as a plant for someone else. I think the more likely reason to back out was that he got into the race expecting to promote his brand* and get free media attention for a while, not really to win, and somehow succeeded way more than he was expecting. And hey, if you're winning, why not keep winning and promote the Trump brand from the White House? But then it turns out running for president gets kind of tiring after a while, and there's so much golf to play and so many business deals to pursue, so screw it, drop out and let someone else deal with the problem.


*See previous discussion of fringe republican candidates running to build up mailing lists for selling their borderline-scam products.

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

It's mind-blowing and I wonder why the Clinton team isn't hitting Trump on this hard.

Not really. That's more of a back pocket thing you save for debates; especially as Clinton is comfortably ahead. If you bring out the Russia thing it looks like you're kicking a dog, and Clinton has every incentive to look stoic in comparison to Trump.

In fact there is a video circulating around the internet juxtaposing Clinton's reaction to a protest with Trump's reaction to a protest. Trump runs like hell, Hillary doesn't....I guess that plays into the "Hillary held him down!" meme, but that is ridiculously sexist on its face.

Do you have a link to the video? Please post it if you do. I have been all over the Trumplosion media and haven't seen it.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

It's mind-blowing and I wonder why the Clinton team isn't hitting Trump on this hard.

Not really. That's more of a back pocket thing you save for debates; especially as Clinton is comfortably ahead. If you bring out the Russia thing it looks like you're kicking a dog, and Clinton has every incentive to look stoic in comparison to Trump.

In fact there is a video circulating around the internet juxtaposing Clinton's reaction to a protest with Trump's reaction to a protest. Trump runs like hell, Hillary doesn't....I guess that plays into the "Hillary held him down!" meme, but that is ridiculously sexist on its face.

Do you have a link to the video? Please post it if you do. I have been all over the Trumplosion media and haven't seen it.

I can't get the video link to work, but you can find it here in this story. http://wonkette.com/605190/whos-better-at-handling-big-scary-protesters-hillary-or-trump-spoiler-it-is-hillary

 Breotan wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Breotan wrote:
So, the media is all about how Trump is cratering. Assuming this is so and not just wishful thinking, is it deliberate or just inevitable?

Do you mean, is Trump deliberately sabotaging his own campaign with a series of ill-judged comments and tweets?

Why would he do it?

To ensure Hillary gets elected? To ensure the Republicans can't put in someone else before the election? People have speculated he was a plant in the beginning, I'm just going where that line of thought leads.

How would the conspirators ensure Trump won the nomination? He's been behaving like this all along, and got chosen by the Party, although no-one thought he would stay the distance.

Why was the old thread deleted, by the way?

 Ouze wrote:
Why was the old thread deleted, by the way?

Spammers got all up in it, in the deleting of spammers posts the wrong button got hit and the whole thread died. Resurrecting them isn't really an option, so a new thread was started for the same arguments to happen in. There's a N&B thread on it as well, probably the best place to talk about it if you are intending to

 motyak wrote:
so a new thread was started for the same arguments to happen in

The best part was where you accurately described the thread.

 Ouze wrote:
Why was the old thread deleted, by the way?

Old thread? There was no old thread.

Strangely, I can't seem to remember the last 48 hours, just this red flash, and a lab full of scientists

Back OT.

Earlier, people made the point about Clinton not attacking Trump with everything she has, but this overlooks two things:

1) it's a marathon, and there's still a long way to November

2) Clinton just needs to give Trump enough rope to hang him with, and she's won.

Simple.

I don't think it is precisely that simple.

Clinton's strategy should be to present a positive message for everyone except the core Trumpeteers who won't listen anyway. Part of the positivity is to look competent.

She also needs to remove impediments that may prevent moderate Republicans from backing her. A lot of moderate Republicans are quietly horrified at Trump, but have reservations about backing Clinton.

The email scandal is the main one, IMO, where she could make a graceful admission of having been at fault. Then whenever Trump brings it up, he will look like a prick, because it has already been dealt with. The rest of the stuff, like Whitewater, Benghazi and the DNC email "scandals" have been defused already, except to hardcore Republicans.

Clinton probably will wrap up the minority voters, even including the ones who in a normal year would be Rockefeller Republicans. This is thanks to Trump having worked so hard to alienate them. But she needs to energize them to get the vote out. No room for complacency.

Apparently thevTrump campaign released a video where Hillary says that she isn't going to raise taxes on the middle class but the subtitles say 'we are going to raise taxes on the middle class'.

And now Pence is saying that Hillary said out loud that she is going to raise taxes on the middle class.

I just can't believe they are claiming this...I mean taking sound bites out of context is one thing...but this is beyond the pale...

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/aug/05/donald-trump/donald-trump-wrongly-says-hillary-clinton-wants-ra/

Thanks. Read an article at work, but Dakka is blocked on my work computer so I have to post from my phone.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/aug/05/donald-trump/donald-trump-wrongly-says-hillary-clinton-wants-ra/

Did anyone actually watch/listen her speach, and not some summary by various journalists?**

I thought the issue was that it was an obvious gaffe, because everyone and their brother knew what she meant.

**Caveat, I'm almost deaf so I couldn't make it out.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I listened to the snippet of the speech shown in the Polifact video, and in the Trump video.

The science (as well as Clintons own declared policy positions) suggests that she said, "We aren't going to raise taxes on the middle class," and because she elides the "t" it can be misheard as, "We are going to raise taxes on the middle class." I misheard it like that.

This of course is utter nonsense for Clinton to say in several ways. I thought to myself, "Why on Earth would she say such a thing? Why announce such an unpopular policy in the same sentence as announcing its opposite? It doesn't make any sense."

Of course it doesn't make sense because it is not true, but Trumpeteers will believe it and love it, due to cognitive bias.

Clinton finishes the clip by asking Trump to show us his tax returns.

I never understood alot of the hate trump gets.

Mass deportation? I do not understand how thats a problem, if you break the law you are punished right?

Never seen his hate for women.... I am a bit lost here.

OgreChubbs wrote:
I never understood alot of the hate trump gets.

Mass deportation? I do not understand how thats a problem, if you break the law you are punished right?

Never seen his hate for women.... I am a bit lost here.

Google is your friend!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/politics/donald-trump-sexism-tracker-every-offensive-comment-in-one-place/

The Daily Telegraph is one of the most right wing British newspapers. I picked it because other sources such as Slate and Huffington Post are seen as left wing and therefore unreliable by right wingers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
He is also a bigot, a liar, a cad, a cheat, a welcher, an ignoramus, and incoherent to the point of sometimes seeming to be actually deranged.

Do you want some more reasons?

 Kilkrazy wrote:

OgreChubbs wrote:
I never understood alot of the hate trump gets.

Mass deportation? I do not understand how thats a problem, if you break the law you are punished right?

Never seen his hate for women.... I am a bit lost here.

Google is your friend!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/politics/donald-trump-sexism-tracker-every-offensive-comment-in-one-place/

The Daily Telegraph is one of the most right wing British newspapers. I picked it because other sources such as Slate and Huffington Post are seen as left wing and therefore unreliable by right wingers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
He is also a bigot, a liar, a cad, a cheat, a welcher, an ignoramus, and incoherent to the point of sometimes seeming to be actually deranged.

Do you want some more reasons?

So basically he is a politican...... Just one who tells you what he is going to do rather then lie to you about it.