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.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
So, uh, did anyone see the news that Trump is going to Mexico to meet their president? I don't see that ending well.

I'm actually curious to see how this plays out. Trump dealing with foreign heads of state is something we haven't seen yet. So lets see how he plays this one.

 sebster wrote:
That's the bit that really pisses me off. I hate teams running out the clock, in politics and in sport. If you've played better and built up a big lead over the first 90% of the game, it's probably because you're a better team. Best thing is to back yourself and keep playing as you have been - it worked to get you in front. Teams that go on the defense and hope their lead survives the rest of the game are playing too cute, and I think most times it increases the chance of losing.

By all accounts, Hillary has a FAR better machine behind her than Trump does. That matters a lot, and perhaps her team is confident that they'll claim victory so long as they don't fumble or throw an interception (to extend the sports metaphor).

I'll almost guarantee the race will tighten, but I'm not sure if Hillary will be in danger, again barring unforeseen circumstances. Kind of like how Obama and Romney seemed fairly close just by looking at the polls, but Obama really had the electoral votes locked, again thanks to demographics and wizardry.

And when it comes to Trump, I think part of his problem in mounting a comeback is that opinions about him are fairly set. He's not some random politician that most of the country hasn't gotten to know by now. And he has a LOT of negatives to overcome. He'll probably "win" these debates, at least as far as our media pathetically covers and judges these things. He might even come off as fairly charming. But how many people will be convinced that's the REAL Trump? Heck, act too nice and it'll backfire on him for being too phony.

 gorgon wrote:

 sebster wrote:
That's the bit that really pisses me off. I hate teams running out the clock, in politics and in sport. If you've played better and built up a big lead over the first 90% of the game, it's probably because you're a better team. Best thing is to back yourself and keep playing as you have been - it worked to get you in front. Teams that go on the defense and hope their lead survives the rest of the game are playing too cute, and I think most times it increases the chance of losing.

By all accounts, Hillary has a FAR better machine behind her than Trump does. That matters a lot, and perhaps her team is confident that they'll claim victory so long as they don't fumble or throw an interception (to extend the sports metaphor).

I'll almost guarantee the race will tighten, but I'm not sure if Hillary will be in danger, again barring unforeseen circumstances. Kind of like how Obama and Romney seemed fairly close just by looking at the polls, but Obama really had the electoral votes locked, again thanks to demographics and wizardry.

And when it comes to Trump, I think part of his problem in mounting a comeback is that opinions about him are fairly set. He's not some random politician that most of the country hasn't gotten to know by now. And he has a LOT of negatives to overcome. He'll probably "win" these debates, at least as far as our media pathetically covers and judges these things. He might even come off as fairly charming. But how many people will be convinced that's the REAL Trump? Heck, act too nice and it'll backfire on him for being too phony.

But that's the thing- he won't act nice. He will put his pushy caricature on display and treat it like any other "reality" show- which it largely is. So long as it is entertaining and shows him to be "strong", he comes out ahead. Clinton is much stronger on policy but most undecided voters don't seem to care about that- they are watching for spectacle. Again, remember how well Bush and Palin came out after the debates despite mediocre grasp of policy. HRC has a tough path as she can't play too nice or look "weak" but play too rough and she is a "screaming harpy". As a female, she is in a specially rough position as, broadly speaking, female shows of power don't get the same interpretation as males. Hence why Trump can be a bully and a bigot and that is perceived as strength, but those same people revile HRC for her ambition.

Obama had somewhat of a similar problem with having to avoid appearing as the "angry black man".

 d-usa wrote:
Obama had somewhat of a similar problem with having to avoid appearing as the "angry black man".

Really?

Campaigning Obama appeared very rational and was extremely effective on the stump.

Sure, some of the the things he has said outrageous/ridiculous... but, people want to be woo'ed and on the trail Obama nailed it.

Clinton just need to be somewhat like she was during the Benghazi hearing... well... maybe with a little more warmth wouldn't hurt.

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Obama had somewhat of a similar problem with having to avoid appearing as the "angry black man".

Really?

Campaigning Obama appeared very rational and was extremely effective on the stump.

Sure, some of the the things he has said outrageous/ridiculous... but, people want to be woo'ed and on the trail Obama nailed it.

Clinton just need to be somewhat like she was during the Benghazi hearing... well... maybe with a little more warmth wouldn't hurt.

I think the point here is that if Obama had shown too much assertiveness, our generally racist population would view him as the stereotypical "angry black man". He had to stay above the fray in order not to be viewed through the lens of this stereotype.

 gorgon wrote:

I'll almost guarantee the race will tighten, but I'm not sure if Hillary will be in danger, again barring unforeseen circumstances. Kind of like how Obama and Romney seemed fairly close just by looking at the polls, but Obama really had the electoral votes locked, again thanks to demographics and wizardry.
.

Would malor terrorist attack count? Trump as president would be such a jackpot for isis they are drooling at the idea. If they aren'pt planning something shortly before elections i'm surprised

 jmurph wrote:
Again, remember how well Bush and Palin came out after the debates despite mediocre grasp of policy.

I don't think those are really all that comparable. Bush had the luxury of running at a time of peace and prosperity, so it was easier to be apathetic about a lack of policy credentials. After all, he was just going to be a chair warmer with few urgent problems to solve and simply stating the republican party platform was probably good enough. And Palin was the vice-presidential candidate, in a debate that a lot fewer people pay any attention at all to. She "won" by managing to speak in coherent sentences and avoiding a spectacular failure, and immediately afterwards everyone forgot about the debate and went back to "Palin is incompetent and stupid".

tneva82 wrote:

 gorgon wrote:

I'll almost guarantee the race will tighten, but I'm not sure if Hillary will be in danger, again barring unforeseen circumstances. Kind of like how Obama and Romney seemed fairly close just by looking at the polls, but Obama really had the electoral votes locked, again thanks to demographics and wizardry.
.

Would malor terrorist attack count? Trump as president would be such a jackpot for isis they are drooling at the idea. If they aren'pt planning something shortly before elections i'm surprised

Almost certainly. A significant terror attack would provoke a reactionary sentiment that would play directly to Trump. And I doubt Trump would hesitate to exploit such an opening.

Whether ISIS has the desire or capability of such an action, however, is an entirely different question.

I'd say you'd need something 9/11 size to push the sentiment that far, judging by the polling in most of the swing states. And I don't think they have the capacity to do such an act.

 jmurph wrote:
And I doubt Trump would hesitate to exploit such an opening.

Considering that Trump was willing to exploit the murder of a mother whilst she was walking with her baby, I don't think there is room for any doubt as to whether he would exploit a terrorist attack.

 jmurph wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 gorgon wrote:

I'll almost guarantee the race will tighten, but I'm not sure if Hillary will be in danger, again barring unforeseen circumstances. Kind of like how Obama and Romney seemed fairly close just by looking at the polls, but Obama really had the electoral votes locked, again thanks to demographics and wizardry.
.

Would malor terrorist attack count? Trump as president would be such a jackpot for isis they are drooling at the idea. If they aren'pt planning something shortly before elections i'm surprised

Almost certainly. A significant terror attack would provoke a reactionary sentiment that would play directly to Trump. And I doubt Trump would hesitate to exploit such an opening.

Whether ISIS has the desire or capability of such an action, however, is an entirely different question.

Capability is of question but desire? Trump as a president would be playing to ISIS's hands. Or who thinks he wouldn't be driving anti-islam laws? Driving wedge between muslims and americans even further which just helps younger generation being radicalized even more which in turn turns into power and money to ISIS.

Would be such a dream scenario for them.

So obvious though that USA police&intelligence is obviously looking for it as well though so whether they can pull big enough is another thing.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 jmurph wrote:
And I doubt Trump would hesitate to exploit such an opening.

Considering that Trump was willing to exploit the murder of a mother whilst she was walking with her baby, I don't think there is room for any doubt as to whether he would exploit a terrorist attack.

So... why is it wrong for Trump to do this, and yet, it's okay for Obama/Hillary to talk about gun-control after every shooting?

The fact is, just about every politician exploits *something* to further their cause.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tneva82 wrote:

 jmurph wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 gorgon wrote:

I'll almost guarantee the race will tighten, but I'm not sure if Hillary will be in danger, again barring unforeseen circumstances. Kind of like how Obama and Romney seemed fairly close just by looking at the polls, but Obama really had the electoral votes locked, again thanks to demographics and wizardry.
.

Would malor terrorist attack count? Trump as president would be such a jackpot for isis they are drooling at the idea. If they aren'pt planning something shortly before elections i'm surprised

Almost certainly. A significant terror attack would provoke a reactionary sentiment that would play directly to Trump. And I doubt Trump would hesitate to exploit such an opening.

Whether ISIS has the desire or capability of such an action, however, is an entirely different question.

Capability is of question but desire? Trump as a president would be playing to ISIS's hands. Or who thinks he wouldn't be driving anti-islam laws? Driving wedge between muslims and americans even further which just helps younger generation being radicalized even more which in turn turns into power and money to ISIS.

Would be such a dream scenario for them.

So obvious though that USA police&intelligence is obviously looking for it as well though so whether they can pull big enough is another thing.

You might be on to something here... however, i think the opposite. I think it'll drive Trump to a more isolationist mindset.

Clinton is far more hawkish than Trump would ever be, imo.

 whembly wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 jmurph wrote:
And I doubt Trump would hesitate to exploit such an opening.

Considering that Trump was willing to exploit the murder of a mother whilst she was walking with her baby, I don't think there is room for any doubt as to whether he would exploit a terrorist attack.

So... why is it wrong for Trump to do this, and yet, it's okay for Obama/Hillary to talk about gun-control after every shooting?

The fact is, just about every politician exploits *something* to further their cause.

If you cannot see the difference between pushing for legislation which you believe will help and patting yourself on the back and basically going "Called it! I was right and now black people will vote for me!" then I don't even know why you're in this thread.

But I guess you can't miss an opportunity to try to attack Clinton as she is just as bad, so I'm not sure what I expected.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 jmurph wrote:
And I doubt Trump would hesitate to exploit such an opening.

Considering that Trump was willing to exploit the murder of a mother whilst she was walking with her baby, I don't think there is room for any doubt as to whether he would exploit a terrorist attack.

So... why is it wrong for Trump to do this, and yet, it's okay for Obama/Hillary to talk about gun-control after every shooting?

The fact is, just about every politician exploits *something* to further their cause.

If you cannot see the difference between pushing for legislation which you believe will help and patting yourself on the back and basically going "Called it! I was right and now black people will vote for me!" then I don't even know why you're in this thread.

But I guess you can't miss an opportunity to try to attack Clinton as she is just as bad, so I'm not sure what I expected.

We're talking about exploitation... right?

Pushing for gun control following a spree shooting does not equal a smug "called it!" following a murder. Do you agree?

You are aware that there are varying degrees of exploitation? Exploiting something for personal gain is different to pushing for improvements in the aftermath of an event.

Or would you argue that pushing for mass polio vaccination was exploiting the horror of thousands of people suffering from polio?

 jmurph wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 gorgon wrote:

I'll almost guarantee the race will tighten, but I'm not sure if Hillary will be in danger, again barring unforeseen circumstances. Kind of like how Obama and Romney seemed fairly close just by looking at the polls, but Obama really had the electoral votes locked, again thanks to demographics and wizardry.
.

Would malor terrorist attack count? Trump as president would be such a jackpot for isis they are drooling at the idea. If they aren'pt planning something shortly before elections i'm surprised

Almost certainly. A significant terror attack would provoke a reactionary sentiment that would play directly to Trump.

Would it though? Trump has no national security cred. Oddly enough, I think such a tragedy would help Clinton. Trump is already viewed as erratic and impulsive, I don't think people want someone erratic and impulsive at the helm when it comes to national security. Could be wrong, but that what my gut tells me.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
You are aware that there are varying degrees of exploitation? Exploiting something for personal gain is different to pushing for improvements in the aftermath of an event.

Or would you argue that pushing for mass polio vaccination was exploiting the horror of thousands of people suffering from polio?

Eh, it's not like there's a difference between premeditated murder and involuntary manslaughter, right? Someone's still dead, either way.

 jasper76 wrote:

 jmurph wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 gorgon wrote:

I'll almost guarantee the race will tighten, but I'm not sure if Hillary will be in danger, again barring unforeseen circumstances. Kind of like how Obama and Romney seemed fairly close just by looking at the polls, but Obama really had the electoral votes locked, again thanks to demographics and wizardry.
.

Would malor terrorist attack count? Trump as president would be such a jackpot for isis they are drooling at the idea. If they aren'pt planning something shortly before elections i'm surprised

Almost certainly. A significant terror attack would provoke a reactionary sentiment that would play directly to Trump.

Would it though? Trump has no national security cred. Oddly enough, I think such a tragedy would help Clinton. Trump is already viewed as erratic and impulsive, I don't think people want someone erratic and impulsive at the helm when it comes to national security. Could be wrong, but that what my gut tells me.

I can see Clinton going full Underwood after a terror attack

 feeder wrote:
Pushing for gun control following a spree shooting does not equal a smug "called it!" following a murder. Do you agree?

Disagree because the pro-gun control crowds are dripping in this smugness.

Pro-gun Control: See... we told you guys this will keep happening. Why won't you guys see reason!

 whembly wrote:

 feeder wrote:
Pushing for gun control following a spree shooting does not equal a smug "called it!" following a murder. Do you agree?

Disagree because the pro-gun control crowds are dripping in this smugness.

Pro-gun Control: See... we told you guys this will keep happening. Why won't you guys see reason!

We aren't talking about some rando anti gun guy though, we are talking specifically about HRC and Drumpf.

 feeder wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 feeder wrote:
Pushing for gun control following a spree shooting does not equal a smug "called it!" following a murder. Do you agree?

Disagree because the pro-gun control crowds are dripping in this smugness.

Pro-gun Control: See... we told you guys this will keep happening. Why won't you guys see reason!

We aren't talking about some rando anti gun guy though, we are talking specifically about HRC and Drumpf.

Really?

Here's HRC:

I refuse to accept this as normal. We must take action to stop gun violence now. -H https://t.co/SkKglwQycb

— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) December 2, 2015

Here's Obama:

JUST IN: @POTUS responds to San Bernardino shooting, speaking with @NorahODonnell https://t.co/vyA7XqpSB3https://t.co/C3t6swG6gD

— CBS This Morning (@CBSThisMorning) December 2, 2015

Instead of having a conversation over these Terrorist's attack... their "go to" talking points is to push for gun controls. Which wouldn't have stopped these attacks if these laws that they were advocating for were codified!

If that isn't exploitive... then your definition of that word doesn't match mine.

 whembly wrote:


Here's HRC:

I refuse to accept this as normal. We must take action to stop gun violence now. -H https://t.co/SkKglwQycb

— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) December 2, 2015

And here's Drumpf :

Dwayne Wade’s cousin was just shot and killed walking her baby in Chicago. Just what I have been saying. African-Americans will VOTE TRUMP!

Clearly, they are just as bad.

I don't think "gun control to combat gun violence" is on the same level as "this lady got shot, vote for me", do you?

 whembly wrote:
If that isn't exploitive... then your definition of that word doesn't match mine.

Is your definition any time a political actor references an event related to their desired legislation exploitation?

 whembly wrote:
You might be on to something here... however, i think the opposite. I think it'll drive Trump to a more isolationist mindset.

Which is what ISIS wants. The more Trump aims to isolate USA from muslims the more mutual hatred it breeds which means more radicalization which means more terrorism attacks. So while Trump might think he's trying to get rid of the problem he would be just upping the antes.

 feeder wrote:

 whembly wrote:
If that isn't exploitive... then your definition of that word doesn't match mine.

Is your definition any time a political actor references an event related to their desired legislation exploitation?

Especially if the desired legislation wouldn't have had any effect of said event.

 jasper76 wrote:
Would it though? Trump has no national security cred. Oddly enough, I think such a tragedy would help Clinton. Trump is already viewed as erratic and impulsive, I don't think people want someone erratic and impulsive at the helm when it comes to national security. Could be wrong, but that what my gut tells me.

He's pushing for ban Islams from USA line. Doubtful it's coincidence his ratings went up every time AFTER terrorist attack occured...

tneva82 wrote:

 whembly wrote:
You might be on to something here... however, i think the opposite. I think it'll drive Trump to a more isolationist mindset.

Which is what ISIS wants. The more Trump aims to isolate USA from muslims the more mutual hatred it breeds which means more radicalization which means more terrorism attacks. So while Trump might think he's trying to get rid of the problem he would be just upping the antes.

The wave of terror attacks coming from the middle east is not some "they hate our freedom" nonsense. They are a direct result of our political machinations there.

tneva82 wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
Would it though? Trump has no national security cred. Oddly enough, I think such a tragedy would help Clinton. Trump is already viewed as erratic and impulsive, I don't think people want someone erratic and impulsive at the helm when it comes to national security. Could be wrong, but that what my gut tells me.

He's pushing for ban Islams from USA line. Doubtful it's coincidence his ratings went up every time AFTER terrorist attack occured...

Well, he was pushing for that, but has since changed his position. That's the problem...he's erratic. The policies he puts out are so all over the map that you don't even know what you'd be voting for.

 feeder wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 whembly wrote:
You might be on to something here... however, i think the opposite. I think it'll drive Trump to a more isolationist mindset.

Which is what ISIS wants. The more Trump aims to isolate USA from muslims the more mutual hatred it breeds which means more radicalization which means more terrorism attacks. So while Trump might think he's trying to get rid of the problem he would be just upping the antes.

The wave of terror attacks coming from the middle east is not some "they hate our freedom" nonsense. They are a direct result of our political machinations there.

yes the attacks in Belgium, Bangladesh, Austria, and Germany are all because of their insidious activities in the ME.