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.
Gordon Shumway wrote: What she should do is just answer the questions posed to her as specifically, forcefully, and clearly as possible. If he attacks, ignore it. The media will discuss the attack on its own. Stick to the issue. Or turn it into a joke and quickly pivot to the actual question. Do not name call. Do not get offended. Do not seem incredulous, just amused at the silly little man, and show people how an adult should answer a question asked of them.
There is great wisdom here.
-"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!
Gordon Shumway wrote: He actually is a rhetorical genius. If you define rhetoric as the ability to use language to manipulate people who don't think too deeply about the actual words. He has a weird way of talking. He always uses active voice (which is generally good as it makes one seem more confident and implies that he isn't trying to hide anything). He uses key words at the beginning of statements, usually words that imply strength, (or if he is attacking someone, weakness) never finishes a thought, but repeats the key word again, leaving one with the impression that he is confident, honest, and with that one key idea. Of course, if someone actually thinks about his words, he is in trouble. Which is why he constantly changes the subject and narrative so one never has time to think. He is the Michael Bay of rhetoric.
Well, I don't. That's an extremely narrow and negative definition of the field. I think he lacks understanding of why certain things work. He just found that they did, either instinctively or through trial-and-error over the years.
In geek terms, he's like a Force-sensitive person who can do a few tricks rather than a genuine Jedi Knight.
Gordon Shumway wrote: What she should do is just answer the questions posed to her as specifically, forcefully, and clearly as possible. If he attacks, ignore it. The media will discuss the attack on its own. Stick to the issue. Or turn it into a joke and quickly pivot to the actual question. Do not name call. Do not get offended. Do not seem incredulous, just amused at the silly little man, and show people how an adult should answer a question asked of them. Will she? Doubt it.
If Hillary can jiu-jitsu her way through the debates like that, I'll be very impressed. But yeah...I'm not seeing it. Now, if it was Bill that we're talking about...very different thing.
d-usa wrote: And in a surprise to nobody, the debate commission excluded Johnson from the first debate.
Johnson's response.
My statement regarding the Commission on Presidential Debates announcement:
I would say I am surprised that the CPD has chosen to exclude me from the first debate, but I’m not. After all, the Commission is a private organization created 30 years ago by the Republican and Democratic parties for the clear purpose of taking control of the only nationally-televised presidential debates voters will see. At the time of its creation, the leaders of those two parties made no effort to hide the fact that they didn’t want any third party intrusions into their shows.
The only time a third candidate has been allowed on the stage was 1992, when both parties wanted him on the stage for their own purposes. It should be noted that, when Perot was allowed on the stage, polls showed his support to be in single digits, below where Johnson and Weld are currently polling.
The CPD may scoff at a ticket that enjoys ‘only’ 9 or 10% in their hand-selected polls, but even 9% represents 13 million voters, more than the total population of Ohio and most other states. Yet, the Republicans and Democrats are choosing to silence the candidate preferred by those millions of Americans.
Americans are tired of rigged systems, and the monopoly on debates created by the CPD is a prime and skillfully executed example.
Bill Weld and I will continue to fight to provide a voice and an alternative for independents, disenfranchised Republicans and Democrats, Millennials and others who aren’t satisfied with Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton as their options.
It is unfortunate that the CPD doesn’t believe such a voice should be heard. There are more polls and more debates, and we plan to be on the debate stage in October.
I don't know if I would call it ju-jujitsu so much as just responding like a human being. See, I don't think Bill was all that good at debates either. His down home aww shucks appeals, but not to me and it doesn't really answer questions. He is much better in a one on one question and answer (in which case he is really amazing). He has the time to actually answer the question because his answers take a while to explain (as answers to complex issues should).
d-usa wrote: And in a surprise to nobody, the debate commission excluded Johnson from the first debate.
I wonder how this squares with the FEC's equal time regulations??
Equal time only applies to serious candidates.
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.'”
d-usa wrote: And in a surprise to nobody, the debate commission excluded Johnson from the first debate.
I wonder how this squares with the FEC's equal time regulations??
I thought the fairness doctrine was abolished?
I'm sure that the two parties controlling the legislative and executive branch will ensure that adequate regulations exist to ensure that the debate commission created and controlled by the two parties to facilitate debate between presidential candidates of the two parties will not abuse their power.
I think the 15% polling rule is reasonable. It sets a mark that doesn't require a person to seriously challenge to win the presidency, while keeping out most minor party candidates.
The televised debates aren't high minded discussion of policy, meant to bring in all kinds of fresh ideas. They're meant to allow the candidates to play off each other, answer some tough questions, and show their policy knowledge.
If I've learned on thing from my time watching US politics, it's that third parties aren't going to happen. Even in parliamentary democracies, a lot of nations either don't' have them, or they exist mostly part of a coalition. It's not like the two major parties aren't essentially coalitions of the main parties found elsewhere.
Gordon Shumway wrote: What she should do is just answer the questions posed to her as specifically, forcefully, and clearly as possible. If he attacks, ignore it. The media will discuss the attack on its own. Stick to the issue. Or turn it into a joke and quickly pivot to the actual question. Do not name call. Do not get offended. Do not seem incredulous, just amused at the silly little man, and show people how an adult should answer a question asked of them.
There is great wisdom here.
Agreed.
Hillary Clinton has got 50 years experience of being ragged on by misogynistic gakker heads and getting on with serious business. She shouldn't have any trouble keeping her cool in the debate.
If she doesn't say "Melonfether, I was at your wedding! And now you're tryna cock block the White House from me? Why you gotta play sister like this?", I will be one sad panda.
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.'”
But my question is this: Do average American care about tax money being wasted like this? Do American dakka members care?
To address this specifically, Americans do care about tax money being wasted. But it depends on how it's wasted. If it's because the military actually did something, then most Americans are fine. If it's because the military blew several billion on some fancy technological boondoggle that just happens to be produced in the district of the Congressman that put that in the budget? That's bad. But you usually need specific examples to piss off most Americans, it has to be something that can outlast our 3-second attention span, and you also have to realize one of George Carlin's wisest remarks: "Think about how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that."
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AdeptSister wrote: And the Fraternal Order of Police, the largest US police union, has just endorsed Trump.
Well, Trump is a bit of a fop.
No offense to any police intended, just a pun that was too easy not to make.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/09/17 00:38:47
"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
WASHINGTON Two supporters of Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign reportedly shared the claim that then-rival Barack Obama was not born in the United States and thus was not eligible to be president.
One was a volunteer in Iowa, who was fired, Clinton’s former campaign manager said Friday. The other was Clinton confidant Sidney Blumenthal, according to a former McClatchy Washington Bureau chief.
The issue arose Friday as Donald Trump finally acknowledged that Obama was born in the U.S. Trump, a leading champion of the debunked “birther” conspiracy theory for years, attempted to blame Clinton for starting it when she ran against Obama in 2008 for the Democratic presidential nomination.
In fact, there were several people publicly pushing the theory, which was repeated extensively on conservative news outlets. There were the two Clinton supporters, but there is no evidence that Clinton herself or her campaign spread the story.
Patti Solis Doyle, Clinton’s campaign manager during part of the 2008 race, told CNN on Friday that an Iowa campaign worker had passed on an email about the birther conspiracy and that Clinton quickly fired him.
Solis Doyle said she’d called Obama campaign official David Plouffe at the time “to apologize and basically say that this was not coming from us. It was a rogue volunteer coordinator.”
Phil Singer, Clinton’s 2008 campaign press secretary, said by email Friday: “The idea that the Hillary Clinton campaign had anything to do with spreading the birther issue has as much credibility as the birther issue itself: none. It didn’t happen.”
Meanwhile, former McClatchy Washington Bureau Chief James Asher tweeted Friday that Blumenthal had “told me in person” that Obama was born in Kenya.
“During the 2008 Democratic primary, Sid Blumenthal visited the Washington Bureau of McClatchy Co.,” Asher said in an email Friday to McClatchy, noting that he was at the time the investigative editor and in charge of Africa coverage.
“During that meeting, Mr. Blumenthal and I met together in my office and he strongly urged me to investigate the exact place of President Obama’s birth, which he suggested was in Kenya. We assigned a reporter to go to Kenya, and that reporter determined that the allegation was false.
“At the time of Mr. Blumenthal’s conversation with me, there had been a few news articles published in various outlets reporting on rumors about Obama’s birthplace. While Mr. Blumenthal offered no concrete proof of Obama’s Kenyan birth, I felt that, as journalists, we had a responsibility to determine whether or not those rumors were true. They were not.”
Blumenthal, who worked in the White House with President Bill Clinton and later was employed by the Clinton Foundation, could not be reached Friday but said in an email to The Boston Globe, “This is false. Period.”
The birther issue was long the province of conservative talk show hosts and far right politicians who opposed Obama’s candidacy and then his presidency. Trump used it as his platform into politics five years ago, despite numerous reports that exposed it as false.
He reversed field Friday at the end of an appearance before veterans and former military officials who support him. But instead of ending the controversy, he fueled it further, with his claim about Hillary Clinton’s involvement.
Clinton, at a speech in the nation’s capital, said Trump needed to apologize.
“For five years, he has led the birther movement to delegitimize our first black president,” she said. “His campaign was founded on this outrageous lie.”
The Trump campaign issued a news release with a portion of Solis Doyle’s interview and a link to memos back then to Clinton from Mark Penn, her 2008 pollster. One raises the issue of Obama’s “lack of American roots.” Obama was born in Hawaii. His father was Kenyan and his mother was from Kansas.
Penn’s memo said, “Every speech should contain the line that you were born in the middle of America in the middle class in the middle of the last century.”
Sid Blumenthal?!?! The famous Clinton fixer who was banned from working in the Obama Administration?
I shan't believe it!
EDIT: NOte... this isn't me defending Trump. HE fething owned his birtherism crap.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/09/17 02:09:10
Gordon Shumway wrote: What she should do is just answer the questions posed to her as specifically, forcefully, and clearly as possible. If he attacks, ignore it. The media will discuss the attack on its own. Stick to the issue. Or turn it into a joke and quickly pivot to the actual question. Do not name call. Do not get offended. Do not seem incredulous, just amused at the silly little man, and show people how an adult should answer a question asked of them.
There is great wisdom here.
Agreed.
Hillary Clinton has got 50 years experience of being ragged on by misogynistic gakker heads and getting on with serious business. She shouldn't have any trouble keeping her cool in the debate.
There's a reason why Trump is steam rolling - sensationalism. Our current generation is all about the slam dunk rhetoric. If Clinton says one wrong thing, she's entered the Orange Beasts domain; she'll be his play thing for the rest of the debate Personally, I don't think Clinton can stand a debate without her losing serious points. The media may try to band aid with polls, but I bet thereafter the slope will split in favor for Trump.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2016/09/17 02:31:43
Age of Sigmar - It's sorta like a clogged toilet, where the muck crests over the rim and onto the floor. Somehow 'ground marines' were created from this...
Gordon Shumway wrote: What she should do is just answer the questions posed to her as specifically, forcefully, and clearly as possible. If he attacks, ignore it. The media will discuss the attack on its own. Stick to the issue. Or turn it into a joke and quickly pivot to the actual question. Do not name call. Do not get offended. Do not seem incredulous, just amused at the silly little man, and show people how an adult should answer a question asked of them.
There is great wisdom here.
Agreed.
Hillary Clinton has got 50 years experience of being ragged on by misogynistic gakker heads and getting on with serious business. She shouldn't have any trouble keeping her cool in the debate.
There's a reason why Trump is steam rolling - sensationalism. Our current generation is all about the slam dunk rhetoric. If Clinton says one wrong thing, she's entered the Orange Beasts domain; she'll be his play thing for the rest of the debate Personally, I don't think Clinton can stand a debate without her losing serious points. The media may try to band aid with polls, but I bet thereafter the slope will split in favor for Trump.
Valid points there, but balanced by the absolute inevitability of Trump, being Trump and saying at least one incredibly stupid thing during the debate as well.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/17 03:25:42
Gordon Shumway wrote: What she should do is just answer the questions posed to her as specifically, forcefully, and clearly as possible. If he attacks, ignore it. The media will discuss the attack on its own. Stick to the issue. Or turn it into a joke and quickly pivot to the actual question. Do not name call. Do not get offended. Do not seem incredulous, just amused at the silly little man, and show people how an adult should answer a question asked of them.
There is great wisdom here.
Agreed.
Hillary Clinton has got 50 years experience of being ragged on by misogynistic gakker heads and getting on with serious business. She shouldn't have any trouble keeping her cool in the debate.
There's a reason why Trump is steam rolling - sensationalism. Our current generation is all about the slam dunk rhetoric. If Clinton says one wrong thing, she's entered the Orange Beasts domain; she'll be his play thing for the rest of the debate Personally, I don't think Clinton can stand a debate without her losing serious points. The media may try to band aid with polls, but I bet thereafter the slope will split in favor for Trump.
That's why they call it the Trump Train.
I for one, like Trump.
I've always been a big fan of his, so there's a lot of bias there.
Probably one of the other guys would have made a better choice for nomination but they lost so, we got Trump vs Hillary.
And I really don't like Hillary. Not that I cared for Bernie either.
But then again why would I, I am more right wing then left wing.
Make Dolls Great Again
Clover/Trump 2016
For the United Shelves of America!
whembly wrote: NOte... this isn't me defending Trump. HE fething owned his birtherism crap.
And the article doesn't indicate that the argument originated within the Clinton campaign...
“At the time of Mr. Blumenthal’s conversation with me, there had been a few news articles published in various outlets reporting on rumors about Obama’s birthplace. While Mr. Blumenthal offered no concrete proof of Obama’s Kenyan birth, I felt that, as journalists, we had a responsibility to determine whether or not those rumors were true. They were not.”
Do not name call. Do not get offended. Do not seem incredulous, just amused at the silly little man, and show people how an adult should answer a question asked of them.
She can't really run with the "smug disdain" approach as many of the voters in States she needs dislike her because they view her as a smug, disdainful, elite. She has to, at the very least, treat the guy as an equal.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/09/17 06:16:44
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
Frazzled wrote: Trump hasn't been very good in the debates actually. His best shtick is two fold:
1. He relies on his dog pound to cheer him on or boo opponents. That will not be available in the debate.
2. What he REALLY DOES is shortly thereafter say or tweet some absolutely outrageous thing that takes everyone's attention off the debate. Clinton could get ahead of that and prebomb the moment the debate ends. Alternatively whatever current version of JournoList (which is out there) could do the combined focus on something in the debate. I am sure thats what they will likely do.
3. Inversely HRC did moderately well in the debate. I am sure they are training her on how to rise above Trump and pull a few Reaganesque "there you go again" moments. Thats her strong suit, pushing the optimistic "lets join hands" president thing.
Side note: after verbal sparring for three days with the Trumps on Townhall etc I think she nailed the Deplorable statement. She just shouldn't have said it about the voters but about him and his statements. I'd say about 20% of his hardcore Trumpheads fall squarely in that category-but the rest don't.
Honestly, Clinton will get slaughtered in the debates. 5 buck says she gets "overheated" again.
Once again, we march to war, for Victory or Death!
Never wake yourself at night, unless you are spying on your enemy or looking for a place to relieve yourself. - The Poetic Edda
whembly wrote: NOte... this isn't me defending Trump. HE fething owned his birtherism crap.
And the article doesn't indicate that the argument originated within the Clinton campaign...
“At the time of Mr. Blumenthal’s conversation with me, there had been a few news articles published in various outlets reporting on rumors about Obama’s birthplace. While Mr. Blumenthal offered no concrete proof of Obama’s Kenyan birth, I felt that, as journalists, we had a responsibility to determine whether or not those rumors were true. They were not.”
Since Donald Trump conceded President Obama was born in the United States earlier today, he and his team have gone on the offensive trying to link the start of the "birther" movement with Hillary Clinton and her 2008 campaign, a claim fact-checking websites have debunked as false.
“Hillary Clinton and her campaign of 2008 started the birther controversy,” Trump said today. His campaign subsequently circulated a link to a memo written by Clinton’s 2008 chief strategist, Mark Penn, suggesting they promote then Senator Obama’s “lack of American roots,” as well as the transcript of an interview Clinton’s 2008 campaign manager Patty Solis Doyle, where she tells Wolf Blitzer a staffer forwarded an email promoting the birther conspiracy in 2007, but that staffer was immediately fired.
Penn did write a memo in 2007 saying that Obama’s foreign background could present a weakness for him, and Clinton should emphasize her middle-class Midwestern upbringing.
"His roots to American values and culture are at best limited," the memo says. "I cannot imagine America electing a president during a time of war who is not at his center fundamentally American in his thinking and values."
But it does not say that Obama was foreign-born. No evidence has been uncovered to link the idea of birtherism to the Clinton campaign.
In 2015, Clinton told Don Lemon the claims that she and her campaign started the Obama birther attacks were "ludicrous and untrue."
There have been several reports linking the first major instance of floating the theory to Clinton's supporters.
In 2008, the fact-checking website Factcheck.org said the idea of “birtherism” could originally be traced to Clinton’s diehard supporters, as it became clear she was going to lose the nomination.
This was supported by reporting from other outlets, including the Telegraph, and Politico
But Clinton’s supporters aren’t the same thing as her campaign.
“There is no record that Clinton herself or anyone within her campaign ever advanced the charge that Obama was not born in the United States,” Politifact, another fact checking website, wrote last September following Trump’s tweet that Clinton started the birther movement and was "all in" on the movement.
Frazzled wrote: Trump hasn't been very good in the debates actually. His best shtick is two fold:
1. He relies on his dog pound to cheer him on or boo opponents. That will not be available in the debate.
2. What he REALLY DOES is shortly thereafter say or tweet some absolutely outrageous thing that takes everyone's attention off the debate. Clinton could get ahead of that and prebomb the moment the debate ends. Alternatively whatever current version of JournoList (which is out there) could do the combined focus on something in the debate. I am sure thats what they will likely do.
3. Inversely HRC did moderately well in the debate. I am sure they are training her on how to rise above Trump and pull a few Reaganesque "there you go again" moments. Thats her strong suit, pushing the optimistic "lets join hands" president thing.
Side note: after verbal sparring for three days with the Trumps on Townhall etc I think she nailed the Deplorable statement. She just shouldn't have said it about the voters but about him and his statements. I'd say about 20% of his hardcore Trumpheads fall squarely in that category-but the rest don't.
Honestly, Clinton will get slaughtered in the debates. 5 buck says she gets "overheated" again.
Clinton can't beat Trump and Trump can't beat Clinton. The winners are already decided in the minds of potential viewers. At this point unless either of the candidates propose a completely new platform on stage, you should already know where you stand.
Trump could do the Macarena the entire debate and as long as Clinton drinks water or coughs, Trump will win. Doesn't matter what Clinton says or the pundits say, can't stump Trump is a thing that his supporters slavishly assume.
If Clinton doesn't stoop to Trumps level and also just stands there doing the Macarena she will win amongst her base. Even if all she did was the YMCA the entire time.
To be serious, Clinton faces a pretty uphill battle against Trump. Trump is definitely a patriarchal symbol (hence blindly thinking he is right despite all evidence) and Clinton has spent a career fighting the image of being a corrupt usurper (a woman) in politics. Clinton mostly has to debate in such a manner that will not incite Trump's base or anyone that prefers being told what to do by a father figure and in a way that also does not demotivate her own base and potential voters.
kveldulf, you didn't respond to my post. You directly asked me questions, including ones where I had to go and chase down exact quotes to establish Trump and Paul's racism, then you just didn't respond.
BigWaaagh wrote: Valid points there, but balanced by the absolute inevitability of Trump, being Trump and saying at least one incredibly stupid thing during the debate as well.
Sure, Trump will say many stupid things, and he'll also tell a bunch of blatant lies. Right now he says about two stupid things a day and adds a bunch of lies on top of that, and that's in situations he has a lot of control over. You can expect some real doozies in the debates. However, whether these will matter is the big question.
I think maybe people took the wrong lesson out of Clinton's surge following the conventions. People thought it was because Trump picked a fight with the family of a dead veteran, and I'm sure that played a part, but Trump had been plenty horrible before without it harming him, so it seems a stretch to give all that electoral damage to one twitter spat. I wonder if the bigger difference was that Trump's convention looked so crappy compared to Clinton's.
Because a very large part of the Trump myth that he's sold since his earliest days is that he is the big time New York guy, a huge wheeler dealer. But the only time he ever got big it lasted a few months before the debt crushed him.... only for him to then walk out of bankruptcy negotiations claiming how much he is a winner, and people believed it. That really is the key to his appeal - his self-proclaimed success and status as a big time player.
But then the GOP convention happens, and it's full of '90s throwback Republicans, and the much promised star power was Scott fething Baio. It was an embarrassing affair. Meanwhile Clinton and the Democrats put on a glitzy, slick event. There were actual celebrities, and politicians who are famous and actually relevant to the country today.
Clinton gained a net effect of about 7 points from the conventions. A bounce that's now all but gone. But it maybe showed how you break down the appeal of Trump. You show that behind all the bluff and bluster there's nothing there. The aim shouldn't be to prove Trump is a liar or an idiot (duh), the point is to prove that he is just a big talking grifter, with no real ability. Clinton should show that the presidency is the big stage, and Trump is just trying to bluff his way in hoping no-one notices.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BrotherGecko wrote: Clinton can't beat Trump and Trump can't beat Clinton. The winners are already decided in the minds of potential viewers. At this point unless either of the candidates propose a completely new platform on stage, you should already know where you stand.
While I understand and am myself bewildered at the existence of people who may be undecided, or may swap between Trump and Clinton, the reality is they exist. At the end of July Trump and Clinton were tied. One week later Clinton led an average of polls by 9.3%. End of August that lead was down to 3.7%. As of yesterday Clinton's lead was 1.3%.
The polls are in a high state of flux.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/09/17 16:17:24
“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.
To be serious, Clinton faces a pretty uphill battle against Trump. Trump is definitely a patriarchal symbol (hence blindly thinking he is right despite all evidence) and Clinton has spent a career fighting the image of being a corrupt usurper (a woman) in politics. Clinton mostly has to debate in such a manner that will not incite Trump's base or anyone that prefers being told what to do by a father figure and in a way that also does not demotivate her own base and potential voters.
Why would Clinton be at all concerned about inciting Trump's base? They're rabid as it is and after standing with him all this time, in their stupid hats, through all the nonsense he's spewed, aren't going to switch over to Clinton regardless of what she says or doesn't say during the debates. How could anyone possibly incite this bunch any more? With that said, when I say "Trump's base", I'm not talking the undecided rank and file from both parties who are struggling with their party's choice of candidate, that the candidates are jockeying to win over.
The same statement goes for worries about HRC demotivating her base. They're not going over to Donnie in this life time or any other. Frankly, and I've said this on this forum before, I think she suffers from a lack of "Waaagh" in her campaign. She needs, IMHO, to light a fire under the left to make sure they understand the stakes, get the passion up and get out to vote. I'd counsel her to treat Trump like the child that he is, along the lines of Obama aggressively going after Romney after that disasterous first debate in the last election. Step on his points, bait him so he opens that big, unchecked mouth of his, laugh at his absurdity and take any bs he hurls at her with a smile, like she's fighting to hold back a laugh and return the ridicule by directly calling him out and telling him it's time to go sit at the kiddies table. She's got to come out strong and unintimidated by that thin skinned bully. This hairpiece wearing clown has had more than his Warholian 15 minutes, enough already.
Man that felt good to get off my chest. It's almost noon, time to have a cigar while walking the Bulldog.
This message was edited 8 times. Last update was at 2016/09/17 17:56:46
One reason why Trump is still doing so well, despite all the offensive things he says, is because he is still the Republican candidate, and the Republican party, by and large, will vote for him (not counting Whembly...yet ). I mean, just look at some of the truly offensive things he's said. How many more times can he do it before the supposedly good and honorable members of the Republican party leadership (ostensibly the party of family values, morals, and God), actually stand up and do the right thing? How many more times can they distance themselves from his remarks without actually condemning him? Truth is, they won't. I put much the same question to Whembly some time back ("why doesn't the family values party actually do the right/moral thing?") and his response was telling: "because when they do the right thing, they lose." (not exact quotes) And that's the simple truth.
Anyway, I don't put too much stock in polls, because I know, from personal experience, they almost never really involve enough people. I work for the government. Every year there's a survey sent out to randomly chosen federal employees to measure their opinions on their work/department/agency/etc. Every year, not one person in my group was ever selected, so we never had a voice in the survey, and our agency was consistently rated pretty highly as a great place to work. Then, two years ago (I think, maybe three), they opened the survey to every federal employee. Guess what? Now that everybody had a voice, suddenly our agency's ratings dropped quite a bit. It's rather telling that, since then, the yearly survey went back to random people, and nobody in my group has been selected since.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/09/17 16:44:22
"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
Tannhauser42 wrote: One reason why Trump is still doing so well, despite all the offensive things he says, is because he is still the Republican candidate, and the Republican party, by and large, will vote for him (not counting Whembly...yet ). I mean, just look at some of the truly offensive things he's said. How many more times can he do it before the supposedly good and honorable members of the Republican party leadership (ostensibly the party of family values, morals, and God), actually stand up and do the right thing? How many more times can they distance themselves from his remarks without actually condemning him? Truth is, they won't. I put much the same question to Whembly some time back ("why doesn't the family values party actually do the right/moral thing?") and his response was telling: "because when they do the right thing, they lose." (not exact quotes) And that's the simple truth.
Anyway, I don't put too much stock in polls, because I know, from personal experience, they almost never really involve enough people. I work for the government. Every year there's a survey sent out to randomly chosen federal employees to measure their opinions on their work/department/agency/etc. Every year, not one person in my group was ever selected, so we never had a voice in the survey, and our agency was consistently rated pretty highly as a great place to work. Then, two years ago (I think, maybe three), they opened the survey to every federal employee. Guess what? Now that everybody had a voice, suddenly our agency's ratings dropped quite a bit. It's rather telling that, since then, the yearly survey went back to random people, and nobody in my group has been selected since.
To answer your first paragraph, I'll remind you of the BREXIT vote.
It got to the point that voters made up their minds and would not shift from that position. Warnings from experts were ignored. American President voicing dire warnings were met with a shrug. Everything just become background noise.
When you have a group of people who are so angry at the system, so disilluisoned at being left behind, and then you give them a chance to strike back, when their vote really counts for something, like our referendum, and they have a chance to force the Prime Minister to resign, a man most of them despise, then they do not care what their leader says or does, short of murdering somebody.
When people are in that mood, like a lot of GOP voters, no force on earth will stop them voting Trump.
"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
Tannhauser42 wrote: One reason why Trump is still doing so well, despite all the offensive things he says, is because he is still the Republican candidate, and the Republican party, by and large, will vote for him (not counting Whembly...yet ). I mean, just look at some of the truly offensive things he's said. How many more times can he do it before the supposedly good and honorable members of the Republican party leadership (ostensibly the party of family values, morals, and God), actually stand up and do the right thing? How many more times can they distance themselves from his remarks without actually condemning him? Truth is, they won't. I put much the same question to Whembly some time back ("why doesn't the family values party actually do the right/moral thing?") and his response was telling: "because when they do the right thing, they lose." (not exact quotes) And that's the simple truth.
Anyway, I don't put too much stock in polls, because I know, from personal experience, they almost never really involve enough people. I work for the government. Every year there's a survey sent out to randomly chosen federal employees to measure their opinions on their work/department/agency/etc. Every year, not one person in my group was ever selected, so we never had a voice in the survey, and our agency was consistently rated pretty highly as a great place to work. Then, two years ago (I think, maybe three), they opened the survey to every federal employee. Guess what? Now that everybody had a voice, suddenly our agency's ratings dropped quite a bit. It's rather telling that, since then, the yearly survey went back to random people, and nobody in my group has been selected since.
To answer your first paragraph, I'll remind you of the BREXIT vote.
It got to the point that voters made up their minds and would not shift from that position. Warnings from experts were ignored. American President voicing dire warnings were met with a shrug. Everything just become background noise.
When you have a group of people who are so angry at the system, so disilluisoned at being left behind, and then you give them a chance to strike back, when their vote really counts for something, like our referendum, and they have a chance to force the Prime Minister to resign, a man most of them despise, then they do not care what their leader says or does, short of murdering somebody.
When people are in that mood, like a lot of GOP voters, no force on earth will stop them voting Trump.
Sounds like you're warning the Americans against the power of bigotry, anger and ignorance. Thats positively dripping with irony, from a highly vocal advocate of vote Leave.
However, the parralels are striking aren't they? An ill informed, angry, voting base, and leaders who revel in a stream of demagoguery and lies.
The only thing is, they haven't fethed themselves over, yet. Why not leave them to it? Maybe voters in the US will see through the lies and BS, and tell Trump, the Trumpets and the GOP and their like to go feth themselves, like we should have done.
"All their ferocity was turned outwards, against enemies of the State, foreigners, traitors, saboteurs, thought-criminals" - Orwell, 1984
That speech Hillary gave about the "alt-right" was hilarious, if not weirdly insane.
Though not as much as that Pepe the Frog thing... None of her people bothered to like google that?
Make Dolls Great Again
Clover/Trump 2016
For the United Shelves of America!
The only thing is, they haven't fethed themselves over, yet. Why not leave them to it? Maybe voters in the US will see through the lies and BS, and tell Trump, the Trumpets and the GOP and their like to go feth themselves, like we should have done.
Anyone who would ever vote for Trump is already going to do so. There is nothing he's going to say or do that will change that either you're white and angry enough to vote for him or you aren't. The amount of people who are undecided on him is insignificant. What should instead be a concern for Clinton is all the people who are undecided on her. This is the only way Trump could beat her. Not by making more people vote for him but by making more people lose faith in Clinton, a field where he's sometimes backed up by Clinton herself.
That's an extremely narrow and negative definition of the field. I think he lacks understanding of why certain things work. He just found that they did, either instinctively or through trial-and-error over the years.
). I mean, just look at some of the truly offensive things he's said. How many more times can he do it before the supposedly good and honorable members of the Republican party leadership (ostensibly the party of family values, morals, and God), actually stand up and do the right thing? How many more times can they distance themselves from his remarks without actually condemning him? Truth is, they won't. I put much the same question to Whembly some time back ("why doesn't the family values party actually do the right/moral thing?") and his response was telling: "because when they do the right thing, they lose." (not exact quotes) And that's the simple truth. 
