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.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
He's a libertarian. Starting foreign wars is not his thing.

However Geography is vital for knowing where is foreign to avoid sending troops.

Don't send them anywhere. Bring them home.

As much as Pence won the debate, its still blunted by the fact the GOP made themselves look like idiots again, calling the debate for their VP on their website hours before the debate even took place

 jmurph wrote:

I don't know. Trump hasn't been running on facts for a while now and his inconsistencies don't seem to be hurting him. He is the Reality Show Candidate. I don't see Pence's performance as negatively affecting Trump's campaign in any way.

It's just more fuel. Now the Clinton campaign gets to post videos like this all over social media/traditional media.

infinite_array wrote:

 jmurph wrote:

I don't know. Trump hasn't been running on facts for a while now and his inconsistencies don't seem to be hurting him. He is the Reality Show Candidate. I don't see Pence's performance as negatively affecting Trump's campaign in any way.

It's just more fuel. Now the Clinton campaign gets to post videos like this all over social media/traditional media.

it's almost like the clinton campaign planned it that way. But really, who didn't see that coming.

 Frazzled wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
He's a libertarian. Starting foreign wars is not his thing.

However Geography is vital for knowing where is foreign to avoid sending troops.

Don't send them anywhere. Bring them home.

But where exactly is "home"?

the young turks just made a really funny thought. when you see the VP debate, you are really looking at the future president as no matter who wins they'll be impeached

The kicker is that it won't have ANY impact.

That sad state though... the GOP voters fethed up big time. EVEN Mike Pence would've curb stomped Clinton.

But, nooooooooooooo... they had to get Cheeto Jesus.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
He's a libertarian. Starting foreign wars is not his thing.

However Geography is vital for knowing where is foreign to avoid sending troops.

Don't send them anywhere. Bring them home.

But where exactly is "home"?

Canada... the maple must flow!

 Frazzled wrote:


Don't send them anywhere. Bring them home.

Why do you want make your soldiers unemployed? Do you HATE AMERICA?

Canada... the maple must flow!

Try it, Talker Texas spanker. We'll send you home crying into your ten gallon hat with an ice skate lodged when even the desert sun don't shine.

We won't burn your White House, though. You are all doing your best to disgrace it all on your own this around.

Edit: Damn swear filter ruined my sick burn!

 whembly wrote:
The kicker is that it won't have ANY impact.

That sad state though... the GOP voters fethed up big time. EVEN Mike Pence would've curb stomped Clinton.

But, nooooooooooooo... they had to get Cheeto Jesus.

Back before anyone had announced their candidacy, I declared Hillary to be unelectable. My reasoning was that, after 25 years of smear campaigns and manufactured scandals (emailgate wasn't yet in the public eye) Hillary was too hated by the right and not really liked by the left, meaning the Republicans would have to work very, very hard to lose the election to her. In my wildest fantasies, I could not imagine the GOP would not only find a man capable of getting Hillary elected, but that they would select him as their candidate.

squidhills wrote:

 whembly wrote:
The kicker is that it won't have ANY impact.

That sad state though... the GOP voters fethed up big time. EVEN Mike Pence would've curb stomped Clinton.

But, nooooooooooooo... they had to get Cheeto Jesus.

Back before anyone had announced their candidacy, I declared Hillary to be unelectable. My reasoning was that, after 25 years of smear campaigns and manufactured scandals (emailgate wasn't yet in the public eye) Hillary was too hated by the right and not really liked by the left, meaning the Republicans would have to work very, very hard to lose the election to her. In my wildest fantasies, I could not imagine the GOP would not only find a man capable of getting Hillary elected, but that they would select him as their candidate.

That is the standard modus operandi of the modern GOP, and honestly what I hate them for far beyond any specific policy disagreements.

When faced with candidates like Barbara Boxer or Hillary Clinton, candidates I loathe and would dearly have loved to vote against, nay was gleefully looking forward to voting against, the Republicans go out of their way to find a Fiorina or Trump, they magically find someone who is somehow even more deplorable and force me to vote for a candidate I had every intention of forcefully opposing.


When any mammal could beat the unpopular Democrat, the GOP solution invariably seems to be to run a reptile. Same thing happened with Obama in 2012, Obama was a vulnerable candidate...and they ran Romney . Now, when Romney would actually be a viable candidate against Clinton, they run Trump...

Remarkably astute.

The weird mystery of this election is how it came to the point that Clinton and Trump became viewed as equally vile and useless candidates by so many people.

"They're both bad", the "thanks Obama" of 2016.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The weird mystery of this election is how it came to the point that Clinton and Trump became viewed as equally vile and useless candidates by so many people.

They are both bad. If the US election was a walk to work, HRC would be like getting bird poop on your hat. Trump would be like getting hit by a car. See? Both bad.

 feeder wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The weird mystery of this election is how it came to the point that Clinton and Trump became viewed as equally vile and useless candidates by so many people.

They are both bad. If the US election was a walk to work, HRC would be like getting bird poop on your hat. Trump would be like getting hit by a car. See? Both bad.

that's an awesome analogy.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 feeder wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The weird mystery of this election is how it came to the point that Clinton and Trump became viewed as equally vile and useless candidates by so many people.

They are both bad. If the US election was a walk to work, HRC would be like getting bird poop on your hat. Trump would be like getting hit by a car. See? Both bad.

that's an awesome analogy.

Nah... better analogy is that Clinton is Pennywise:



Trump is Twisty:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The weird mystery of this election is how it came to the point that Clinton and Trump became viewed as equally vile and useless candidates by so many people.

Clinton is the ultimate status quo candidate. If you like how things are going you like her. Plus she's been disliked for decades by a large portion of the US voting population. She's about the worst candidate the Democrats could have run. Flash polling after last night's debate had a higher percentage preferring her running mate over her. Lets not forget she lost to a partial term Senator and community organizer in 2008. Also she has about as much charisma as cold oatmeal.

So the only thing the Republicans could do was nominate the only person she could beat...

I am not at all clear what the clown analogies mean, but from an outsider's point of view, one candidate is a liar, a cheat, an incompetent, a serial failure in their chosen career, a defrauder of charity, with low concentration, a poor grasp of issues, a dangerous narcissism complex and poor self-control; somehow all of these issues have been transferred from Trump to Clinton.

Meanwhile Clinton's faults of (A) not solving World Peace in 4 years and (B) playing loosely with email qualify her as an incompetent traitor who deserves to be shot.

It is a complete mystery.

I have not mentioned the racism, misogyny, illegal payments, and serial adultery, because no-one seems to care about them either.

Only a complete mystery when you whitewash/ignore Clinton's malfeasance and downright poor decisions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I am not at all clear what the clown analogies mean (snip)

That they're both bad for different reasons.

 whembly wrote:

Nah... better analogy is that Clinton is Pennywise:

Spoiler:

Trump is Twisty:

I find it interesting you choose Pennywise as Clinton and Twisty as Trump.

In their respective lores, Pennywise is the manifestation of an ancient, immensely powerful supernatural evil that exists to feed off the pain and terror of it's victims.

Where as Twisty is merely a troubled, tormented simpleton who genuinely loves his victims, albeit in a twisted and murderous way.

I mean, I know you have an throbbing hate-on for HRC, but I didn't know it was this subliminal.

 Vaktathi wrote:
When any mammal could beat the unpopular Democrat, the GOP solution invariably seems to be to run a reptile. Same thing happened with Obama in 2012, Obama was a vulnerable candidate...and they ran Romney . Now, when Romney would actually be a viable candidate against Clinton, they run Trump...

Did Romney not want to run again, or did he become persona non grata in the GOP after losing? He'd probably be ahead of Hillary right now. Heck, Trump might have pulled even with her if he hadn't picked a bad time to have a very bad week.

How about Bozo vs. Sideshow Bob?

 feeder wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Nah... better analogy is that Clinton is Pennywise:

Spoiler:

Trump is Twisty:

I find it interesting you choose Pennywise as Clinton and Twisty as Trump.

In their respective lores, Pennywise is the manifestation of an ancient, immensely powerful supernatural evil that exists to feed off the pain and terror of it's victims.

Yup.

Where as Twisty is merely a troubled, tormented simpleton who genuinely loves his victims, albeit in a twisted and murderous way.

You got it brother.

I mean, I know you have an throbbing hate-on for HRC, but I didn't know it was this subliminal.

Now you understand my young Jedi?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
EDIT: that was quick...


Kaine pulled a Trump.

 whembly wrote:

Kaine pulled a Trump.

and that's bad, the only one who can act like trump is trump. Anyone else saying or doing what he does gets crucified.

 whembly wrote:
Only a complete mystery when you whitewash/ignore Clinton's malfeasance and downright poor decisions.


....

This goes to the heart of the mystery.

There isn't any evidence of malfeasance by Clinton, while there is lots of evidence of malfeasance by Trump.

Clinton as a high ranking politician on the international stage has not managed to control international events, much like most high ranking politicians on the international stage, while many other aspects of her professional life have been a great success.

Trump, OTOH has been a failure in the limited area of US real estate development, despite a rocket boosted start as the heir to a real estate development company, and has only succeeded as a reality TV star. Yet Trump is lauded as a huge success while Clinton is pilloried as a uniquely bad political failure.

It isn't whitewashing/ignoring blah blah blah, it is taking an objective look from the foreign viewpoint at the two candidates.

 whembly wrote:

EDIT: that was quick...

Spoiler:

Kaine pulled a Trump.

Funny.... usually it's an eastern European model looking for a green card doing that, while making this face

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Only a complete mystery when you whitewash/ignore Clinton's malfeasance and downright poor decisions.


....

This goes to the heart of the mystery.

There isn't any evidence of malfeasance by Clinton, while there is lots of evidence of malfeasance by Trump.

Clinton as a high ranking politician on the international stage has not managed to control international events, much like most high ranking politicians on the international stage, while many other aspects of her professional life have been a great success.

Trump, OTOH has been a failure in the limited area of US real estate development, despite a rocket boosted start as the heir to a real estate development company, and has only succeeded as a reality TV star. Yet Trump is lauded as a huge success while Clinton is pilloried as a uniquely bad political failure.

It isn't whitewashing/ignoring blah blah blah, it is taking an objective look from the foreign viewpoint at the two candidates.

That is definitely one view.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The weird mystery of this election is how it came to the point that Clinton and Trump became viewed as equally vile and useless candidates by so many people.

Don't misunderstand me: I'm absolutely casting my vote against Trump. I'll pull the lever next to Hillary's name without a moment's hesitation. I won't lose nay sleep over doing it, because I know that she is in no way, shape, or form anywhere near as reprehensible as Trump. She is unquestioningly more qualified in anything government-related than Trump. I'm not one of these "they're both equally bad" people trying to justify voting for Trump.

But my point was that, Trump aside, Hillary just wasn't all that great of a candidate from an electibility standpoint. Every conservative in America hates her, and at least a third of the liberals aren't fans of her, if Bernie's numbers were anything to go by. Independents aren't crazy about her, due to 25 years of smear campaigns designed to poison her reputation with anyone who isn't a dyed in the wool liberal. That means she can (in an election where the GOP ran somebody less dumpster-firey) only reasonably expect to pull 2/3rds of the Democrat voters, and none of anybody else. And that's if every Democrat shows up to vote. A sufficiently not-Trump GOP candidate could reasonably expect to pull all the Republicans and some of the independents. That would, under normal circumstances, give the GOP candidate a bigger share of the popular vote pie. Yes, the popular vote doesn't win the election, but if the % of voters voting for the GOP guy is spread evenly across the country, it makes it easier to flip blue states into red ones.

I just assumed the Democrats would run Hillary because its "her turn" and the GOP would find another McCain or Romney who could say crazy gak during the primary and then play the moderate during the general, and their 25 year long plan would finally bear fruit and the GOP would see the defeat and political demise of their most hated foe.

I was not expecting the GOP to work so very hard to find the one person in America who could give Hillary a fighting chance.

squidhills wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The weird mystery of this election is how it came to the point that Clinton and Trump became viewed as equally vile and useless candidates by so many people.

Don't misunderstand me: I'm absolutely casting my vote against Trump. I'll pull the lever next to Hillary's name without a moment's hesitation. I won't lose nay sleep over doing it, because I know that she is in no way, shape, or form anywhere near as reprehensible as Trump. She is unquestioningly more qualified in anything government-related than Trump. I'm not one of these "they're both equally bad" people trying to justify voting for Trump.

But my point was that, Trump aside, Hillary just wasn't all that great of a candidate from an electibility standpoint. Every conservative in America hates her, and at least a third of the liberals aren't fans of her, if Bernie's numbers were anything to go by. Independents aren't crazy about her, due to 25 years of smear campaigns designed to poison her reputation with anyone who isn't a dyed in the wool liberal. That means she can (in an election where the GOP ran somebody less dumpster-firey) only reasonably expect to pull 2/3rds of the Democrat voters, and none of anybody else. And that's if every Democrat shows up to vote. A sufficiently not-Trump GOP candidate could reasonably expect to pull all the Republicans and some of the independents. That would, under normal circumstances, give the GOP candidate a bigger share of the popular vote pie. Yes, the popular vote doesn't win the election, but if the % of voters voting for the GOP guy is spread evenly across the country, it makes it easier to flip blue states into red ones.

I just assumed the Democrats would run Hillary because its "her turn" and the GOP would find another McCain or Romney who could say crazy gak during the primary and then play the moderate during the general, and their 25 year long plan would finally bear fruit and the GOP would see the defeat and political demise of their most hated foe.

I was not expecting the GOP to work so very hard to find the one person in America who could give Hillary a fighting chance.

hillary is a great candidate and electable, that's what started the conservatives smear campaign against her. starting with her first run and never letting up. think about it, she's being blamed for stuff obama and kerry did, and all of her accomplishments are denied and downplayed. the GOP has always been afraid of her.