|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On May 19 2016 02:33 Naracs_Duc wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2016 02:19 Plansix wrote:On May 19 2016 02:02 xDaunt wrote:On May 19 2016 01:28 ZasZ. wrote:On May 18 2016 23:53 xDaunt wrote:On May 18 2016 23:30 farvacola wrote: Asserting that a black president was elected by "a lot of white and black people" on the basis of race is just as superficial as voting for a president because of his race. Two of the biggest drivers of Obama's 2008 victory were his race and and his vacuous, soaring rhetoric. You're giving the voters a little too much credit. Source? I would think one of the biggest drivers of both his 2008 and 2012 victories were the Republicans putting up extraordinarily weak candidates along with a lunatic VP in 2008. For me personally, my decision was made for me in both years and I found myself saying "Obama is only OK, but jesus the Republicans are so much worse." In 2008, I was planning on giving McCain a shot until he picked up Palin. What do you mean "source?" That 2008 election was retardedly hyped for the very reasons that I set forth. How can anyone forget it? It was a media and pop culture phenomenon. The republicans probably weren't going to win anyway with all of the electoral headwinds that they were facing that year. But you can't possibly overlook the fact that Obama was awarded a fucking Nobel Peace Prize on the merits of teleprompted speeches. The 2008 election was lost by the Republicans as much as it was won by Obama. They ran a terrible VP, crippled McCain on his more moderate issues by pulling him right in the general election, where independents were tired of the right. And they failed to separate themselves from the Bush administration or prove that things were going to be any different. The GOP across the board got crushed during that election. And then the Dems got slammed in the mid term because they can't figure out how to get voters out without a general election. The Dems didn't show up because they thought Obama was just joking about his reach across the aisle policy. When the ACA and the Iraq withdrawal was not just pure far left liberal ideals and actually tried to take into account multiple aspects of how both would affect the economy and future voters, he actually borrowed some right wing ideas just like he promised. Liberal voters are very fickle. The majority of democrats are not that liberal, tbh. Most of them just wanted a functioning government and the issues of the financial crisis to be addressed. And to not be in Iraq any more. The ACA was nice, but I would have preferred the Democrats remove a lot of the dumb rules in the house that makes the minority party worthless. But they are short term thinkers.
And Dems losing in the mid terms has been happening since the 90s.
|
On May 19 2016 00:52 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2016 00:28 Jaaaaasper wrote:Damn it turns out the Sanders campaign did in fact encourage their supporters to pull that shit in Nevada. And they wonder why people think the Bern outs are going to turn Phildelphia into a shit show www.reddit.com Audio recordings. I wonder if the campaign just flat out denies it's actually her? I mean, if it is her, this is huge. It directly shows Bernie to either be a liar or out of control of his campaign. This audio recording directly conflicts with his statement.
Lol I get Jaaasper but I didn't think you would fall for this propaganda. Telling your delegates to stay is totally normal (happened at every caucus I've participated in) and had nothing to do with what happened in NV. xDaunt has been to a caucus so maybe you'll accept the explanation from him but this is straight propaganda.
|
The Democrat Establishment (including the media) needs to just STFU and ride the process out rather than actively discourage Bernie voters from participating. The only thing that the Democrats are going to accomplish at this rate is set themselves up for a 1968-type of convention disaster that pushes more people towards Trump.
|
On May 19 2016 02:02 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2016 01:28 ZasZ. wrote:On May 18 2016 23:53 xDaunt wrote:On May 18 2016 23:30 farvacola wrote: Asserting that a black president was elected by "a lot of white and black people" on the basis of race is just as superficial as voting for a president because of his race. Two of the biggest drivers of Obama's 2008 victory were his race and and his vacuous, soaring rhetoric. You're giving the voters a little too much credit. Source? I would think one of the biggest drivers of both his 2008 and 2012 victories were the Republicans putting up extraordinarily weak candidates along with a lunatic VP in 2008. For me personally, my decision was made for me in both years and I found myself saying "Obama is only OK, but jesus the Republicans are so much worse." In 2008, I was planning on giving McCain a shot until he picked up Palin. What do you mean "source?" That 2008 election was retardedly hyped for the very reasons that I set forth. How can anyone forget it? It was a media and pop culture phenomenon. The republicans probably weren't going to win anyway with all of the electoral headwinds that they were facing that year. But you can't possibly overlook the fact that Obama was awarded a fucking Nobel Peace Prize on the merits of teleprompted speeches. Yes, he got a Nobel Peace Prize for talking about nuclear nonproliferation and now the DPRK has multiple bombs.
|
That's not what the prevailing opinion about why he was given the Nobel is; at least not from what I've seen.
to whit: that it was mostly a rebuke to Bush, rather than for anything Obama had truly done.
|
On May 19 2016 02:40 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2016 02:33 Naracs_Duc wrote:On May 19 2016 02:19 Plansix wrote:On May 19 2016 02:02 xDaunt wrote:On May 19 2016 01:28 ZasZ. wrote:On May 18 2016 23:53 xDaunt wrote:On May 18 2016 23:30 farvacola wrote: Asserting that a black president was elected by "a lot of white and black people" on the basis of race is just as superficial as voting for a president because of his race. Two of the biggest drivers of Obama's 2008 victory were his race and and his vacuous, soaring rhetoric. You're giving the voters a little too much credit. Source? I would think one of the biggest drivers of both his 2008 and 2012 victories were the Republicans putting up extraordinarily weak candidates along with a lunatic VP in 2008. For me personally, my decision was made for me in both years and I found myself saying "Obama is only OK, but jesus the Republicans are so much worse." In 2008, I was planning on giving McCain a shot until he picked up Palin. What do you mean "source?" That 2008 election was retardedly hyped for the very reasons that I set forth. How can anyone forget it? It was a media and pop culture phenomenon. The republicans probably weren't going to win anyway with all of the electoral headwinds that they were facing that year. But you can't possibly overlook the fact that Obama was awarded a fucking Nobel Peace Prize on the merits of teleprompted speeches. The 2008 election was lost by the Republicans as much as it was won by Obama. They ran a terrible VP, crippled McCain on his more moderate issues by pulling him right in the general election, where independents were tired of the right. And they failed to separate themselves from the Bush administration or prove that things were going to be any different. The GOP across the board got crushed during that election. And then the Dems got slammed in the mid term because they can't figure out how to get voters out without a general election. The Dems didn't show up because they thought Obama was just joking about his reach across the aisle policy. When the ACA and the Iraq withdrawal was not just pure far left liberal ideals and actually tried to take into account multiple aspects of how both would affect the economy and future voters, he actually borrowed some right wing ideas just like he promised. Liberal voters are very fickle. The majority of democrats are not that liberal, tbh. Most of them just wanted a functioning government and the issues of the financial crisis to be addressed. And to not be in Iraq any more. The ACA was nice, but I would have preferred the Democrats remove a lot of the dumb rules in the house that makes the minority party worthless. But they are short term thinkers. And Dems losing in the mid terms has been happening since the 90s.
I'm a registered independent who voted for Obama twice because the other party is just insane. I just want a sane, functioning government that knows how to compromise with other sane people who disagree with them.
|
On May 19 2016 03:08 andrewlt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2016 02:40 Plansix wrote:On May 19 2016 02:33 Naracs_Duc wrote:On May 19 2016 02:19 Plansix wrote:On May 19 2016 02:02 xDaunt wrote:On May 19 2016 01:28 ZasZ. wrote:On May 18 2016 23:53 xDaunt wrote:On May 18 2016 23:30 farvacola wrote: Asserting that a black president was elected by "a lot of white and black people" on the basis of race is just as superficial as voting for a president because of his race. Two of the biggest drivers of Obama's 2008 victory were his race and and his vacuous, soaring rhetoric. You're giving the voters a little too much credit. Source? I would think one of the biggest drivers of both his 2008 and 2012 victories were the Republicans putting up extraordinarily weak candidates along with a lunatic VP in 2008. For me personally, my decision was made for me in both years and I found myself saying "Obama is only OK, but jesus the Republicans are so much worse." In 2008, I was planning on giving McCain a shot until he picked up Palin. What do you mean "source?" That 2008 election was retardedly hyped for the very reasons that I set forth. How can anyone forget it? It was a media and pop culture phenomenon. The republicans probably weren't going to win anyway with all of the electoral headwinds that they were facing that year. But you can't possibly overlook the fact that Obama was awarded a fucking Nobel Peace Prize on the merits of teleprompted speeches. The 2008 election was lost by the Republicans as much as it was won by Obama. They ran a terrible VP, crippled McCain on his more moderate issues by pulling him right in the general election, where independents were tired of the right. And they failed to separate themselves from the Bush administration or prove that things were going to be any different. The GOP across the board got crushed during that election. And then the Dems got slammed in the mid term because they can't figure out how to get voters out without a general election. The Dems didn't show up because they thought Obama was just joking about his reach across the aisle policy. When the ACA and the Iraq withdrawal was not just pure far left liberal ideals and actually tried to take into account multiple aspects of how both would affect the economy and future voters, he actually borrowed some right wing ideas just like he promised. Liberal voters are very fickle. The majority of democrats are not that liberal, tbh. Most of them just wanted a functioning government and the issues of the financial crisis to be addressed. And to not be in Iraq any more. The ACA was nice, but I would have preferred the Democrats remove a lot of the dumb rules in the house that makes the minority party worthless. But they are short term thinkers. And Dems losing in the mid terms has been happening since the 90s. I'm a registered independent who voted for Obama twice because the other party is just insane. I just want a sane, functioning government that knows how to compromise with other sane people who disagree with them.
I was a registered Independent up until the GOP started instituting government shutdowns and congressional inaction. I don't see my political party as representative of my identity, but I do vote on what will get the gears moving more than for what sounds like the most liberal idea that is around.
|
Trump releases 11 potential Supreme Court nominees: AP Republican candidate Donald Trump released the name of 11 judges he would vet to consider for nomination to the vacant Supreme Court seat should he be elected president in November, the Associated Press reported on Wednesday.
The unusual move is aimed at suppressing conservative fears that he would not name someone in line with their philosophies. The AP reported the list as: Steven Colloton of Iowa, Allison Eid of Colorado, Raymond Gruender of Missouri, Thomas Hardiman of Pennsylvania, Raymond Kethledge of Michigan, Joan Larsen of Michigan, Thomas Lee of Utah, William Pryor of Alabama, David Stras of Minnesota, Diane Sykes of Wisconsin and Don Willett of Texas.
www.reuters.com
I'm into US politics but not enough to actually know any of them, so would need some input from other people about what kind of people those are
|
Judges tend to be fairly low profile; I don't think I recognize any of the names; most posters are probably the same, even for us who follow politics; w'ell need to wait for cnn or someone to better say who they are.
|
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/may/17/hillary-clinton-policy-donald-trump-attention-span
In small groups, Hillary Clinton answers questions in perfect paragraphs, sometimes long ones. It can be a dazzling display. She is so prepared that she rarely needs a pause to think about what to say.
One aspect of her precision and careful phrasing, with nary a “like” or “you know” ever tumbling from her mouth, is that you need to listen hard to take it all in.
Clinton is definitely the candidate for voters with long attention spans.
That could be a challenge in a world where the human attention span has fallen to eight seconds, shorter than a goldfish, according to a recent Microsoft study.
At rallies, her studied speeches can drag on. In Kentucky last weekend, some of the school-age girls standing behind her with their Fighting for Us signs openly yawned or fiddled with their hair during the talk. One put her back to the audience to chat with a friend. Time described a recent stop at a Virginia bakery as “so boring that you could practically hear the muffins get crusty”.
As president, Bill Clinton, of course, was also famous for his long-winded, policy-rich speeches. But this was before the iPhone, Twitter, YouTube and Snapchat helped usher us into the age of distraction.
No one is better suited to these times than Donald Trump, the candidate of short attention spans.
Unlike Clinton, who often starves the press pack following her, Trump is constantly feeding them a 24-hour diet of delectable and irresistible snacks.
He almost always wins the morning. Then he orchestrates at least three or four “news events” a day. His Cinco De Mayo buffoonery – the tweet showing him eating his taco bowl and declaring “I love Hispanics” – kicked off one recent day.
Then came Paul Ryan’s announcement that he was not ready to support Trump and Trump’s immediate rejoinder that he was “not ready to support Speaker Ryan’s agenda”. Then he drew 12,000 people to a rally in West Virginia where he made the far-fetched promise “to put the miners back to work. We’re going to get those mines open!” Afterwards, there were pithy, quotable lashes at Hillary Clinton.
By generating so much “news”, Trump keeps the press in a reactive state. It’s head-spinning for reporters, unless they are the “chosen ones” he calls between stops. And some of their bosses don’t mind: Trump is traffic and ratings gold. In return, he gets more than a billion dollars in free media.
The hyping of stories, like the inconclusive meeting between Trump and Paul Ryan, only adds to the din of distraction. For efficiency’s sake, Politico’s Playbook has launched a feature called “The Daily Trump”, which aggregates many of the lesser stories about him.
There have been some long investigations recently that examined Trump’s past, including his apparent use of the false identity “John Miller”, which he denies, and his treatment of women. But to absorb these stories requires more than one swipe of the mobile screen. Then, in serial tweets, Trump blasted the unfair hit-jobs, reclaiming the headlines. With so many Americans reading with their thumbs, Trump’s advisers seem to believe he’s helped by any attention as long as you spell his name right.
Nate Silver studied the headlines over the nine months since Trump entered the race. He concluded: “With his ability to make news any time he wants with a tweet, news conference or conveniently placed leak, Trump has challenged news organizations’ editorial prerogative.”
Then he asked, “Should the press cover a candidate differently when he makes trolling the media an explicit part of his strategy, on the theory that some coverage is almost always better than none?”
It’s a dilemma. As the presumptive nominee of his party, the campaign press corps has to cover much of what he says and does. But his own background as an entertainer means that Trump makes the line between news and entertainment fuzzier than ever. He’s unbelievably clever at exploiting that.
Clinton, meanwhile, has all but disappeared from the coverage in recent days, except for a Washington Post front-page piece about her supporters worrying about how bad a campaigner she is. Her wariness of the media is well known. Although she’s made repeat appearances on shows anchored by favorites like NBC’s Andrea Mitchell and did a hilarious turn as Val the bartender on Saturday Night Live, she never seems like a natural.
Given that she is the long attention span candidate, it’s not surprising that she doesn’t have a memorable or catchy campaign slogan that sums up what she wants to change or do as president. Is it Hillary for America or Fighting for Us? I can’t remember (perhaps my withering attention span is to blame). It’s certainly nothing memorable like Making America Great Again, or Hope and Change, Morning in America, or even Bill’s It’s the Economy, Stupid.
The press, too, is bored with her. Some reporters have covered her since the Clintons arrived in the White House. Even if they have shorter attention spans, they have long memories. Revisiting Whitewater or watching reruns of the Benghazi hearings isn’t an exciting prospect.
The Clinton supporters I called last week sounded worried but resigned. Having been criticized for being inauthentic, she can only be who she is, they say: a sincere policy wonk who has the experience to be an excellent president, even if she’s a dull candidate. Compared to Trump, “She can never be entertaining in the same way,’’ one supporter noted.
Trump is the exploding watermelon of politics. Recently, 800,000 people, a record audience for Facebook Live, watched two employees of Buzzfeed wrap rubber bands around a watermelon to see how long it would take to explode (44 minutes, it turned out). One Buzzfeed editor said suspense was the key element of the experiment’s success. Trump builds the same kind of suspense: you never know what he might say.
It’s unclear whether the public, or for that matter any goldfish who cares to tune in, will find the spectacle entertaining or horrifying.
|
And even their public statements would have very little to do with their rulings. It is very hard to gage a judge on how they would rule just by the cases they heard. And reporting on the legal process I garbage in general.
|
The amount of people who don't realize congress chooses the president if no one hits 50.1% is staggering. It's amazing how many people think all you need is a majority. Bernistas screaming for a 3rd party run are screaming for the worst congress in our history choosing the president.
|
The best way to understand a judge's feelings is to read their dissents and concurrences. Rulings wherein a judge is writing the "majority" opinion are more formalistic and any 3rd year law student could write them if you give them the briefs, the appendix of facts, and the outcome you have chosen.
Of course, the media, aside from maybe the Volokh Conspiracy (WaPo affiliated) or maybe SCOTUSBlog, if they convene a symposium on it wont be capable of that.
|
On May 19 2016 02:56 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2016 02:02 xDaunt wrote:On May 19 2016 01:28 ZasZ. wrote:On May 18 2016 23:53 xDaunt wrote:On May 18 2016 23:30 farvacola wrote: Asserting that a black president was elected by "a lot of white and black people" on the basis of race is just as superficial as voting for a president because of his race. Two of the biggest drivers of Obama's 2008 victory were his race and and his vacuous, soaring rhetoric. You're giving the voters a little too much credit. Source? I would think one of the biggest drivers of both his 2008 and 2012 victories were the Republicans putting up extraordinarily weak candidates along with a lunatic VP in 2008. For me personally, my decision was made for me in both years and I found myself saying "Obama is only OK, but jesus the Republicans are so much worse." In 2008, I was planning on giving McCain a shot until he picked up Palin. What do you mean "source?" That 2008 election was retardedly hyped for the very reasons that I set forth. How can anyone forget it? It was a media and pop culture phenomenon. The republicans probably weren't going to win anyway with all of the electoral headwinds that they were facing that year. But you can't possibly overlook the fact that Obama was awarded a fucking Nobel Peace Prize on the merits of teleprompted speeches. Yes, he got a Nobel Peace Prize for talking about nuclear nonproliferation and now the DPRK has multiple bombs.
DPRK tested their first nuke in 2006 during the Bush2 administration, after he walked away from all the deals the Clinton administration had set up.
|
On May 19 2016 03:51 CannonsNCarriers wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2016 02:56 oBlade wrote:On May 19 2016 02:02 xDaunt wrote:On May 19 2016 01:28 ZasZ. wrote:On May 18 2016 23:53 xDaunt wrote:On May 18 2016 23:30 farvacola wrote: Asserting that a black president was elected by "a lot of white and black people" on the basis of race is just as superficial as voting for a president because of his race. Two of the biggest drivers of Obama's 2008 victory were his race and and his vacuous, soaring rhetoric. You're giving the voters a little too much credit. Source? I would think one of the biggest drivers of both his 2008 and 2012 victories were the Republicans putting up extraordinarily weak candidates along with a lunatic VP in 2008. For me personally, my decision was made for me in both years and I found myself saying "Obama is only OK, but jesus the Republicans are so much worse." In 2008, I was planning on giving McCain a shot until he picked up Palin. What do you mean "source?" That 2008 election was retardedly hyped for the very reasons that I set forth. How can anyone forget it? It was a media and pop culture phenomenon. The republicans probably weren't going to win anyway with all of the electoral headwinds that they were facing that year. But you can't possibly overlook the fact that Obama was awarded a fucking Nobel Peace Prize on the merits of teleprompted speeches. Yes, he got a Nobel Peace Prize for talking about nuclear nonproliferation and now the DPRK has multiple bombs. DPRK tested their first nuke in 2006 during the Bush2 administration, after he walked away from all the deals the Clinton administration had set up. The ongoing struggle of everything that was bad about the Bush administration somehow being connected to Obama. Just last week I talked to someone who blamed him for TARP and the poor response to Katrina.
|
On May 19 2016 03:38 Lord Tolkien wrote:http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/may/17/hillary-clinton-policy-donald-trump-attention-spanShow nested quote +In small groups, Hillary Clinton answers questions in perfect paragraphs, sometimes long ones. It can be a dazzling display. She is so prepared that she rarely needs a pause to think about what to say.
One aspect of her precision and careful phrasing, with nary a “like” or “you know” ever tumbling from her mouth, is that you need to listen hard to take it all in.
Clinton is definitely the candidate for voters with long attention spans.
That could be a challenge in a world where the human attention span has fallen to eight seconds, shorter than a goldfish, according to a recent Microsoft study.
At rallies, her studied speeches can drag on. In Kentucky last weekend, some of the school-age girls standing behind her with their Fighting for Us signs openly yawned or fiddled with their hair during the talk. One put her back to the audience to chat with a friend. Time described a recent stop at a Virginia bakery as “so boring that you could practically hear the muffins get crusty”.
As president, Bill Clinton, of course, was also famous for his long-winded, policy-rich speeches. But this was before the iPhone, Twitter, YouTube and Snapchat helped usher us into the age of distraction.
No one is better suited to these times than Donald Trump, the candidate of short attention spans.
Unlike Clinton, who often starves the press pack following her, Trump is constantly feeding them a 24-hour diet of delectable and irresistible snacks.
He almost always wins the morning. Then he orchestrates at least three or four “news events” a day. His Cinco De Mayo buffoonery – the tweet showing him eating his taco bowl and declaring “I love Hispanics” – kicked off one recent day.
Then came Paul Ryan’s announcement that he was not ready to support Trump and Trump’s immediate rejoinder that he was “not ready to support Speaker Ryan’s agenda”. Then he drew 12,000 people to a rally in West Virginia where he made the far-fetched promise “to put the miners back to work. We’re going to get those mines open!” Afterwards, there were pithy, quotable lashes at Hillary Clinton.
By generating so much “news”, Trump keeps the press in a reactive state. It’s head-spinning for reporters, unless they are the “chosen ones” he calls between stops. And some of their bosses don’t mind: Trump is traffic and ratings gold. In return, he gets more than a billion dollars in free media.
The hyping of stories, like the inconclusive meeting between Trump and Paul Ryan, only adds to the din of distraction. For efficiency’s sake, Politico’s Playbook has launched a feature called “The Daily Trump”, which aggregates many of the lesser stories about him.
There have been some long investigations recently that examined Trump’s past, including his apparent use of the false identity “John Miller”, which he denies, and his treatment of women. But to absorb these stories requires more than one swipe of the mobile screen. Then, in serial tweets, Trump blasted the unfair hit-jobs, reclaiming the headlines. With so many Americans reading with their thumbs, Trump’s advisers seem to believe he’s helped by any attention as long as you spell his name right.
Nate Silver studied the headlines over the nine months since Trump entered the race. He concluded: “With his ability to make news any time he wants with a tweet, news conference or conveniently placed leak, Trump has challenged news organizations’ editorial prerogative.”
Then he asked, “Should the press cover a candidate differently when he makes trolling the media an explicit part of his strategy, on the theory that some coverage is almost always better than none?”
It’s a dilemma. As the presumptive nominee of his party, the campaign press corps has to cover much of what he says and does. But his own background as an entertainer means that Trump makes the line between news and entertainment fuzzier than ever. He’s unbelievably clever at exploiting that.
Clinton, meanwhile, has all but disappeared from the coverage in recent days, except for a Washington Post front-page piece about her supporters worrying about how bad a campaigner she is. Her wariness of the media is well known. Although she’s made repeat appearances on shows anchored by favorites like NBC’s Andrea Mitchell and did a hilarious turn as Val the bartender on Saturday Night Live, she never seems like a natural.
Given that she is the long attention span candidate, it’s not surprising that she doesn’t have a memorable or catchy campaign slogan that sums up what she wants to change or do as president. Is it Hillary for America or Fighting for Us? I can’t remember (perhaps my withering attention span is to blame). It’s certainly nothing memorable like Making America Great Again, or Hope and Change, Morning in America, or even Bill’s It’s the Economy, Stupid.
The press, too, is bored with her. Some reporters have covered her since the Clintons arrived in the White House. Even if they have shorter attention spans, they have long memories. Revisiting Whitewater or watching reruns of the Benghazi hearings isn’t an exciting prospect.
The Clinton supporters I called last week sounded worried but resigned. Having been criticized for being inauthentic, she can only be who she is, they say: a sincere policy wonk who has the experience to be an excellent president, even if she’s a dull candidate. Compared to Trump, “She can never be entertaining in the same way,’’ one supporter noted.
Trump is the exploding watermelon of politics. Recently, 800,000 people, a record audience for Facebook Live, watched two employees of Buzzfeed wrap rubber bands around a watermelon to see how long it would take to explode (44 minutes, it turned out). One Buzzfeed editor said suspense was the key element of the experiment’s success. Trump builds the same kind of suspense: you never know what he might say.
It’s unclear whether the public, or for that matter any goldfish who cares to tune in, will find the spectacle entertaining or horrifying.
That's about as biased as you can get in an article lol.
If you want to blame anyone for Trump's rise, you can blame the media and their obsession with covering things they think will upset people. Without an article every other day about the outlandish things Trump was doing, he likely would have just been ignored.
|
On May 19 2016 03:54 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2016 03:51 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On May 19 2016 02:56 oBlade wrote:On May 19 2016 02:02 xDaunt wrote:On May 19 2016 01:28 ZasZ. wrote:On May 18 2016 23:53 xDaunt wrote:On May 18 2016 23:30 farvacola wrote: Asserting that a black president was elected by "a lot of white and black people" on the basis of race is just as superficial as voting for a president because of his race. Two of the biggest drivers of Obama's 2008 victory were his race and and his vacuous, soaring rhetoric. You're giving the voters a little too much credit. Source? I would think one of the biggest drivers of both his 2008 and 2012 victories were the Republicans putting up extraordinarily weak candidates along with a lunatic VP in 2008. For me personally, my decision was made for me in both years and I found myself saying "Obama is only OK, but jesus the Republicans are so much worse." In 2008, I was planning on giving McCain a shot until he picked up Palin. What do you mean "source?" That 2008 election was retardedly hyped for the very reasons that I set forth. How can anyone forget it? It was a media and pop culture phenomenon. The republicans probably weren't going to win anyway with all of the electoral headwinds that they were facing that year. But you can't possibly overlook the fact that Obama was awarded a fucking Nobel Peace Prize on the merits of teleprompted speeches. Yes, he got a Nobel Peace Prize for talking about nuclear nonproliferation and now the DPRK has multiple bombs. DPRK tested their first nuke in 2006 during the Bush2 administration, after he walked away from all the deals the Clinton administration had set up. The ongoing struggle of everything that was bad about the Bush administration somehow being connected to Obama. Just last week I talked to someone who blamed him for TARP and the poor response to Katrina.
Lol well that person sounds like an idiot.
|
On May 19 2016 03:51 CannonsNCarriers wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2016 02:56 oBlade wrote:On May 19 2016 02:02 xDaunt wrote:On May 19 2016 01:28 ZasZ. wrote:On May 18 2016 23:53 xDaunt wrote:On May 18 2016 23:30 farvacola wrote: Asserting that a black president was elected by "a lot of white and black people" on the basis of race is just as superficial as voting for a president because of his race. Two of the biggest drivers of Obama's 2008 victory were his race and and his vacuous, soaring rhetoric. You're giving the voters a little too much credit. Source? I would think one of the biggest drivers of both his 2008 and 2012 victories were the Republicans putting up extraordinarily weak candidates along with a lunatic VP in 2008. For me personally, my decision was made for me in both years and I found myself saying "Obama is only OK, but jesus the Republicans are so much worse." In 2008, I was planning on giving McCain a shot until he picked up Palin. What do you mean "source?" That 2008 election was retardedly hyped for the very reasons that I set forth. How can anyone forget it? It was a media and pop culture phenomenon. The republicans probably weren't going to win anyway with all of the electoral headwinds that they were facing that year. But you can't possibly overlook the fact that Obama was awarded a fucking Nobel Peace Prize on the merits of teleprompted speeches. Yes, he got a Nobel Peace Prize for talking about nuclear nonproliferation and now the DPRK has multiple bombs. DPRK tested their first nuke in 2006 during the Bush2 administration, after he walked away from all the deals the Clinton administration had set up. That would be a really sharp observation if George W. Bush had gotten a Nobel Peace Prize for nuclear nonproliferation just after being elected.
The Clinton administration is actually the reason we're in this shit to begin with because the US allowed Pakistan to develop nukes in the 90s which is where all our nuclear problems now come from. Anyway, it's been the Obama administration that has seen 1) the collapse of six-party talks 2) three DPRK nuclear tests and 3) slow buildup of warheads and ICBM technology.
|
On May 19 2016 04:05 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2016 03:51 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On May 19 2016 02:56 oBlade wrote:On May 19 2016 02:02 xDaunt wrote:On May 19 2016 01:28 ZasZ. wrote:On May 18 2016 23:53 xDaunt wrote:On May 18 2016 23:30 farvacola wrote: Asserting that a black president was elected by "a lot of white and black people" on the basis of race is just as superficial as voting for a president because of his race. Two of the biggest drivers of Obama's 2008 victory were his race and and his vacuous, soaring rhetoric. You're giving the voters a little too much credit. Source? I would think one of the biggest drivers of both his 2008 and 2012 victories were the Republicans putting up extraordinarily weak candidates along with a lunatic VP in 2008. For me personally, my decision was made for me in both years and I found myself saying "Obama is only OK, but jesus the Republicans are so much worse." In 2008, I was planning on giving McCain a shot until he picked up Palin. What do you mean "source?" That 2008 election was retardedly hyped for the very reasons that I set forth. How can anyone forget it? It was a media and pop culture phenomenon. The republicans probably weren't going to win anyway with all of the electoral headwinds that they were facing that year. But you can't possibly overlook the fact that Obama was awarded a fucking Nobel Peace Prize on the merits of teleprompted speeches. Yes, he got a Nobel Peace Prize for talking about nuclear nonproliferation and now the DPRK has multiple bombs. DPRK tested their first nuke in 2006 during the Bush2 administration, after he walked away from all the deals the Clinton administration had set up. That would be a really sharp observation if George W. Bush had gotten a Nobel Peace Prize for nuclear nonproliferation just after being elected. The Clinton administration is actually the reason we're in this shit to begin with because the US allowed Pakistan to develop nukes in the 90s which is where all our nuclear problems now come from. Anyway, it's been the Obama administration that has seen 1) the collapse of six-party talks 2) three DPRK nuclear tests and 3) slow buildup of warheads and ICBM technology.
No amount of spin will change that DPRK tested there first nuke 6 years into the Bush2 administration. After 6 years on the job, the President starts to become responsible for things under his purview (such as high level nuclear talks/negotiations/strategy).
EDIT: Contrast Bush2's lackadaisical failures to Clinton's Red Line incident:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0405.kaplan.html
"When their overtures to Richardson led nowhere, the North Koreans escalated tensions again. Over the next two weeks, U.S. spy satellites detected trucks pulling up to the site where the fuel rods were stored, then driving away toward the reprocessing facility. When Kim Il Sung threatened to take this step back in 1994, Clinton warned that it would cross a "red line." When Kim Jong-il actually did it in 2003, George W. Bush did nothing."
|
On May 19 2016 04:05 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2016 03:51 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On May 19 2016 02:56 oBlade wrote:On May 19 2016 02:02 xDaunt wrote:On May 19 2016 01:28 ZasZ. wrote:On May 18 2016 23:53 xDaunt wrote:On May 18 2016 23:30 farvacola wrote: Asserting that a black president was elected by "a lot of white and black people" on the basis of race is just as superficial as voting for a president because of his race. Two of the biggest drivers of Obama's 2008 victory were his race and and his vacuous, soaring rhetoric. You're giving the voters a little too much credit. Source? I would think one of the biggest drivers of both his 2008 and 2012 victories were the Republicans putting up extraordinarily weak candidates along with a lunatic VP in 2008. For me personally, my decision was made for me in both years and I found myself saying "Obama is only OK, but jesus the Republicans are so much worse." In 2008, I was planning on giving McCain a shot until he picked up Palin. What do you mean "source?" That 2008 election was retardedly hyped for the very reasons that I set forth. How can anyone forget it? It was a media and pop culture phenomenon. The republicans probably weren't going to win anyway with all of the electoral headwinds that they were facing that year. But you can't possibly overlook the fact that Obama was awarded a fucking Nobel Peace Prize on the merits of teleprompted speeches. Yes, he got a Nobel Peace Prize for talking about nuclear nonproliferation and now the DPRK has multiple bombs. DPRK tested their first nuke in 2006 during the Bush2 administration, after he walked away from all the deals the Clinton administration had set up. That would be a really sharp observation if George W. Bush had gotten a Nobel Peace Prize for nuclear nonproliferation just after being elected. The Clinton administration is actually the reason we're in this shit to begin with because the US allowed Pakistan to develop nukes in the 90s which is where all our nuclear problems now come from. Anyway, it's been the Obama administration that has seen 1) the collapse of six-party talks 2) three DPRK nuclear tests and 3) slow buildup of warheads and ICBM technology. So your saying Obama should have gone to war with China?
Because that is the only way your stopping North Korea.
|
|
|
|