• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 04:20
CEST 10:20
KST 17:20
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
Power Rank - Esports World Cup 202550RSL Season 1 - Final Week9[ASL19] Finals Recap: Standing Tall15HomeStory Cup 27 - Info & Preview18Classic wins Code S Season 2 (2025)16
Community News
BSL Team Wars - Bonyth, Dewalt, Hawk & Sziky teams4Weekly Cups (July 14-20): Final Check-up0Esports World Cup 2025 - Brackets Revealed19Weekly Cups (July 7-13): Classic continues to roll8Team TLMC #5 - Submission re-extension4
StarCraft 2
General
Power Rank - Esports World Cup 2025 RSL Revival patreon money discussion thread Jim claims he and Firefly were involved in match-fixing RSL Season 1 - Final Week The GOAT ranking of GOAT rankings
Tourneys
Esports World Cup 2025 Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament Sea Duckling Open (Global, Bronze-Diamond) FEL Cracov 2025 (July 27) - $8000 live event RSL: Revival, a new crowdfunded tournament series
Strategy
How did i lose this ZvP, whats the proper response
Custom Maps
External Content
Mutation #239 Bad Weather Mutation # 483 Kill Bot Wars Mutation # 482 Wheel of Misfortune Mutation # 481 Fear and Lava
Brood War
General
BW General Discussion ASL20 Preliminary Maps Ginuda's JaeDong Interview Series BGH Auto Balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/ [Update] ShieldBattery: 1v1 Fastest Support!
Tourneys
CSL Xiamen International Invitational [Megathread] Daily Proleagues [CSLPRO] It's CSLAN Season! - Last Chance [BSL 2v2] ProLeague Season 3 - Friday 21:00 CET
Strategy
Simple Questions, Simple Answers I am doing this better than progamers do.
Other Games
General Games
Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Nintendo Switch Thread [MMORPG] Tree of Savior (Successor of Ragnarok) Path of Exile CCLP - Command & Conquer League Project
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion
League of Legends
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Community Thread Vanilla Mini Mafia
Community
General
US Politics Mega-thread Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine Russo-Ukrainian War Thread The Games Industry And ATVI Stop Killing Games - European Citizens Initiative
Fan Clubs
SKT1 Classic Fan Club! Maru Fan Club
Media & Entertainment
[\m/] Heavy Metal Thread Anime Discussion Thread Movie Discussion! [Manga] One Piece Korean Music Discussion
Sports
2024 - 2025 Football Thread Formula 1 Discussion TeamLiquid Health and Fitness Initiative For 2023 NBA General Discussion
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Installation of Windows 10 suck at "just a moment" Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
The Automated Ban List
Blogs
Ping To Win? Pings And Their…
TrAiDoS
momentary artworks from des…
tankgirl
from making sc maps to makin…
Husyelt
StarCraft improvement
iopq
Socialism Anyone?
GreenHorizons
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 646 users

US Politics Mega-thread - Page 3843

Forum Index > Closed
Post a Reply
Prev 1 3841 3842 3843 3844 3845 10093 Next
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.
Plansix
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States60190 Posts
May 18 2016 19:13 GMT
#76841
On May 19 2016 04:04 SolaR- wrote:
Show nested quote +
On May 19 2016 03:54 Plansix wrote:
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.

They were not super well informed and they did not like me raining on their Obama hate session. They brought up pulling troops out of Iraq, which I had to remind them was an agreement created by Bush. I should have told them to blame him the ACA website, but they were already pretty grump by that point.
I have the Honor to be your Obedient Servant, P.6
TL+ Member
oBlade
Profile Blog Joined December 2008
United States5582 Posts
May 18 2016 19:15 GMT
#76842
On May 19 2016 04:10 Gorsameth wrote:
Show nested quote +
On May 19 2016 04:05 oBlade wrote:
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.

Yeah, that's exactly what I'm saying, obviously I support world war if I'm critical of the president.
"I read it. You know how to read, you ignorant fuck?" - Andy Dufresne
Gorsameth
Profile Joined April 2010
Netherlands21666 Posts
May 18 2016 19:17 GMT
#76843
On May 19 2016 04:15 oBlade wrote:
Show nested quote +
On May 19 2016 04:10 Gorsameth wrote:
On May 19 2016 04:05 oBlade wrote:
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.

Yeah, that's exactly what I'm saying, obviously I support world war if I'm critical of the president.

So please. enlighten me on what Obama should have done differently.
It ignores such insignificant forces as time, entropy, and death
GreenHorizons
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States23221 Posts
May 18 2016 19:20 GMT
#76844
On May 19 2016 03:46 Mohdoo wrote:
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.


That's presuming Hillary wins any/a significant amount of states in a 3 way general election race. I'd be curious which states you think those are. Because you don't need 50.1% in a particular state just to win 50.1% of the electoral college votes. They each have ~1/3 of the electorate (maybe Bernie's third is the smallest), with people having a visceral hate for two of them Bernie would be a natural option, even if people don't like/agree with him, he'd be the only one they don't have a guttural and longstanding hate for.

Even with her winning some, you can map out a path for Bernie to get to 270 in a three way race. There should absolutely be some general election polling out of what a 3 way race would look like. With the likely nominees being the least liked nominees in modern history there's never been a better time to run an independent campaign so not polling what it would look like is borderline malpractice. .
"People like to look at history and think 'If that was me back then, I would have...' We're living through history, and the truth is, whatever you are doing now is probably what you would have done then" "Scratch a Liberal..."
Lord Tolkien
Profile Joined November 2012
United States12083 Posts
May 18 2016 19:21 GMT
#76845
On May 19 2016 03:58 killa_robot wrote:
Show nested quote +
On May 19 2016 03:38 Lord Tolkien wrote:
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.


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.

...how so?

Keeping in mind that this is Jill Abramson, someone who's investigated and covered the Clintons as a reporter and a former editor since Whitewater, I'm not sure how you'd accuse her of bias here, especially since your followup is essentially the short of what she's written.
"His father is pretty juicy tbh." ~WaveofShadow
Gorsameth
Profile Joined April 2010
Netherlands21666 Posts
May 18 2016 19:23 GMT
#76846
On May 19 2016 04:20 GreenHorizons wrote:
Show nested quote +
On May 19 2016 03:46 Mohdoo wrote:
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.


That's presuming Hillary wins any/a significant amount of states in a 3 way general election race. I'd be curious which states you think those are. Because you don't need 50.1% in a particular state just to win 50.1% of the electoral college votes. They each have ~1/3 of the electorate (maybe Bernie's third is the smallest), with people having a visceral hate for two of them Bernie would be a natural option, even if people don't like/agree with him, he'd be the only one they don't have a guttural and longstanding hate for.

Even with her winning some, you can map out a path for Bernie to get to 270 in a three way race. There should absolutely be some general election polling out of what a 3 way race would look like. With the likely nominees being the least liked nominees in modern history there's never been a better time to run an independent campaign so not polling what it would look like is borderline malpractice. .

hahahahahahahahahahahahah

Your telling me that even tho Bernie could not win the Democratic primary he can win a general election as a 3e party candidate?

I'm sorry but you lost touch with reality a long long time ago.
It ignores such insignificant forces as time, entropy, and death
Plansix
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States60190 Posts
May 18 2016 19:26 GMT
#76847
On May 19 2016 04:21 Lord Tolkien wrote:
Show nested quote +
On May 19 2016 03:58 killa_robot wrote:
On May 19 2016 03:38 Lord Tolkien wrote:
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.


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.

...how so?

Keeping in mind that this is Jill Abramson, someone who's investigated and covered the Clintons as a reporter and a former editor since Whitewater, I'm not sure how you'd accuse her of bias here, especially since your followup is essentially the short of what she's written.

I think the main problem with the article is that it assumes that making headlines constantly is both good, and something that a candidate should be trying to obtain. And that the click, view driven media something Clinton should cater to. I am not convinced of any of this either.

The press being bored says more about the press and the quality of their coverage lately. Politics should not be reality TV or youtube reaction videos.
I have the Honor to be your Obedient Servant, P.6
TL+ Member
SolaR-
Profile Blog Joined February 2004
United States2685 Posts
May 18 2016 19:28 GMT
#76848
If bernie ran third party, i would be curious as to who would fund his campaign.
Lord Tolkien
Profile Joined November 2012
United States12083 Posts
Last Edited: 2016-05-18 19:40:40
May 18 2016 19:31 GMT
#76849
The only use of a Sanders 3rd party campaign would be to probably win the election for Trump.

Sanders cannot mount a serious 3rd party challenge to win the presidency between:

1) his campaign hemorrhaging staff, at present, and running short on funds (even without considering the constant FEC violations)

2) the large numbers of Sanders supporters who will not follow him into a 3rd party run when he loses

3) his only positive demographic in a GE match-up sans the Democratic coalition (which, by in large, has voted for Clinton), predominantly white millennials, is extraordinarily fickle, even in comparison to minority millennials. Just look at 2012 demographic voting patterns (less white millennials voting, while a historic amount of minority millennials voting; incidentally Romney also carried the former demographic, while Obama's victory in the millennial category was heavily carried by the latter)

On May 19 2016 04:26 Plansix wrote:
Show nested quote +
On May 19 2016 04:21 Lord Tolkien wrote:
On May 19 2016 03:58 killa_robot wrote:
On May 19 2016 03:38 Lord Tolkien wrote:
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.


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.

...how so?

Keeping in mind that this is Jill Abramson, someone who's investigated and covered the Clintons as a reporter and a former editor since Whitewater, I'm not sure how you'd accuse her of bias here, especially since your followup is essentially the short of what she's written.

I think the main problem with the article is that it assumes that making headlines constantly is both good, and something that a candidate should be trying to obtain. And that the click, view driven media something Clinton should cater to. I am not convinced of any of this either.

The press being bored says more about the press and the quality of their coverage lately. Politics should not be reality TV or youtube reaction videos.

The article is abit more nuanced than that. Her point is that this is the concept and driving force behind the Trump campaign, and it's succeeded beyond all expectations in the Republicans primary, and that this gives the Trump campaign a great deal of free advertisement and control over the media (for instance he can say something about building an aqueduct between the US and Timbuktu, and making us pay for it, and the media would report it and attempt to debate the merits of the plan).

In comparison, the Clinton campaign doesn't have nearly the same amount of media influence via headlines as does the Trump campaign at present, and in the eyes of the average voter, which on average has incredibly short attention spans, Clinton's policy speeches and proposals are boring.

As a policy wonk, I would prefer she didn't water down her message either. Nonetheless, it's a valid concern to highlight, especially considering the relative dearth of media coverage of Clinton in comparison to Trump (unless it's right wing hit pieces)..
"His father is pretty juicy tbh." ~WaveofShadow
Liquid`Drone
Profile Joined September 2002
Norway28665 Posts
May 18 2016 19:42 GMT
#76850
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.


Meh, he was mostly given the peace prize on the merit of not being George Bush / random republican hawk. (For the record, I absolutely agree that giving him the peace prize was completely ridiculous, and while the peace prize is certainly political in nature, it is not supposed to be partisan. This was basically an attempt at telling american unilateralists to go fuck themselves, but even europeans who shared in the desire to tell american unilateralists to go fuck themselves thought it was just downright stupid. )
Moderator
Plansix
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States60190 Posts
May 18 2016 19:45 GMT
#76851
Trump polled well for a long time, even early on. But people bent over backwards to justify why it wasn’t going to translate into votes. Those people now admit they misread the data and the party at the time.

And we have discussed previously that the voters who decide elections do not follow the political theater. People hate how longer this primary death march is. The millions of voters who care about elections will tune in when the political WWE gets on the real elections.

As with last election, hardcore politics super fans develop this case of tunnel vision around this time.
I have the Honor to be your Obedient Servant, P.6
TL+ Member
darthfoley
Profile Blog Joined February 2011
United States8003 Posts
May 18 2016 19:46 GMT
#76852
I'd be interested to see 3 way Sanders v Trump v Clinton polling just out of curiosity.
watch the wall collide with my fist, mostly over problems that i know i should fix
cLutZ
Profile Joined November 2010
United States19574 Posts
May 18 2016 19:49 GMT
#76853
On May 19 2016 04:28 SolaR- wrote:
If bernie ran third party, i would be curious as to who would fund his campaign.

Phonebanks.


Freeeeeeedom
hunts
Profile Joined September 2010
United States2113 Posts
May 18 2016 19:59 GMT
#76854
LMFAO sanders as 3rd party presidential run, that's a good one. I'm sure no one would get tired about hearing of all the politicians sanders' campaign would be sending death threats to all the way until the election.
twitch.tv/huntstv 7x legend streamer
zlefin
Profile Blog Joined October 2012
United States7689 Posts
May 18 2016 20:20 GMT
#76855
On May 19 2016 01:35 Plansix wrote:
In theory, congress should be handling a lot of these issues. But congress isn’t functioning and hasn’t for about 8 years. Which is part of how government works and why we have elections. Hopefully the next congress will remove some of the rules put in place to allow the majority party to grid lock the entire systems.

while they should be; it's also the case that the world has gotten so complicated; and the number of issues to dael with so vast; that congress cannot effectively handle all of them. Having subordinate systems is useful to handle the smaller details; it'd also help with the proliferation of overly long texty bills. So it seems fair for the legislature to have some subordinate bodies.
Great read: http://shorensteincenter.org/news-coverage-2016-general-election/ great book on democracy: http://press.princeton.edu/titles/10671.html zlefin is grumpier due to long term illness. Ignoring some users.
SK.Testie
Profile Blog Joined January 2007
Canada11084 Posts
May 18 2016 21:30 GMT
#76856
Sanders has already touted the line that if he loses he will back Hillary. Is there new information stating otherwise? He's already said in an interview, "should I lose the nomination, I will campaign to beat Donald Trump".
Social Justice is a fools errand. May all the adherents at its church be thwarted. Of all the religions I have come across, it is by far the most detestable.
CannonsNCarriers
Profile Joined April 2010
United States638 Posts
May 18 2016 21:33 GMT
#76857
On May 19 2016 06:30 SK.Testie wrote:
Sanders has already touted the line that if he loses he will back Hillary. Is there new information stating otherwise? He's already said in an interview, "should I lose the nomination, I will campaign to beat Donald Trump".


You could drive an entire Independent Presidential Candidate Bus through the loopholes in that quote.
Dun tuch my cheezbrgr
Plansix
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States60190 Posts
May 18 2016 21:35 GMT
#76858
On May 19 2016 06:33 CannonsNCarriers wrote:
Show nested quote +
On May 19 2016 06:30 SK.Testie wrote:
Sanders has already touted the line that if he loses he will back Hillary. Is there new information stating otherwise? He's already said in an interview, "should I lose the nomination, I will campaign to beat Donald Trump".


You could drive an entire Independent Presidential Candidate Bus through the loopholes in that quote.

Bernie is a crazy old man, but I don’t think he is that big of a loon. He knows what happens to his support when he tries to run against the popular vote.
I have the Honor to be your Obedient Servant, P.6
TL+ Member
Ravianna26
Profile Joined March 2013
United States44 Posts
May 18 2016 21:38 GMT
#76859
On May 19 2016 06:30 SK.Testie wrote:
Sanders has already touted the line that if he loses he will back Hillary. Is there new information stating otherwise? He's already said in an interview, "should I lose the nomination, I will campaign to beat Donald Trump".


No surprise. Hillary wants to turn the federal government into a wing of the DNC and Sanders has pretty much always sided with the Democrats.
CannonsNCarriers
Profile Joined April 2010
United States638 Posts
May 18 2016 21:42 GMT
#76860
On May 19 2016 06:35 Plansix wrote:
Show nested quote +
On May 19 2016 06:33 CannonsNCarriers wrote:
On May 19 2016 06:30 SK.Testie wrote:
Sanders has already touted the line that if he loses he will back Hillary. Is there new information stating otherwise? He's already said in an interview, "should I lose the nomination, I will campaign to beat Donald Trump".


You could drive an entire Independent Presidential Candidate Bus through the loopholes in that quote.

Bernie is a crazy old man, but I don’t think he is that big of a loon. He knows what happens to his support when he tries to run against the popular vote.


He lost Nevada by 5% and his goons tried to riot in order to get Bernie more delegates than Hillary. Two weeks ago, yeah, I agree, Bernie isn't that much of a loon. The Nevada state level caucus riot has changed my perceptions about how much Bernie respects the process.
Dun tuch my cheezbrgr
Prev 1 3841 3842 3843 3844 3845 10093 Next
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
Next event in 1h 40m
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft: Brood War
firebathero 1521
Hyuk 357
Leta 285
ToSsGirL 187
Zeus 127
Dewaltoss 118
JulyZerg 62
sorry 56
Sacsri 36
soO 30
[ Show more ]
ajuk12(nOOB) 25
NaDa 24
ivOry 1
Britney 0
Dota 2
XcaliburYe216
BananaSlamJamma155
Counter-Strike
Stewie2K572
Other Games
ceh9605
Happy167
Fuzer 107
SortOf99
Organizations
Other Games
gamesdonequick1246
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 14 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• Sammyuel 44
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• intothetv
• Kozan
• IndyKCrew
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• Migwel
• sooper7s
StarCraft: Brood War
• iopq 5
• BSLYoutube
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
League of Legends
• Stunt736
Other Games
• WagamamaTV164
Upcoming Events
Esports World Cup
1h 40m
Reynor vs Zoun
Solar vs SHIN
Classic vs ShoWTimE
Cure vs Rogue
Esports World Cup
1d 2h
OSC
1d 5h
CranKy Ducklings
2 days
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
2 days
CSO Cup
2 days
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
2 days
Bonyth vs Sziky
Dewalt vs Hawk
Hawk vs QiaoGege
Sziky vs Dewalt
Mihu vs Bonyth
Zhanhun vs QiaoGege
QiaoGege vs Fengzi
FEL
3 days
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
3 days
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
3 days
Bonyth vs Zhanhun
Dewalt vs Mihu
Hawk vs Sziky
Sziky vs QiaoGege
Mihu vs Hawk
Zhanhun vs Dewalt
Fengzi vs Bonyth
[ Show More ]
Sparkling Tuna Cup
5 days
Online Event
5 days
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

CSL Xiamen Invitational
Championship of Russia 2025
Murky Cup #2

Ongoing

Copa Latinoamericana 4
Jiahua Invitational
BSL20 Non-Korean Championship
Esports World Cup 2025
CC Div. A S7
Underdog Cup #2
IEM Cologne 2025
FISSURE Playground #1
BLAST.tv Austin Major 2025
ESL Impact League Season 7
IEM Dallas 2025
PGL Astana 2025
Asian Champions League '25

Upcoming

CSLPRO Last Chance 2025
ASL Season 20: Qualifier #1
ASL Season 20: Qualifier #2
ASL Season 20
CSLPRO Chat StarLAN 3
BSL Season 21
RSL Revival: Season 2
Maestros of the Game
SEL Season 2 Championship
uThermal 2v2 Main Event
FEL Cracov 2025
HCC Europe
ESL Pro League S22
StarSeries Fall 2025
FISSURE Playground #2
BLAST Open Fall 2025
BLAST Open Fall Qual
Esports World Cup 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall Qual
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.