US Politics Mega-thread - Page 4559

On July 29 2016 04:26 Doodsmack wrote:
And HE HAS NO PLAN! He doesn't even know about the issues! He can't even bother to memorize a good answer on an issue! Is this really the die you want to roll with our country? The president has a lot of power.

On July 29 2016 04:10 GGTeMpLaR wrote:


No I don't think that's how it will happen. At some point we'll need a serious overhaul of the system but it's already showing cracks in the foundations that need repairs (republicans blocking supreme court nominees, democrats rigging primaries, etc)



Oh I don't want anarchy to be sure

On July 29 2016 04:31 GGTeMpLaR wrote:


I've always found it naive to believe he literally has no plan

On July 29 2016 04:26 Gorsameth wrote:

Yeah sorry but no. The US is not turning into a dictatorship...
It is a very long process to subvert the system far enough to allow it to happen and while the US system has its problems it is a far cry from the dysfunction needed to allow a dictatorship.

On July 29 2016 04:31 GGTeMpLaR wrote:


I've always found it naive to believe he literally has no plan

On July 29 2016 04:26 Doodsmack wrote:
And HE HAS NO PLAN! He doesn't even know about the issues! He can't even bother to memorize a good answer on an issue! Is this really the die you want to roll with our country? The president has a lot of power.

On July 29 2016 04:33 Mohdoo wrote:

You don't want anarchy, but you describe a whole new transformation. How? It really feels like you are just frustrated and want something to finally be amazing and you see complete collapse as somehow being a pathway to that? You just come across as not respecting or appreciating what it takes to make a government. If trump ended up being a total disaster, it wouldn't mean a cultural rebirth where money leaves politics, religion stips playing s role, districting it done methodically and without any partisan plays.

Point me towards the kind of thing you are hoping happens. I don't understand this imaginary rebirth process you are describing. It feels entirely fabricated snd wildly unrealistic.

On July 29 2016 04:39 zeo wrote:

If you look into your heart you will see that you know more about Trump's policies than Clinton's. When you turn on the TV you hope a Trump interview comes up, when you open up a webpage you hope to see some other thing Trump has said while your mouse lazily skips over a Clinton article to get to the Trump one. When someone mentions the elections your first thoughts are of Trump.

On July 29 2016 04:12 biology]major wrote:

My assessment of him is he approaches everything as a negotiation. So he sells a crazy idea that accomplished two things: it get's him attention and airtime while also giving him a powerful position to bargain from. He might not be putting much thought into his actions as it comes naturally to him. Worst case scenario is he turns out to be a bad president, idc I'm a conservative anyways and will take the chance

On July 29 2016 04:42 Doodsmack wrote:


This paragraph has 3 sentences. The second two do not provide any support for the first.

On July 29 2016 04:47 zeo wrote:

Meh, I don't know why you can't admit to yourself that you know more about Trump's campaign than you do about Hillary's.

On July 29 2016 03:52 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
I want to ask LegalLord/xDaunt/other Trump voters what they made of the AMA yesterday?

It's made me seriously reconsider the degree to which Trump is running a con campaign play for power.

Which leaves Hillary's play for power backed by the establishment vs Trump's play for power backed by a guerrilla populist campaign

And there's like no point even talking or learning about anyone else because Stein and Johnson don't even have a chance

edit - and while I think Obama is a great orator who didn't do a terrible job in the oval office, I'm largely dismayed by how people seem to be chugging what he's selling like coolaid in that speech

On July 29 2016 04:53 Sermokala wrote:

The AMA was a huge success for Trump and his supporters. Lets ignore the actual answers given because they don't actually matter. The trump campaign if nothing else has shown actual content doesn't matter if you can make an event out of the matter. And as an event the AMA was a huge success. They dumped a ton of reddit gold and created a story how it broke the reddit gold record. They got a story about how reddit interfered with their algorithm in order to keep it off the front page. They got a story about how their opposition on reddit is on the same level morally as them. They have a story about how the ama triggered a larger number of active subscribers watching then the Hillary subredits even have total subscribers.

At the end of the campaign a close race is decided on the turnout and the motivation of the supporters. And stuff like this is exactly what will win an election.

On July 29 2016 04:49 Plansix wrote:

Likely because it isn't true.

On July 29 2016 04:53 Sermokala wrote:

The AMA was a huge success for Trump and his supporters. Lets ignore the actual answers given because they don't actually matter. The trump campaign if nothing else has shown actual content doesn't matter if you can make an event out of the matter. And as an event the AMA was a huge success. They dumped a ton of reddit gold and created a story how it broke the reddit gold record. They got a story about how reddit interfered with their algorithm in order to keep it off the front page. They got a story about how their opposition on reddit is on the same level morally as them. They have a story about how the ama triggered a larger number of active subscribers watching then the Hillary subredits even have total subscribers.

At the end of the campaign a close race is decided on the turnout and the motivation of the supporters. And stuff like this is exactly what will win an election.

On July 29 2016 05:01 zeo wrote:

Out of his last 45 posts: 35 have been about Trump, 3 about Hillary and the rest can't be categorized between the two.

Of course someone with TL+ could go through more but this is just a rough overview.

Debbie Wasserman Schultz wasn’t supposed to ask Joe Biden to come to her daughter’s bat mitzvah.

Democratic National Committee staff had sent the chair to the vice president armed with four specific requests for getting him involved in raising money for the party.

She decided to scrap them for two of her own.

First, she asked Biden to do a fundraiser for her own reelection to her House seat in Florida in the primary challenge she’s facing next month. He agreed.

The second was to get down to Boca Raton for the bat mitzvah.

Biden’s staff balked. They offered to tape a video message from him instead, hoping that would satisfy her.
Wasserman Schultz eagerly said yes. They played it for everyone who came.

The meeting with Biden was symptomatic of the way the DNC was veering off the rails just as the presidential election was heating up. More than a dozen people inside the party apparatus, speaking in the wake of Wasserman Schultz’s resignation on Sunday, describe an internal culture in which few felt they could challenge an increasingly imperious and politically tone-deaf chair who often put her own interests ahead of party functions.

Last week’s WikiLeaks dump, releasing thousands of emails showing DNC officials sparring with Bernie Sanders supporters and with one another, was what finally got Hillary Clinton’s top aides to force her out Sunday on the eve of the convention.

Now, all DNC senior staffers seem to believe they’re on the verge of being fired — and that’s before the next WikiLeaks release, which many fear is coming within days, and which DNC lawyers are bracing for. Several staff members have already been asked to prepare statements about their departures.

Staff members were briefed in a Tuesday afternoon meeting in Washington that their personal data was part of the hack, as were Social Security numbers and other information for donors, according to people who attended. Don’t search WikiLeaks, they were told — malware is embedded throughout the site, and they’re looking for more data.

This was all done to influence the 2016 election, they were told.