EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 4569
| Forum Index > Closed |
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. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
Nakajin
Canada8989 Posts
On July 29 2016 12:01 GreenHorizons wrote: you have noticed they've been at strange times at least? Of course some people started screaming something else when Bernie supporter started to chant, they do it to, everyone want to pass their message. Doesn't mean it is a great conspiracy by the party to crush Sander supporter... | ||
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
On July 29 2016 12:04 Nakajin wrote: Of course some people started screaming something else when Bernie supporter started to chant, they do it to, everyone want to pass their message. Doesn't mean it is a great conspiracy by the party to crush Sander supporter... I'm all for it. It's completely reasonable. Much more reasonable and civil than taking their seats away. | ||
|
Introvert
United States4885 Posts
On July 29 2016 12:04 Slaughter wrote: Do women not vote in huge numbers? I just can't see Trump winning with just a good chunk of the white male vote and maaaybe slightly higher minority vote in some demos. Women seem to be so against him it's over before it started if they vote in large numbers. Then add in his large disadvantage with minorities and of course a good chunk of white males and I don't see him winning. Women were the majority of the voters in 2012, and probably 2008 as well. I'm sure before that, too. | ||
|
FiWiFaKi
Canada9859 Posts
On July 29 2016 12:04 LegalLord wrote: Hillary changes her opinion to track public opinion on most issues. Yes, that's why everything that Hillary says is empty words to me. Trump on the other hand gets asked about something he hasn't thought about enough, and gives some silly answer, but then sometimes goes back on it because he had time to reflect on it, and makes his new opinion clear. At least that's my perspective on it. His perspective on immigration, trade, social security, gun rights, ISIS, and tax reform has been consistent throughout. Trump also struggles as being a moderate on social policy, while his party is right, so he needs to balance that on stuff like abortion, even though he's pro-choice himself. | ||
|
FiWiFaKi
Canada9859 Posts
Cough cough, woman card. | ||
|
biology]major
United States2253 Posts
| ||
|
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
| ||
|
FiWiFaKi
Canada9859 Posts
That's exactly Trumps argument. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
GGTeMpLaR
United States7226 Posts
On July 29 2016 12:12 Nevuk wrote: I feel like she misunderstands that if you try to get everyone to like you then pretty much no one is going to This is the fatal flaw of her campaign | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
Lord Tolkien
United States12083 Posts
On July 29 2016 11:58 Nevuk wrote: You could say the same for what happens when in a 1v1 debate Trump tries to dodge a policy question by giving a bullshit answer and gets called out for it by her. They both have really obvious weak spots. Personally I think they'll both possibly look awful. On emails I'm curious to hear myself, DNC leaks so far it doesn't look like it was at her direct bidding so it's honestly not really going to matter (hiring DWS on the other hand is just... so.... so dumb) , Saudi donations it's not like she controls who donates to her. I'm pretty sure there's better issues than those three to hit her on besides the emails. For the most part, the emails are pretty inconsequential, and shows nothing that wasn't already known. The appointing of DWS as an honorary chairman of a parallel campaign was likely part of a bargain to get her to prematurely resign before the DNC, as most evidence points to her being highly resistant to leaving the position until after the convention. The optics on it are terrible, though, I agree, due to the timing of everything. As for the donations, it is marginally relevant, in the sense it creates a network of relationships as opposed to the money having any actual influence. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/jul/07/fact-checking-donations-clinton-foundation/ | ||
|
Nakajin
Canada8989 Posts
On July 29 2016 12:13 FiWiFaKi wrote: Dumbest argument ever, he's a business man, you expect to be profitable in the current system by making things in the USA? That's exactly Trumps argument. You can easily be profitable by making things in America, maybe not multi-billionaire profitable, but if you realy want to put America first you can do it and be very successful. | ||
|
oBlade
United States5823 Posts
| ||
|
GGTeMpLaR
United States7226 Posts
On July 29 2016 12:14 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Woah nervous look form her just then. It's the audience The Hillary chants are not timed at all to her speech and it's throwing her off | ||
|
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
On July 29 2016 12:03 FiWiFaKi wrote: Immigration and protectionism are the two big ones imo. The reason the mainstream parties doesn't court the voting public on these issues isn't because they aren't trying to solve them, it's because the problems are complex enough that solutions can't be compressed into sound bites that are likely to draw voters. They're complex problems that people literally spend their entire careers trying to unravel and trying to distill those into an "easy" answer that makes voters happy can only be populist pandering. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
On July 29 2016 12:16 TheYango wrote: The reason the mainstream doesn't court the voting public on these issues isn't because they aren't trying to solve them, it's because the problems are complex enough that solutions can't be compressed into sound bites that are likely to draw voters. They're complex problems that people literally spend their entire careers trying to unravel and trying to distill those into an "easy" answer that makes voters happy can only be populist pandering. Or as trump would say, the wall just got 10 ft higher | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
| ||
