|
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 August 01 2016 22:56 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2016 22:52 TheTenthDoc wrote:On August 01 2016 22:49 xDaunt wrote:On August 01 2016 22:43 Toadesstern wrote:On August 01 2016 22:35 GoTuNk! wrote:
So I tried to read up on what Khan/Trump actually said.. and Humayun Khan died in 2004.
So basically the parents stood in the DNC 12 years later saying Trump hasn't read the constitution and that his son would have never fought to defend the U.S. if he was president. I can't find the actual quote so if someone has it I'll replace it in.
Trump's reply was:
"Captain Humayun Khan was a hero to our country and we should honour all who have made the ultimate sacrifice to keep our country safe," he said.
"The real problem here are the radical Islamic terrorists who killed him, and the efforts of these radicals to enter our country to do us further harm."
But Mr Trump rejected Mr Khan's criticism.
"While I feel deeply for the loss of his son, Mr Khan, who has never met me, has no right to stand in front of millions of people and claim I have never read the Constitution, (which is false) and say many other inaccurate things," he said.
I honestly don't see how this is so terrible to say. Did I miss something? the whole part where he was "mocking" the parents by claiming that maybe the mother didn't say anythign on stage because the dad wouldn't allow her to talk It's a good line. But hey, if the parents are going to be political shills and attack Trump, then they're fair game for comment. And if he's willing to fall for their bait his stupid poorly-thought through comments are fair game too. I cannot emphasize enough how bizarre it is to leverage the media's fixation on you by making extreme comments then complain that they take chunks out of your extreme comments that make you look bad. This has been the crux of Trump's strategy. How many of these little tempest in a teapotstories have there been so far? And which of them made a damn bit of difference at stopping the Trump Train?
Cognitive dissonance overwhelming
The mother attack was not a "good line".
The Trump Train is mainly composed of primary supporters.
|
“In recent days, Donald Trump disparaged a fallen soldier’s parents...He has suggested that the likes of their son should not be allowed in the United States — to say nothing of entering its service. I cannot emphasize enough how deeply I disagree with Mr. Trump’s statement. I hope Americans understand that the remarks do not represent the views of our Republican Party, its officers, or candidates.”
- J. McCain, 8/1/16
At some point Trump supporters, if they're honest, will admit that it's not a media tempest, it's Trump's own words.
|
On August 01 2016 22:56 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2016 22:52 TheTenthDoc wrote:On August 01 2016 22:49 xDaunt wrote:On August 01 2016 22:43 Toadesstern wrote:On August 01 2016 22:35 GoTuNk! wrote:
So I tried to read up on what Khan/Trump actually said.. and Humayun Khan died in 2004.
So basically the parents stood in the DNC 12 years later saying Trump hasn't read the constitution and that his son would have never fought to defend the U.S. if he was president. I can't find the actual quote so if someone has it I'll replace it in.
Trump's reply was:
"Captain Humayun Khan was a hero to our country and we should honour all who have made the ultimate sacrifice to keep our country safe," he said.
"The real problem here are the radical Islamic terrorists who killed him, and the efforts of these radicals to enter our country to do us further harm."
But Mr Trump rejected Mr Khan's criticism.
"While I feel deeply for the loss of his son, Mr Khan, who has never met me, has no right to stand in front of millions of people and claim I have never read the Constitution, (which is false) and say many other inaccurate things," he said.
I honestly don't see how this is so terrible to say. Did I miss something? the whole part where he was "mocking" the parents by claiming that maybe the mother didn't say anythign on stage because the dad wouldn't allow her to talk It's a good line. But hey, if the parents are going to be political shills and attack Trump, then they're fair game for comment. And if he's willing to fall for their bait his stupid poorly-thought through comments are fair game too. I cannot emphasize enough how bizarre it is to leverage the media's fixation on you by making extreme comments then complain that they take chunks out of your extreme comments that make you look bad. This has been the crux of Trump's strategy. How many of these little tempest in a teapot stories have there been so far? And which of them made a damn bit of difference at stopping the Trump Train?
Oh, I don't think it will make a difference. I just think it's weird that anyone is thinking "poor poor Trump being besieged by the MSM" when it's almost certainly a deliberate strategy on his part, and find his whining about it pretty annoying.
Like, don't complain about a liberal echo chamber disliking you when you're dropping big "fuck yous" into your speeches just to get the echo going.
|
The only division in the democratic party is a result of people who normally vote green party deciding the democrats finally had someone extreme enough for them. These people then went on to subscribe to conspiracy theories and yell during the convention. These people left the party, as they were bound to do from day 1, and life goes on. That's a very different thing from living presidents not attending the convention. Especially not the most recent one...
|
On August 01 2016 23:12 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2016 23:09 GoTuNk! wrote:On August 01 2016 23:04 farvacola wrote:I mean, great, the more dissonance there is among Republicans, the better chances down ticket Democrats have. Keep calling each other unprincipled pussies  Still not as divided as the democrats. Trump hasn't even played the "unity" card yet. To which degree I'm not certain off, but a best case scenario of Cruz/Mc. Cain and Trump holding hands on a stage calling everyone to vote and support the party would crush Hillary's machinery who is out of ammo. Remind me again which of Cruz and Sanders has already endorsed their party's winning nominee?
Did you see Bernie's face when Clinton was talking about him during the convention. That didn't look like the face of someone who supported her in any way beyond nominally..
On August 01 2016 23:43 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2016 23:09 GoTuNk! wrote:On August 01 2016 23:04 farvacola wrote:I mean, great, the more dissonance there is among Republicans, the better chances down ticket Democrats have. Keep calling each other unprincipled pussies Still not as divided as the democrats. Trump hasn't even played the "unity" card yet. To which degree I'm not certain off, but a best case scenario of Cruz/Mc. Cain and Trump holding hands on a stage calling everyone to vote and support the party would crush Hillary's machinery who is out of ammo. Republicans look more divided to me. How are you measuring the level of division?
I presume by looking past propaganda headlines like these:
90 percent of unwavering Sanders supporters plan to vote for Clinton in November
source
On August 01 2016 23:59 Mohdoo wrote:
The only division in the democratic party is a result of people who normally vote green party deciding the democrats finally had someone extreme enough for them. These people then went on to subscribe to conspiracy theories and yell during the convention. These people left the party, as they were bound to do from day 1, and life goes on. That's a very different thing from living presidents not attending the convention. Especially not the most recent one...
While there were large swaths of voters outside of the democratic party that supported Sanders, you're misinformed if you are under the impression that's the entirety of who is fed up with the democratic party.
While there might have been some conspiracy theories, there were also multiple instances of Hillary lying, her team manipulating results, breaking of election laws, breaking of voting rules, irreconcilable differences in exit polling vs results in states without paper trails, and the list goes on and on right through not letting Nina nominate Bernie.
Also many of the people protesting are not in fact leaving the party, but may not vote along party lines and plan to take over the party from the bottom up.
What democrats seem to refuse to understand, is that not having the Bush's on his side is one of Trump's selling points, not a mark against him.
|
Canada11398 Posts
On August 01 2016 23:00 Nevuk wrote:
For reference, Trump is being backed up on this by Roger Stone and some conspiracy websites :
Well, neat. He has Christian Jihadists defending him. The Shoebats have been clamouring for another round of Crusades against Islam- and the Eastern Orthodox Church will be ascendant when Russia become the new conquering Constantine or Justinian on behalf of Christianity.
|
Nobody has to try and decipher the meaning behind the face Sanders was making because he gave a very clear endorsement speech.
|
On August 02 2016 01:48 Falling wrote:Well, neat. He has Christian Jihadists defending him. The Shoebats have been clamouring for another round of Crusades against Islam- and the Eastern Orthodox Church will be ascendant when Russia become the new conquering Constantine or Justinian on behalf of Christianity.
Is it true that this guy is for shariah law, as it is stated in this article ? If it is, what a stupidity.
|
On August 02 2016 01:58 CobaltBlu wrote:
Nobody has to try and decipher the meaning behind the face Sanders was making because he gave a very clear endorsement speech.
Also he seems to have a grumpy face by default. But there will always be be people saying "he didn't really mean it, he was forced to by the DNC," blah blah blah. Because taking people at their word isn't something you do if they are saying what you don't want to hear.
|
On August 01 2016 23:59 Mohdoo wrote:
The only division in the democratic party is a result of people who normally vote green party deciding the democrats finally had someone extreme enough for them. These people then went on to subscribe to conspiracy theories and yell during the convention. These people left the party, as they were bound to do from day 1, and life goes on. That's a very different thing from living presidents not attending the convention. Especially not the most recent one...
I don't know a single Bernie supporter who came from the green party. All the ones I know personally, which is quite a few, were democrats previously who got tired of promises never delivered and a party that keeps shifting more and more right. They finally had an actual liberal candidate to vote for. They didn't suddenly appear, they were always here they were just sick of the bullshit. But chalk them up to the green party I guess.
|
On August 02 2016 02:01 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2016 01:58 CobaltBlu wrote:
Nobody has to try and decipher the meaning behind the face Sanders was making because he gave a very clear endorsement speech. Also he seems to have a grumpy face by default. But there will always be be people saying "he didn't really mean it, he was forced to by the DNC," blah blah blah. Because taking people at their word isn't something you do if they are saying what you don't want to hear.
No, he doesn't support Clinton in any way beyond not wanting Trump and he thinks the only way to prevent Trump is to support Clinton. That's very different than endorsing her because she's a good candidate.
If he thought a third party candidacy (Jill and Nina) could win he wouldn't be endorsing Clinton. It's a different calculation for him than it is for voters, he will be totally powerless without support from the establishment, whereas voters will get more powerful after 4 years of Trump if he's anything like Hillary and friends paint him as.
I'm honestly impressed at the level of denial going on in the Democratic party, on the bright side, it makes it very easy not to support them as a party.
|
On August 02 2016 02:02 OuchyDathurts wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2016 23:59 Mohdoo wrote:
The only division in the democratic party is a result of people who normally vote green party deciding the democrats finally had someone extreme enough for them. These people then went on to subscribe to conspiracy theories and yell during the convention. These people left the party, as they were bound to do from day 1, and life goes on. That's a very different thing from living presidents not attending the convention. Especially not the most recent one... I don't know a single Bernie supporter who came from the green party. All the ones I know personally, which is quite a few, were democrats previously who got tired of promises never delivered and a party that keeps shifting more and more right. They finally had an actual liberal candidate to vote for. They didn't suddenly appear, they were always here they were just sick of the bullshit. But chalk them up to the green party I guess.
I'm more so talking about the people who are voting 3rd instead of Clinton. I was a Bernie supporter for a lot of the primary and donated quite a bit over the course of his campaign.
|
On August 02 2016 02:06 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2016 02:01 Plansix wrote:On August 02 2016 01:58 CobaltBlu wrote:
Nobody has to try and decipher the meaning behind the face Sanders was making because he gave a very clear endorsement speech. Also he seems to have a grumpy face by default. But there will always be be people saying "he didn't really mean it, he was forced to by the DNC," blah blah blah. Because taking people at their word isn't something you do if they are saying what you don't want to hear. No, he doesn't support Clinton in any way beyond not wanting Trump and he thinks the only way to prevent Trump is to support Clinton. That's very different than endorsing her because she's a good candidate. If he thought a third party candidacy (Jill and Nina) could win he wouldn't be endorsing Clinton. It's a different calculation for him than it is for voters, he will be totally powerless without support from the establishment, whereas voters will get more powerful after 4 years of Trump if he's anything like Hillary and friends paint him as. I'm honestly impressed at the level of denial going on in the Democratic party, on the bright side, it makes it very easy not to support them as a party.
As I said, there will always be some small group unwilling to accept it.
|
On August 02 2016 02:09 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2016 02:02 OuchyDathurts wrote:On August 01 2016 23:59 Mohdoo wrote:
The only division in the democratic party is a result of people who normally vote green party deciding the democrats finally had someone extreme enough for them. These people then went on to subscribe to conspiracy theories and yell during the convention. These people left the party, as they were bound to do from day 1, and life goes on. That's a very different thing from living presidents not attending the convention. Especially not the most recent one... I don't know a single Bernie supporter who came from the green party. All the ones I know personally, which is quite a few, were democrats previously who got tired of promises never delivered and a party that keeps shifting more and more right. They finally had an actual liberal candidate to vote for. They didn't suddenly appear, they were always here they were just sick of the bullshit. But chalk them up to the green party I guess. I'm more so talking about the people who are voting 3rd instead of Clinton. I was a Bernie supporter for a lot of the primary and donated quite a bit over the course of his campaign.
Not one of the 100 or so delegates I'm familiar with that's leaving was a member of any other party. Best I can tell this green party thing is wholly constructed in your mind.
As for plansix, we're thinking the same thing about y'all.
|
On August 02 2016 02:09 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2016 02:02 OuchyDathurts wrote:On August 01 2016 23:59 Mohdoo wrote:
The only division in the democratic party is a result of people who normally vote green party deciding the democrats finally had someone extreme enough for them. These people then went on to subscribe to conspiracy theories and yell during the convention. These people left the party, as they were bound to do from day 1, and life goes on. That's a very different thing from living presidents not attending the convention. Especially not the most recent one... I don't know a single Bernie supporter who came from the green party. All the ones I know personally, which is quite a few, were democrats previously who got tired of promises never delivered and a party that keeps shifting more and more right. They finally had an actual liberal candidate to vote for. They didn't suddenly appear, they were always here they were just sick of the bullshit. But chalk them up to the green party I guess. I'm more so talking about the people who are voting 3rd instead of Clinton. I was a Bernie supporter for a lot of the primary and donated quite a bit over the course of his campaign.
A lot of people that are choosing to go third party have also been democrats, liked Bernie and can't support Clinton. I voted for Obama twice, I won't vote for Hillary or Trump. I've voted in every election, I'm not some rookie 19 year old voter or any of those memes. I'll vote a mostly democrat ticket like usual, but one democrat who won't get my vote is Hillary.
|
It must be nice to be so sure about things.
|
A CBS News poll has Clinton ahead by 5 percentage points, in the version of the poll that includes third-party candidates (which is the version FiveThirtyEight uses). Trump led Clinton by 1 point in a CBS News poll conducted just after the RNC, so that would count as a 6-point bounce for Clinton.
A Morning Consult poll also showed Clinton up by 5 percentage points, representing a 9-point swing toward her from a poll they conducted last week after the RNC.
A RABA Research national poll, conducted on Friday after the convention, has Clinton with a 15-point lead. RABA Research’s national poll has been something of a pro-Clinton outlier. Still, the trend in the poll is favorable for Clinton. She’d led Trump by 5 percentage points in RABA Research’s poll just after the RNC, meaning that she got a 10-point bounce.
Finally, a Public Policy Polling survey has Clinton up by 5 percentage points. Because PPP did not conduct a post-RNC poll, we can’t directly measure Clinton’s bounce. But their previous national poll, in late June, showed Clinton up by 4 percentage points. Therefore, their data tends to confirm our notion that the conventions may have reset the race to approximately where it was in June, which was a strong month of polling for Clinton.
|
On August 02 2016 02:06 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2016 02:01 Plansix wrote:On August 02 2016 01:58 CobaltBlu wrote:
Nobody has to try and decipher the meaning behind the face Sanders was making because he gave a very clear endorsement speech. Also he seems to have a grumpy face by default. But there will always be be people saying "he didn't really mean it, he was forced to by the DNC," blah blah blah. Because taking people at their word isn't something you do if they are saying what you don't want to hear. No, he doesn't support Clinton in any way beyond not wanting Trump and he thinks the only way to prevent Trump is to support Clinton. That's very different than endorsing her because she's a good candidate. If he thought a third party candidacy (Jill and Nina) could win he wouldn't be endorsing Clinton. It's a different calculation for him than it is for voters, he will be totally powerless without support from the establishment, whereas voters will get more powerful after 4 years of Trump if he's anything like Hillary and friends paint him as. I'm honestly impressed at the level of denial going on in the Democratic party, on the bright side, it makes it very easy not to support them as a party.
The person that is in denial here is you. You've come up with any number of excuses and conspiracy theories about why Sanders would endorse Clinton rather than just accepting reality. If you want to vote for Stein then go crazy but maybe you should stop pretending you are the one true interpreter of Bernie's word. You will just have to excuse me if I would prefer to listen to the man himself rather than the proselytization of a disgruntled voter. You're making the rest of us look bad.
|
On August 02 2016 02:14 OuchyDathurts wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2016 02:09 Mohdoo wrote:On August 02 2016 02:02 OuchyDathurts wrote:On August 01 2016 23:59 Mohdoo wrote:
The only division in the democratic party is a result of people who normally vote green party deciding the democrats finally had someone extreme enough for them. These people then went on to subscribe to conspiracy theories and yell during the convention. These people left the party, as they were bound to do from day 1, and life goes on. That's a very different thing from living presidents not attending the convention. Especially not the most recent one... I don't know a single Bernie supporter who came from the green party. All the ones I know personally, which is quite a few, were democrats previously who got tired of promises never delivered and a party that keeps shifting more and more right. They finally had an actual liberal candidate to vote for. They didn't suddenly appear, they were always here they were just sick of the bullshit. But chalk them up to the green party I guess. I'm more so talking about the people who are voting 3rd instead of Clinton. I was a Bernie supporter for a lot of the primary and donated quite a bit over the course of his campaign. A lot of people that are choosing to go third party have also been democrats, liked Bernie and can't support Clinton. I voted for Obama twice, I won't vote for Hillary or Trump. I've voted in every election, I'm not some rookie 19 year old voter or any of those memes. I'll vote a mostly democrat ticket like usual, but one democrat who won't get my vote is Hillary.
I voted for Obama 2x as well and won't be voting Hillary. Probably stuck with my TPP fast tracking senators but one's up this cycle and she may lose her seat if she doesn't start listening in earnest to Bernie supporters.
Considering the "90%" propaganda that went unchallenged (but repeated more than once) by Hillary supporters circulated here I am strongly skeptical of notions like "oh it's just the greens leaving and not supporting Hillary".
On August 02 2016 02:19 CobaltBlu wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2016 02:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 02 2016 02:01 Plansix wrote:On August 02 2016 01:58 CobaltBlu wrote:
Nobody has to try and decipher the meaning behind the face Sanders was making because he gave a very clear endorsement speech. Also he seems to have a grumpy face by default. But there will always be be people saying "he didn't really mean it, he was forced to by the DNC," blah blah blah. Because taking people at their word isn't something you do if they are saying what you don't want to hear. No, he doesn't support Clinton in any way beyond not wanting Trump and he thinks the only way to prevent Trump is to support Clinton. That's very different than endorsing her because she's a good candidate. If he thought a third party candidacy (Jill and Nina) could win he wouldn't be endorsing Clinton. It's a different calculation for him than it is for voters, he will be totally powerless without support from the establishment, whereas voters will get more powerful after 4 years of Trump if he's anything like Hillary and friends paint him as. I'm honestly impressed at the level of denial going on in the Democratic party, on the bright side, it makes it very easy not to support them as a party. The person that is in denial here is you. You've come up with any number of excuses and conspiracy theories about why Sanders would endorse Clinton rather than just accepting reality. If you want to vote for Stein then go crazy but maybe you should stop pretending you are the one true interpreter of Bernie's word. You will just have to excuse me if I would prefer to listen to the man himself rather than the proselytization of a disgruntled voter. You're making the rest of us look bad.
If you listened to him, that's what he said (in the most polite way possible). His support is couched in the alternative. It's no coincidence Bernie isn't giving Hillary his fundraising machine.
|
Well, it's not like Bernie is a democrat, so it's not surprising he doesn't want to share.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
