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 September 02 2016 09:27 Danglars wrote: She's not policies, she's not experience, she's the anti-Trump! Trump needs that outstanding debate performance to win because he is behind and he hasn't been campaigning in swing states hard. But if Hillary has a bad show she'll suffer hard.
One of the most dangerous things about Trump is that Hillary is convinced that she can be any degree of shitty president as long as she can just convince people that she isn't Trump so it's automatically good and justified.
Has Hillary even given a compelling reason to vote for her yet? Her message is mostly focused on the status quo and voting against Trump, both of which are problematic in terms of engendering real support for her.
I mean she pretty much has a lengthy policy program on pretty much any topic. it's not really her fault for nobody reading it, can't sum up every policy in a 140 character tweet.
On September 02 2016 09:27 Danglars wrote: She's not policies, she's not experience, she's the anti-Trump! Trump needs that outstanding debate performance to win because he is behind and he hasn't been campaigning in swing states hard. But if Hillary has a bad show she'll suffer hard.
One of the most dangerous things about Trump is that Hillary is convinced that she can be any degree of shitty president as long as she can just convince people that she isn't Trump so it's automatically good and justified.
Has Hillary even given a compelling reason to vote for her yet? Her message is mostly focused on the status quo and voting against Trump, both of which are problematic in terms of engendering real support for her.
From the same poll that Kellyanne Conway brought up a couple days ago.
"In this very negative race, 64 percent of Trump supporters say they are voting mainly anti-Clinton, while 25 percent say they are voting pro-Trump. "
"Among Clinton supporters, 47 percent are mainly anti-Trump while 32 percent are pro- Clinton."
On September 02 2016 09:27 Danglars wrote: She's not policies, she's not experience, she's the anti-Trump! Trump needs that outstanding debate performance to win because he is behind and he hasn't been campaigning in swing states hard. But if Hillary has a bad show she'll suffer hard.
One of the most dangerous things about Trump is that Hillary is convinced that she can be any degree of shitty president as long as she can just convince people that she isn't Trump so it's automatically good and justified.
Has Hillary even given a compelling reason to vote for her yet? Her message is mostly focused on the status quo and voting against Trump, both of which are problematic in terms of engendering real support for her.
On September 02 2016 09:27 Danglars wrote: She's not policies, she's not experience, she's the anti-Trump! Trump needs that outstanding debate performance to win because he is behind and he hasn't been campaigning in swing states hard. But if Hillary has a bad show she'll suffer hard.
One of the most dangerous things about Trump is that Hillary is convinced that she can be any degree of shitty president as long as she can just convince people that she isn't Trump so it's automatically good and justified.
Has Hillary even given a compelling reason to vote for her yet? Her message is mostly focused on the status quo and voting against Trump, both of which are problematic in terms of engendering real support for her.
Not really. I hoped the DNC would give a good solid message of what Hillary's presidency would do for people but they basically just played identity politics then and always. I see that Hillary's campaign is hoping to just coast on the anti-Trump train.
On September 02 2016 09:27 Danglars wrote: She's not policies, she's not experience, she's the anti-Trump! Trump needs that outstanding debate performance to win because he is behind and he hasn't been campaigning in swing states hard. But if Hillary has a bad show she'll suffer hard.
One of the most dangerous things about Trump is that Hillary is convinced that she can be any degree of shitty president as long as she can just convince people that she isn't Trump so it's automatically good and justified.
Has Hillary even given a compelling reason to vote for her yet? Her message is mostly focused on the status quo and voting against Trump, both of which are problematic in terms of engendering real support for her.
Not really. I hoped the DNC would give a good solid message of what Hillary's presidency would do for people but they basically just played identity politics then and always. I see that Hillary's campaign is hoping to just coast on the anti-Trump train.
I dont see what the problem is with that, people keep saying its a problem, but any sensible campaigner would be happy to not rock the boat while the guy racing him is going around hammering holes into his.
It's not really status quo as much as a slow degradation. I've seen enough of Hillary Clinton over the years to see what the result is of her policies being implemented - it might not cause everything to instantly implode but the nation will be worse off after her tenure than before, as it always has been.
Yes, things could be worse. But it's a shitty choice and people have been coerced into thinking that it's the only one they have. It's just shitty abuse of the "lesser of two evils" argument applied repetitively to put up shitty candidates and tell people that they should vote for those candidates because the opposition is worse.
Well democracy always produces the least shitty candidate, the system doesn't and can't produce some kind of messiah. It's incremental and slow by design
On September 01 2016 12:13 TheTenthDoc wrote: Nobody's going to give a flying fuck about the speech. Only thing that will get significant news media play is "he said/he said" drama over his meeting in Mexico, and the Johnson supporters he needs stopped tuning into his rallies long ago. Nothing exciting or different happened in the speech at all.
Does he need Johnson supporters or isn't there a way to attack Hillary until enough people defect to him and Stein?
Trump's within striking distance already. He's one good Wikileaks email dump away from burying Hillary, and he may not even need it when it's all said and done.
Are you ready to bet on the result of the election yet?
Yes. If Trump wins you get a 1 year ban and if Hillary wins i get 1 year ban. Deal?
On September 02 2016 13:32 Nyxisto wrote: Well democracy always produces the least shitty candidate, the system doesn't and can't produce some kind of messiah. It's incremental and slow by design
It's not really related to democracy though, but more to a combination of a two-party system, a heavily presidential system, a huge country that necessitates big coalitions just to put up a single candidate in the national race, the lack of cardinal voting systems, the lack of any system guaranteeing equality of the different's candidates media presence, etc. Democracy can - and should be - about the most inspiring candidate, not about the least uninspiring one. But for that you'd need to get out of systems that were drawn up in the 18th century.
While I personally find libertarianism to be a joke, this stance on the issue is about the only one you can expect from a party that calls itself such. Not surprising or PC at all, just sticking to one of the very few hard lines (free movement of labour and capital) in their otherwise vague ideology.
On September 02 2016 09:27 Danglars wrote: She's not policies, she's not experience, she's the anti-Trump! Trump needs that outstanding debate performance to win because he is behind and he hasn't been campaigning in swing states hard. But if Hillary has a bad show she'll suffer hard.
One of the most dangerous things about Trump is that Hillary is convinced that she can be any degree of shitty president as long as she can just convince people that she isn't Trump so it's automatically good and justified.
Has Hillary even given a compelling reason to vote for her yet? Her message is mostly focused on the status quo and voting against Trump, both of which are problematic in terms of engendering real support for her.
I'm not convinced America wants to talk about policies in the first place.
It seems like anything that cannot be condensed into a 2 second soundbite is ignored.
On September 01 2016 12:13 TheTenthDoc wrote: Nobody's going to give a flying fuck about the speech. Only thing that will get significant news media play is "he said/he said" drama over his meeting in Mexico, and the Johnson supporters he needs stopped tuning into his rallies long ago. Nothing exciting or different happened in the speech at all.
Does he need Johnson supporters or isn't there a way to attack Hillary until enough people defect to him and Stein?
Trump's within striking distance already. He's one good Wikileaks email dump away from burying Hillary, and he may not even need it when it's all said and done.
Are you ready to bet on the result of the election yet?
Yes. If Trump wins you get a 1 year ban and if Hillary wins i get 1 year ban. Deal?
So what will it be?
I replied to you on the same page as your post -- I'm already waiting on xDaunt and/or GreenHorizons for a ban bet. I'm fine with a money bet, though, if you'd like.
On September 01 2016 12:13 TheTenthDoc wrote: Nobody's going to give a flying fuck about the speech. Only thing that will get significant news media play is "he said/he said" drama over his meeting in Mexico, and the Johnson supporters he needs stopped tuning into his rallies long ago. Nothing exciting or different happened in the speech at all.
Does he need Johnson supporters or isn't there a way to attack Hillary until enough people defect to him and Stein?
Trump's within striking distance already. He's one good Wikileaks email dump away from burying Hillary, and he may not even need it when it's all said and done.
Are you ready to bet on the result of the election yet?
Yes. If Trump wins you get a 1 year ban and if Hillary wins i get 1 year ban. Deal?
So what will it be?
I replied to you on the same page as your post -- I'm already waiting on xDaunt and/or GreenHorizons for a ban bet. I'm fine with a money bet, though, if you'd like.
On September 02 2016 09:27 Danglars wrote: She's not policies, she's not experience, she's the anti-Trump! Trump needs that outstanding debate performance to win because he is behind and he hasn't been campaigning in swing states hard. But if Hillary has a bad show she'll suffer hard.
One of the most dangerous things about Trump is that Hillary is convinced that she can be any degree of shitty president as long as she can just convince people that she isn't Trump so it's automatically good and justified.
Has Hillary even given a compelling reason to vote for her yet? Her message is mostly focused on the status quo and voting against Trump, both of which are problematic in terms of engendering real support for her.
I'm not convinced America wants to talk about policies in the first place.
It seems like anything that cannot be condensed into a 2 second soundbite is ignored.
Scott Adams interview from today describes it pretty well (33 minute segment)
Scott "Women control sex and its not fair consent exist" Adams should keep to writing Dilbert and leaving his political views a mystery. Though that comic is a lot darker now that I know all the things he thinks about women.
He got really weird a couple years ago and started writing how consent in sex was anti-male and shit got dark after that. It is tough to tell, but I don't think he would be flipping his shit so bad if it was a woman running.
EPT
