|
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 September 07 2016 02:17 biology]major wrote:
The proper way to attack trump is to actually display to the world his weakness, which is his own authenticity and impulsiveness. In the debates, HRC should target his wealth, his masculinity, his failed marriages, anything she can to get him to over react. It can be done indirectly, and she can always revert back to policy.
As far as media coverage, there is no angle of attack that will work vs trump, because it has all been tried already.
You want Clinton to criticize those aspects of Trump???
Admittedly it might get him to overreact, but those are issues that he can easily turn back on her/deflect (as in his "overreaction" might actually help him.)
|
Fracking sort of earned its bad rap. I recently listened to an interview with a PR rep for the industry saying that damage to the water table was caused by “drilling, not fracking.” He said that it wasn’t the fault of “fracking” unless it is caused by the act of fracking itself. So if there is a holding tank leak, it’s a “spillage problem,” not a problem with fracking. The whole interview was painful.
|
On September 07 2016 02:53 Krikkitone wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2016 02:17 biology]major wrote:
The proper way to attack trump is to actually display to the world his weakness, which is his own authenticity and impulsiveness. In the debates, HRC should target his wealth, his masculinity, his failed marriages, anything she can to get him to over react. It can be done indirectly, and she can always revert back to policy.
As far as media coverage, there is no angle of attack that will work vs trump, because it has all been tried already. You want Clinton to criticize those aspects of Trump??? Admittedly it might get him to overreact, but those are issues that he can easily turn back on her/deflect (as in his "overreaction" might actually help him.)
Yes, Clinton should find some way to hit Trump on those issues because she's more likely to get the kind of impulsive, self-destructive response from Trump that will sink his candidacy. She'll have to be clever about it so as to avoid it backfiring on her, but it is certainly doable.
|
On September 07 2016 02:53 Krikkitone wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2016 02:17 biology]major wrote:
The proper way to attack trump is to actually display to the world his weakness, which is his own authenticity and impulsiveness. In the debates, HRC should target his wealth, his masculinity, his failed marriages, anything she can to get him to over react. It can be done indirectly, and she can always revert back to policy.
As far as media coverage, there is no angle of attack that will work vs trump, because it has all been tried already. You want Clinton to criticize those aspects of Trump??? Admittedly it might get him to overreact, but those are issues that he can easily turn back on her/deflect (as in his "overreaction" might actually help him.)
Those are precisely the fault lines in his character. Any attacks there will draw out a flailing and mysoginistic response that will damage his failing prospects with suburban women.
Wealth - HRC is public and comfortable with her income // Trump hides it and lies
Masculinity - HRC is quite satisfied being a powerful woman // Trump endlessly needs to show he is tough, especially around women
Failed marriages - Bill would do anything for HRC, he has no limits // Trump's womanizing and cheating is going to cost him Utah
|
On September 07 2016 02:22 ticklishmusic wrote:
as someone said on reddit, if a paperbag won the primary 40% of the country would vote for them
By this point I'd guess 60-70%
(assuming the paperbag is running against both Trump and Hillary)
On September 07 2016 02:58 CannonsNCarriers wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2016 02:53 Krikkitone wrote:On September 07 2016 02:17 biology]major wrote:
The proper way to attack trump is to actually display to the world his weakness, which is his own authenticity and impulsiveness. In the debates, HRC should target his wealth, his masculinity, his failed marriages, anything she can to get him to over react. It can be done indirectly, and she can always revert back to policy.
As far as media coverage, there is no angle of attack that will work vs trump, because it has all been tried already. You want Clinton to criticize those aspects of Trump??? Admittedly it might get him to overreact, but those are issues that he can easily turn back on her/deflect (as in his "overreaction" might actually help him.) Those are precisely the fault lines in his character. Any attacks there will draw out a flailing and mysoginistic response that will damage his failing prospects with suburban women. Wealth - HRC is public and comfortable with her income // Trump hides it and lies Masculinity - HRC is quite satisfied being a powerful woman // Trump endlessly needs to show he is tough, especially around women Failed marriages - Bill would do anything for HRC, he has no limits // Trump's womanizing and cheating is going to cost him Utah
Wealth-- How she got it smells of influence buying (and if she is open about her income she is very closed about other things)
Masculinity--she's a woman (Trump has seriously messed up masculinity, but a woman criticizing a man's masculinity has all sorts of bad optics...even if most men would criticize Trump's type of masculinity as well)
Failed marriage--HRC stuck with a womanizing cheater...(+) in some markets (-) in others [also reminds people about the part of the 90s they'd most like to forget]
The attacks (and Trump's reaction) Will lose him points... they just might make Clinton lose more points (and so possibly ending up benefiting Trump overall based on who goes 3rd party/stay home/protest vote)
|
On September 07 2016 02:55 Plansix wrote:
Fracking sort of earned its bad rap. I recently listened to an interview with a PR rep for the industry saying that damage to the water table was caused by “drilling, not fracking.” He said that it wasn’t the fault of “fracking” unless it is caused by the act of fracking itself. So if there is a holding tank leak, it’s a “spillage problem,” not a problem with fracking. The whole interview was painful.
Maybe that's the logic Clinton's transition team leader was using when he said fracking doesn't do environmental damage?
|
|
|
The problem with 95% of Hillary's possible criticism of Trump is that it will rightly be perceived as the pot calling the kettle black.
|
Electric cars and green energy sources arn't there yet to be used for a great transition but I think that it might get there in a generation or two. Energy storage and transmission are the real lagging technology preventing everything from falling into place.
|
On September 07 2016 02:58 xDaunt wrote:
impulsive, self-destructive response from Trump
What are your thoughts on a president having that tendency?
|
United States44436 Posts
On September 07 2016 02:59 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2016 02:55 Plansix wrote:
Fracking sort of earned its bad rap. I recently listened to an interview with a PR rep for the industry saying that damage to the water table was caused by “drilling, not fracking.” He said that it wasn’t the fault of “fracking” unless it is caused by the act of fracking itself. So if there is a holding tank leak, it’s a “spillage problem,” not a problem with fracking. The whole interview was painful. Maybe that's the logic Clinton's transition team leader was using when he said fracking doesn't do environmental damage?
Or he was just making an apples to apples comparison. Hell, breathing does environmental damage but nobody is coming out against that. Fracking should be compared against other ways of getting petroleum products, such as invading the Middle East or funding Saudi Arabia, if you want to judge it fairly.
|
Laos has a grim claim to fame, as the most heavily bombed country in history. And today, more than four decades after the U.S. dropped those armaments, millions of unexploded bombs remain.
President Obama on Tuesday became the first sitting U.S. president to visit the small, communist Southeast Asian country and promised to double U.S. funding to help educate residents about the dangers and clear the bombs that remain in the ground.
"Given our history here, I believe the United States has a moral obligation to help Laos heal," Obama said in announcing a $90 million U.S. commitment over three years.
In an exhibit in downtown Vientiane, dozens and dozens of round "bombies," each the size of a tennis ball, hang from the ceiling like necklaces. Bombies are submunitions; they eject from larger cluster bombs used in airstrikes.
They are vestiges of the Vietnam War that spread to Laos and still plagues the country to this day.
"Until now still, [Laotians] are being injured by the bombs," says Baosavanh Vetsaboun, a staffer at the nonprofit COPE, which puts on this exhibit and assists those who lose limbs to unexploded ordnance, or UXO.
The other side of this hall displays a mountain of makeshift prosthetic legs, some of them clearly just rudimentary pieces of sanded wood — that bombing survivors donated after use. It's part of a costly and deadly legacy of America's "secret war" in Laos.
A somewhat secret campaign of bombing raids between 1964 and 1973, which made Laos the most heavily bombed country on earth.
The U.S. directed much of its firepower at the Ho Chi Minh Trail, which North Vietnamese fighters used to infiltrate the South, by way of Laos and Cambodia.
American B-52s dropped an average of one bomb-load every eight minutes, 24 hours a day. They killed more than a quarter million Lao. But an estimated 30 percent of the U.S. bombs failed to explode. So now, some 40 years later — the leftover bombs still lead to about 40 casualties a year.
"All it takes is heat, shock and friction for something to be volatile and go boom," says Emma Atkinson, who works on U.S. State Department programs and funding to clear unexploded bombs in Laos.
"So when you think about the fact these things were dropped from the air, they've experienced all those things, not to mention the fact they've been sitting in the ground 40 years, deteriorating, which makes them even more volatile," she adds.
The U.S. assistance will go to groups like MAG International, a nonprofit dedicated to educating people about the bombs and helping them safely destroy the weapons.
Source
|
On September 07 2016 03:02 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2016 02:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 07 2016 02:55 Plansix wrote:
Fracking sort of earned its bad rap. I recently listened to an interview with a PR rep for the industry saying that damage to the water table was caused by “drilling, not fracking.” He said that it wasn’t the fault of “fracking” unless it is caused by the act of fracking itself. So if there is a holding tank leak, it’s a “spillage problem,” not a problem with fracking. The whole interview was painful. Maybe that's the logic Clinton's transition team leader was using when he said fracking doesn't do environmental damage? Or he was just making an apples to apples comparison. Hell, breathing does environmental damage but nobody is coming out against that. Fracking should be compared against other ways of getting petroleum products, such as invading the Middle East or funding Saudi Arabia, if you want to judge it fairly.
That doesn't appear to even be remotely close to what he said though?
Shortly after leaving his post at the Obama administration, Salazar appeared at an oil and gas industry conference to argue in favor of fracking.
“We know that, from everything we’ve seen, there’s not a single case where hydraulic fracking has created an environmental problem for anyone,”
Source
On September 07 2016 03:10 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +Laos has a grim claim to fame, as the most heavily bombed country in history. And today, more than four decades after the U.S. dropped those armaments, millions of unexploded bombs remain.
President Obama on Tuesday became the first sitting U.S. president to visit the small, communist Southeast Asian country and promised to double U.S. funding to help educate residents about the dangers and clear the bombs that remain in the ground.
"Given our history here, I believe the United States has a moral obligation to help Laos heal," Obama said in announcing a $90 million U.S. commitment over three years.
In an exhibit in downtown Vientiane, dozens and dozens of round "bombies," each the size of a tennis ball, hang from the ceiling like necklaces. Bombies are submunitions; they eject from larger cluster bombs used in airstrikes.
They are vestiges of the Vietnam War that spread to Laos and still plagues the country to this day.
"Until now still, [Laotians] are being injured by the bombs," says Baosavanh Vetsaboun, a staffer at the nonprofit COPE, which puts on this exhibit and assists those who lose limbs to unexploded ordnance, or UXO.
The other side of this hall displays a mountain of makeshift prosthetic legs, some of them clearly just rudimentary pieces of sanded wood — that bombing survivors donated after use. It's part of a costly and deadly legacy of America's "secret war" in Laos.
A somewhat secret campaign of bombing raids between 1964 and 1973, which made Laos the most heavily bombed country on earth.
The U.S. directed much of its firepower at the Ho Chi Minh Trail, which North Vietnamese fighters used to infiltrate the South, by way of Laos and Cambodia.
American B-52s dropped an average of one bomb-load every eight minutes, 24 hours a day. They killed more than a quarter million Lao. But an estimated 30 percent of the U.S. bombs failed to explode. So now, some 40 years later — the leftover bombs still lead to about 40 casualties a year.
"All it takes is heat, shock and friction for something to be volatile and go boom," says Emma Atkinson, who works on U.S. State Department programs and funding to clear unexploded bombs in Laos.
"So when you think about the fact these things were dropped from the air, they've experienced all those things, not to mention the fact they've been sitting in the ground 40 years, deteriorating, which makes them even more volatile," she adds.
The U.S. assistance will go to groups like MAG International, a nonprofit dedicated to educating people about the bombs and helping them safely destroy the weapons. Source
Meanwhile Hillary courts Kissinger...
|
On September 07 2016 02:58 Krikkitone wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2016 02:22 ticklishmusic wrote:
as someone said on reddit, if a paperbag won the primary 40% of the country would vote for them By this point I'd guess 60-70% (assuming the paperbag is running against both Trump and Hillary) Show nested quote +On September 07 2016 02:58 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On September 07 2016 02:53 Krikkitone wrote:On September 07 2016 02:17 biology]major wrote:
The proper way to attack trump is to actually display to the world his weakness, which is his own authenticity and impulsiveness. In the debates, HRC should target his wealth, his masculinity, his failed marriages, anything she can to get him to over react. It can be done indirectly, and she can always revert back to policy.
As far as media coverage, there is no angle of attack that will work vs trump, because it has all been tried already. You want Clinton to criticize those aspects of Trump??? Admittedly it might get him to overreact, but those are issues that he can easily turn back on her/deflect (as in his "overreaction" might actually help him.) Those are precisely the fault lines in his character. Any attacks there will draw out a flailing and mysoginistic response that will damage his failing prospects with suburban women. Wealth - HRC is public and comfortable with her income // Trump hides it and lies Masculinity - HRC is quite satisfied being a powerful woman // Trump endlessly needs to show he is tough, especially around women Failed marriages - Bill would do anything for HRC, he has no limits // Trump's womanizing and cheating is going to cost him Utah Wealth-- How she got it smells of influence buying (and if she is open about her income she is very closed about other things) Masculinity--she's a woman (Trump has seriously messed up masculinity, but a woman criticizing a man's masculinity has all sorts of bad optics...even if most men would criticize Trump's type of masculinity as well) Failed marriage--HRC stuck with a womanizing cheater...(+) in some markets (-) in others [also reminds people about the part of the 90s they'd most like to forget] The attacks (and Trump's reaction) Will lose him points... they just might make Clinton lose more points (and so possibly ending up benefiting Trump overall based on who goes 3rd party/stay home/protest vote)
No. Trump is not hypermasculine. He can't grow a beard and has tiny fingers. He overcompensates with nonsense and yelling at people and lying about basic reality (check out the O'Brien depositon http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/08/11/the_best_lies_from_donald_trump_s_2007_deposition.html). This overcompensation will be his undoing in the debates when HRC doesn't roll over for his bully act (see her standing up to the 11 hours of lying by Republicans in the Benghazi hearing).
EDIT: I get that insecure men will empathize with his struggles in dealing with a firm woman, but women + secure men outnumber impotent Trumpkins.
|
United States44436 Posts
On September 07 2016 03:14 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2016 03:02 KwarK wrote:On September 07 2016 02:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 07 2016 02:55 Plansix wrote:
Fracking sort of earned its bad rap. I recently listened to an interview with a PR rep for the industry saying that damage to the water table was caused by “drilling, not fracking.” He said that it wasn’t the fault of “fracking” unless it is caused by the act of fracking itself. So if there is a holding tank leak, it’s a “spillage problem,” not a problem with fracking. The whole interview was painful. Maybe that's the logic Clinton's transition team leader was using when he said fracking doesn't do environmental damage? Or he was just making an apples to apples comparison. Hell, breathing does environmental damage but nobody is coming out against that. Fracking should be compared against other ways of getting petroleum products, such as invading the Middle East or funding Saudi Arabia, if you want to judge it fairly. That doesn't appear to even be remotely close to what he said though? Show nested quote +Shortly after leaving his post at the Obama administration, Salazar appeared at an oil and gas industry conference to argue in favor of fracking.
“We know that, from everything we’ve seen, there’s not a single case where hydraulic fracking has created an environmental problem for anyone,”
I'll admit that is quite a claim for him to make. I'd have to look at how much they paid him to say that before I could judge him for having said it.
|
On September 07 2016 03:18 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2016 03:14 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 07 2016 03:02 KwarK wrote:On September 07 2016 02:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 07 2016 02:55 Plansix wrote:
Fracking sort of earned its bad rap. I recently listened to an interview with a PR rep for the industry saying that damage to the water table was caused by “drilling, not fracking.” He said that it wasn’t the fault of “fracking” unless it is caused by the act of fracking itself. So if there is a holding tank leak, it’s a “spillage problem,” not a problem with fracking. The whole interview was painful. Maybe that's the logic Clinton's transition team leader was using when he said fracking doesn't do environmental damage? Or he was just making an apples to apples comparison. Hell, breathing does environmental damage but nobody is coming out against that. Fracking should be compared against other ways of getting petroleum products, such as invading the Middle East or funding Saudi Arabia, if you want to judge it fairly. That doesn't appear to even be remotely close to what he said though? Shortly after leaving his post at the Obama administration, Salazar appeared at an oil and gas industry conference to argue in favor of fracking.
“We know that, from everything we’ve seen, there’s not a single case where hydraulic fracking has created an environmental problem for anyone,” I'll admit that is quite a claim for him to make. I'd have to look at how much they paid him to say that before I could judge him for having said it.
What's the going rate for propaganda like that?
|
On September 07 2016 02:58 CannonsNCarriers wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2016 02:53 Krikkitone wrote:On September 07 2016 02:17 biology]major wrote:
The proper way to attack trump is to actually display to the world his weakness, which is his own authenticity and impulsiveness. In the debates, HRC should target his wealth, his masculinity, his failed marriages, anything she can to get him to over react. It can be done indirectly, and she can always revert back to policy.
As far as media coverage, there is no angle of attack that will work vs trump, because it has all been tried already. You want Clinton to criticize those aspects of Trump??? Admittedly it might get him to overreact, but those are issues that he can easily turn back on her/deflect (as in his "overreaction" might actually help him.) Those are precisely the fault lines in his character. Any attacks there will draw out a flailing and mysoginistic response that will damage his failing prospects with suburban women. Wealth - HRC is public and comfortable with her income // Trump hides it and lies Masculinity - HRC is quite satisfied being a powerful woman // Trump endlessly needs to show he is tough, especially around women Failed marriages - Bill would do anything for HRC, he has no limits // Trump's womanizing and cheating is going to cost him Utah
I expect her to go all out in targeting Trump in those areas, because it is the only way for her to control the optics of the debate. However I don't think he will react in a destructive manner, because it is laughable how many lines of attack he has on her personally, not having anything to do with policy.
|
In an editorial, the [Dallas Morning News] urged readers not to vote for Trump. The editorial board labeled the New York businessman as "not qualified" and someone who "does not deserve your vote."
The Morning News has not endorsed a Democrat for president in seven decades and has backed every GOP nominee since Richard Nixon in 1968.
Under the headline "Donald Trump is no Republican," the newspaper's editorial board ripped Trump's economic and military proposals while claiming that he was not for individual liberty.
"Donald Trump is no Republican and certainly no conservative," the board wrote, later adding, "We have no interest in a Republican nominee for whom all principles are negotiable, nor in a Republican Party that is willing to trade away principle for pursuit of electoral victory. Trump doesn't reflect Republican ideals of the past; we are certain he shouldn't reflect the GOP of the future."
Yahoo
|
On September 07 2016 03:18 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2016 03:14 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 07 2016 03:02 KwarK wrote:On September 07 2016 02:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 07 2016 02:55 Plansix wrote:
Fracking sort of earned its bad rap. I recently listened to an interview with a PR rep for the industry saying that damage to the water table was caused by “drilling, not fracking.” He said that it wasn’t the fault of “fracking” unless it is caused by the act of fracking itself. So if there is a holding tank leak, it’s a “spillage problem,” not a problem with fracking. The whole interview was painful. Maybe that's the logic Clinton's transition team leader was using when he said fracking doesn't do environmental damage? Or he was just making an apples to apples comparison. Hell, breathing does environmental damage but nobody is coming out against that. Fracking should be compared against other ways of getting petroleum products, such as invading the Middle East or funding Saudi Arabia, if you want to judge it fairly. That doesn't appear to even be remotely close to what he said though? Shortly after leaving his post at the Obama administration, Salazar appeared at an oil and gas industry conference to argue in favor of fracking.
“We know that, from everything we’ve seen, there’s not a single case where hydraulic fracking has created an environmental problem for anyone,” I'll admit that is quite a claim for him to make. I'd have to look at how much they paid him to say that before I could judge him for having said it.
I am going to have to agree with GH on this one. The issue with “fracking” is that they limit it to the act of extracting the natural gas only. Anything after or before is defined as something else. Drilling, spillage, transport. It would be like saying an ocean oil spill is a shipping problem.
|
On September 07 2016 03:21 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2016 02:58 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On September 07 2016 02:53 Krikkitone wrote:On September 07 2016 02:17 biology]major wrote:
The proper way to attack trump is to actually display to the world his weakness, which is his own authenticity and impulsiveness. In the debates, HRC should target his wealth, his masculinity, his failed marriages, anything she can to get him to over react. It can be done indirectly, and she can always revert back to policy.
As far as media coverage, there is no angle of attack that will work vs trump, because it has all been tried already. You want Clinton to criticize those aspects of Trump??? Admittedly it might get him to overreact, but those are issues that he can easily turn back on her/deflect (as in his "overreaction" might actually help him.) Those are precisely the fault lines in his character. Any attacks there will draw out a flailing and mysoginistic response that will damage his failing prospects with suburban women. Wealth - HRC is public and comfortable with her income // Trump hides it and lies Masculinity - HRC is quite satisfied being a powerful woman // Trump endlessly needs to show he is tough, especially around women Failed marriages - Bill would do anything for HRC, he has no limits // Trump's womanizing and cheating is going to cost him Utah I expect her to go all out in targeting Trump in those areas, because it is the only way for her to control the optics of the debate. However I don't think he will react in a destructive manner, because it is laughable how many lines of attack he has on her personally, not having anything to do with policy.
Hard to conceive how the only way to control the optics of the debate is something other than policy. There will be a lot of policy questions, you know - many more than at the GOP debates, which were more of a wrestling match with little substantive input from Trump. Trump is a newbie to the type of debate he's going into with Hillary.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
