|
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 14 2016 00:57 pmh wrote:
There are rumors and speculations.
That it wont be long till Hillary gives press conference announcing she drops out,
Wonder what would happen then.
There are some people talking, people like to talk you know. These people, lot's of them, they're all talking, and that many people can't be wrong can they? They're saying that trump is going to drop out before the election because he doesn't actually want to be president, but just wants to get attention. And these people talking, they're good people you know? They can't all be wrong can they?
|
On September 14 2016 01:31 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2016 01:25 Mohdoo wrote:On September 14 2016 01:06 Gorsameth wrote:On September 14 2016 01:02 pmh wrote:
Its not a real rumor,just a thought that some people on the internet seem to entertain. It does not seem unlikely to me if it wasn't for the chaos it would create. But what if Hillary drops out 1 year in and caine becomes president,that would be pretty bad for the democratic party as well. Why would it? Kaine's biggest problem was name recognition. He has that now as Hillary's VP. Hillary will not drop out. But even if she did it would probably create a boost for the Democrats because now their candidate is not Hillary while still holding to their political ideals. Yeah, I feel like Clinton dropping out would make this the easiest election win in a very long time. Sanders supporters would be absolutely incensed if it were given to kaine. Some who were voting for Clinton are doing so because she did actually win the primary. Kaine did not - it would be entirely undemocratic to have him run. That whole nightmare is probably a contributor to keeping the DNC from actively truly considering it.
I don't think Kaine would need that specific segment of Sanders voters to win.
|
On September 14 2016 01:31 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2016 01:25 Mohdoo wrote:On September 14 2016 01:06 Gorsameth wrote:On September 14 2016 01:02 pmh wrote:
Its not a real rumor,just a thought that some people on the internet seem to entertain. It does not seem unlikely to me if it wasn't for the chaos it would create. But what if Hillary drops out 1 year in and caine becomes president,that would be pretty bad for the democratic party as well. Why would it? Kaine's biggest problem was name recognition. He has that now as Hillary's VP. Hillary will not drop out. But even if she did it would probably create a boost for the Democrats because now their candidate is not Hillary while still holding to their political ideals. Yeah, I feel like Clinton dropping out would make this the easiest election win in a very long time. Sanders supporters would be absolutely incensed if it were given to kaine. Some who were voting for Clinton are doing so because she did actually win the primary. Kaine did not - it would be entirely undemocratic to have him run. That whole nightmare is probably a contributor to keeping the DNC from actively truly considering it.
I think folks like Mohdoo also fail to account for how many people just wouldn't show up to vote. You don't pull a bait and switch like that and keep the lead in this election.
|
On September 14 2016 01:26 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2016 00:15 Doodsmack wrote:
Wolf Blitzer: Is David Duke a deplorable person?
Mike Pence: I'm not in the business of name-calling, Wolf.
- Mike Pence, distinguishing himself from his running mate, 9/12/16 "Donald Trump and I have repeatedly denounced David Duke and we've said that we don't want his support and we don't want the support of people who think like David Duke."+ Show Spoiler +CNN would have loved a clip of Pence calling someone 'deplorable' to piece together some kind of tu quoque argument excusing Hillary.
That spoof Twitter is hilarious.
|
This is some higher level trolling:
|
On September 14 2016 01:30 ZasZ. wrote:
I don't know why she even had to try to quantify it. Just say (in more political terms) that 100 percent of the racist, sexist, homophobic scum in this country support Donald Trump and they are excited by his candidacy like never before.
All of which is true.
It's not even close, actually. If you happen to believe there can be a test for racism, then look at this because it shows those scum everywhere including among the supporters of the totally-progressive-this-week-she-promises Clinton:
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On September 13 2016 23:46 Cheesare Borgia wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2016 23:21 Sent. wrote:On September 13 2016 22:50 levelping wrote:On September 13 2016 21:42 farvacola wrote:
The nuts and bolts of American politics, as opposed to the flair associated with the presidential election, are incredibly boring and very much unlike reality television. As this thread makes clear, the vast majority of both US citizens and foreigners focus in on a very narrow slice and, to be frank, that's a huge part of the problem facing American politics generally. I don't know. Maybe reality TV show is an inaccurate way of describing it. However I do feel, as an outsider, that American government is ridiculously political as an institution. The idea that your highest judicial body is clearly split along political lines is just... incomprehensible to me. Your civil service is similarly ideological. I'm not even sure how apolitical the army is, given that veterans and military might are such huge polical topics. The police is also tangled up in political issues. The office of the president wouldn't be so scary if it could reliably be balanced with a politically neutral civil service and judiciary. But that doesn't seem to be present. It's absolutely normal. Usually the best judges are good at pretending they're just explaning the law but sometimes the law is (and has to be) so vague that multiple interpretations are viable. The Supreme Court is there to pick the "best" interpretation and make it binding for everyone to avoid chaos in the legal system. Full political neutrality of judiciary is unattainable. That's a really good point, but I submit that there are differences in degree of neutrality. While it is true that full neutrality is indeed unattainable (and judges are human), I think one can clearly differentiate between more or less neutral systems*, and the public expectation that judges explain their rulings in terms that are publicly justifiable does (on a sociological level) indeed lead most judges to behave in a neutral way that gives an equal and fair hearing to both sides and to all reasonable interpretations of the law (thus, I mostly reject legal realism in its extreme forms). With that being said, I'm not convinced that the Supreme Court's problem is its neutrality in this narrow sense. But that it reeks more of partisanship than most other western courts is quite true, from my perspective, and is a real problem in the long run.* Of course, no system of law and its interpretation is normatively neutral in the final analysis. Neutrality, as most of us understand it, is a very strong normative commitment and is actually founded on the the idea of equal freedoms, or some such idea. The neutrality I'm talking about is one of justification: No law may be made or interpreted in a way that presupposes the inherent superiority of a certain way of life, dogma, political ideology, etc (other then the foundation of equal freedoms, again).
My guess is that the American Supreme Court has much bigger influence on the system than it's European counterparts. Europeans don't complain about their judges as much not because they're less biased, but because their power is much smaller. I bet the average European moderately interested in politics can't even name a single member of his supreme (or constitutional) court.
Example of difference in supreme court power: I don't know a lot about American or Western European legal systems but I'm convinced that European courts (maybe excluding ECHR but that's a different topic) wouldn't be able to "legalize" gay marriage in the same way as the American Supreme Court did in 2015. A change as big as that would require changing the constitution or at least enacting a law that explicitly allows same-sex marriages.
|
West Virginia cop fired for not killing a man with an unloaded gun
We’ve tracked countless cases here where cops were able to keep their jobs after killing unarmed people, killing people after responding to the wrong house, killing people and then lying about it . . . the list goes on.
Give the Weirton, W.Va., police chief some credit. He’s come up with a new spin on the the same problem. He just fired a cop for not killing someone.
After responding to a report of a domestic incident on May 6 in Weirton, W.Va., then-Weirton police officer Stephen Mader found himself confronting an armed man.
Immediately, the training he had undergone as a Marine to look at “the whole person” in deciding if someone was a terrorist, as well as his situational police academy training, kicked in and he did not shoot.
“I saw then he had a gun, but it was not pointed at me,” Mr. Mader recalled, noting the silver handgun was in the man’s right hand, hanging at his side and pointed at the ground.
Mr. Mader, who was standing behind Mr. Williams’ car parked on the street, said he then “began to use my calm voice.”
“I told him, ‘Put down the gun,’ and he’s like, ‘Just shoot me.’ And I told him, ‘I’m not going to shoot you brother.’ Then he starts flicking his wrist to get me to react to it.
“I thought I was going to be able to talk to him and deescalate it. I knew it was a suicide-by-cop” situation.
Mader was responding to a 911 call from Williams’s girlfriend. In that call, she told police that Williams was threatening to kill himself, not anyone else.
What Mader did upon arriving at the scene is a hell of a lot braver course of action than simply opening fire when the suspect doesn’t immediately disarm. What Mader did is in fact exactly what we want cops to do when someone is in crisis. It’s also precisely what law enforcement officers say they do on a daily basis — put themselves at risk in order to save lives. Mader should have been given a medal. Unfortunately, two more cops then showed up, and quickly shot Williams dead.
As it turns out, Williams’s gun wasn’t loaded. There’s no way any of the police officers could have known that. But it does show that Mader had read Williams correctly — he wasn’t actually a threat to anyone but himself. His life could have been saved.
The Weirton police department then refused to name Williams for three days and assigned an investigator to look into the shooting . . . who then promptly left for a weeklong vacation. Then came the punchline.
Mr. Mader — speaking publicly about this case for the first time — said that when he tried to return to work on May 17, following normal protocol for taking time off after an officer-involved shooting, he was told to go see Weirton Police Chief Rob Alexander.
In a meeting with the chief and City Manager Travis Blosser, Mr. Mader said Chief Alexander told him: “We’re putting you on administrative leave and we’re going to do an investigation to see if you are going to be an officer here. You put two other officers in danger.”
Mr. Mader said that “right then I said to him: ‘Look, I didn’t shoot him because he said, ‘Just shoot me.’ ”
On June 7, a Weirton officer delivered him a notice of termination letter dated June 6, which said by not shooting Mr. Williams he “failed to eliminate a threat.”
The city mentioned two other incidents in firing Mader, but it seems clear that his failure to kill Williams was the motivation for his termination. Even the rare cop who gets fired often gets to keep his pension. Mader won’t be getting one.
After he received his termination notice, Mr. Mader sought attorneys to help him fight the city. He was told because he was still a probationary employee in an “at-will” state, he could be fired for any reason and there was no point in fighting the city.
One attorney told him the best he could hope for was to ask to resign instead of being terminated.
“But I told [the attorney] ‘Look, I don’t want to admit guilt. I’ll take the termination instead of the resignation because I didn’t do anything wrong,’ ” Mr. Mader said. “To resign and admit I did something wrong here would have ate at me. I think I’m right in what I did. I’ll take it to the grave.”
Over the weekend, the New York Times ran an article about the longstanding problem in which even the rare bad cops who do get fired are often able to quickly find work at another policy agency. Mader, who served a tour in Afghanistan and has two sons under five-years-old, told the Post-Gazette that he’s now studying for a commercial truck driving license, but he’d consider another job in law enforcement if he were offered one. I hope that happens. I hope he’s given the same second chance that corrupt, trigger-happy cops are given. My hunch is that he’ll be driving trucks.
Source
Well this is depressing. That guy should receive a medal, not a pick slip.
|
On September 14 2016 01:49 Plansix wrote:West Virginia cop fired for not killing a man with an unloaded gunShow nested quote +We’ve tracked countless cases here where cops were able to keep their jobs after killing unarmed people, killing people after responding to the wrong house, killing people and then lying about it . . . the list goes on.
Give the Weirton, W.Va., police chief some credit. He’s come up with a new spin on the the same problem. He just fired a cop for not killing someone.
After responding to a report of a domestic incident on May 6 in Weirton, W.Va., then-Weirton police officer Stephen Mader found himself confronting an armed man.
Immediately, the training he had undergone as a Marine to look at “the whole person” in deciding if someone was a terrorist, as well as his situational police academy training, kicked in and he did not shoot.
“I saw then he had a gun, but it was not pointed at me,” Mr. Mader recalled, noting the silver handgun was in the man’s right hand, hanging at his side and pointed at the ground.
Mr. Mader, who was standing behind Mr. Williams’ car parked on the street, said he then “began to use my calm voice.”
“I told him, ‘Put down the gun,’ and he’s like, ‘Just shoot me.’ And I told him, ‘I’m not going to shoot you brother.’ Then he starts flicking his wrist to get me to react to it.
“I thought I was going to be able to talk to him and deescalate it. I knew it was a suicide-by-cop” situation.
Mader was responding to a 911 call from Williams’s girlfriend. In that call, she told police that Williams was threatening to kill himself, not anyone else.
What Mader did upon arriving at the scene is a hell of a lot braver course of action than simply opening fire when the suspect doesn’t immediately disarm. What Mader did is in fact exactly what we want cops to do when someone is in crisis. It’s also precisely what law enforcement officers say they do on a daily basis — put themselves at risk in order to save lives. Mader should have been given a medal. Unfortunately, two more cops then showed up, and quickly shot Williams dead.
As it turns out, Williams’s gun wasn’t loaded. There’s no way any of the police officers could have known that. But it does show that Mader had read Williams correctly — he wasn’t actually a threat to anyone but himself. His life could have been saved.
The Weirton police department then refused to name Williams for three days and assigned an investigator to look into the shooting . . . who then promptly left for a weeklong vacation. Then came the punchline.
Mr. Mader — speaking publicly about this case for the first time — said that when he tried to return to work on May 17, following normal protocol for taking time off after an officer-involved shooting, he was told to go see Weirton Police Chief Rob Alexander.
In a meeting with the chief and City Manager Travis Blosser, Mr. Mader said Chief Alexander told him: “We’re putting you on administrative leave and we’re going to do an investigation to see if you are going to be an officer here. You put two other officers in danger.”
Mr. Mader said that “right then I said to him: ‘Look, I didn’t shoot him because he said, ‘Just shoot me.’ ”
On June 7, a Weirton officer delivered him a notice of termination letter dated June 6, which said by not shooting Mr. Williams he “failed to eliminate a threat.”
The city mentioned two other incidents in firing Mader, but it seems clear that his failure to kill Williams was the motivation for his termination. Even the rare cop who gets fired often gets to keep his pension. Mader won’t be getting one.
After he received his termination notice, Mr. Mader sought attorneys to help him fight the city. He was told because he was still a probationary employee in an “at-will” state, he could be fired for any reason and there was no point in fighting the city.
One attorney told him the best he could hope for was to ask to resign instead of being terminated.
“But I told [the attorney] ‘Look, I don’t want to admit guilt. I’ll take the termination instead of the resignation because I didn’t do anything wrong,’ ” Mr. Mader said. “To resign and admit I did something wrong here would have ate at me. I think I’m right in what I did. I’ll take it to the grave.”
Over the weekend, the New York Times ran an article about the longstanding problem in which even the rare bad cops who do get fired are often able to quickly find work at another policy agency. Mader, who served a tour in Afghanistan and has two sons under five-years-old, told the Post-Gazette that he’s now studying for a commercial truck driving license, but he’d consider another job in law enforcement if he were offered one. I hope that happens. I hope he’s given the same second chance that corrupt, trigger-happy cops are given. My hunch is that he’ll be driving trucks. SourceWell this is depressing. That guy should receive a medal, not a pick slip.
Move to Europe, and become a cop anyway. Here, that is indeed the way we expect cops to handle. Chapeau Mr. Mader (assuming this is the whole story).
|
On September 14 2016 01:49 Plansix wrote:West Virginia cop fired for not killing a man with an unloaded gunShow nested quote +We’ve tracked countless cases here where cops were able to keep their jobs after killing unarmed people, killing people after responding to the wrong house, killing people and then lying about it . . . the list goes on.
Give the Weirton, W.Va., police chief some credit. He’s come up with a new spin on the the same problem. He just fired a cop for not killing someone.
After responding to a report of a domestic incident on May 6 in Weirton, W.Va., then-Weirton police officer Stephen Mader found himself confronting an armed man.
Immediately, the training he had undergone as a Marine to look at “the whole person” in deciding if someone was a terrorist, as well as his situational police academy training, kicked in and he did not shoot.
“I saw then he had a gun, but it was not pointed at me,” Mr. Mader recalled, noting the silver handgun was in the man’s right hand, hanging at his side and pointed at the ground.
Mr. Mader, who was standing behind Mr. Williams’ car parked on the street, said he then “began to use my calm voice.”
“I told him, ‘Put down the gun,’ and he’s like, ‘Just shoot me.’ And I told him, ‘I’m not going to shoot you brother.’ Then he starts flicking his wrist to get me to react to it.
“I thought I was going to be able to talk to him and deescalate it. I knew it was a suicide-by-cop” situation.
Mader was responding to a 911 call from Williams’s girlfriend. In that call, she told police that Williams was threatening to kill himself, not anyone else.
What Mader did upon arriving at the scene is a hell of a lot braver course of action than simply opening fire when the suspect doesn’t immediately disarm. What Mader did is in fact exactly what we want cops to do when someone is in crisis. It’s also precisely what law enforcement officers say they do on a daily basis — put themselves at risk in order to save lives. Mader should have been given a medal. Unfortunately, two more cops then showed up, and quickly shot Williams dead.
As it turns out, Williams’s gun wasn’t loaded. There’s no way any of the police officers could have known that. But it does show that Mader had read Williams correctly — he wasn’t actually a threat to anyone but himself. His life could have been saved.
The Weirton police department then refused to name Williams for three days and assigned an investigator to look into the shooting . . . who then promptly left for a weeklong vacation. Then came the punchline.
Mr. Mader — speaking publicly about this case for the first time — said that when he tried to return to work on May 17, following normal protocol for taking time off after an officer-involved shooting, he was told to go see Weirton Police Chief Rob Alexander.
In a meeting with the chief and City Manager Travis Blosser, Mr. Mader said Chief Alexander told him: “We’re putting you on administrative leave and we’re going to do an investigation to see if you are going to be an officer here. You put two other officers in danger.”
Mr. Mader said that “right then I said to him: ‘Look, I didn’t shoot him because he said, ‘Just shoot me.’ ”
On June 7, a Weirton officer delivered him a notice of termination letter dated June 6, which said by not shooting Mr. Williams he “failed to eliminate a threat.”
The city mentioned two other incidents in firing Mader, but it seems clear that his failure to kill Williams was the motivation for his termination. Even the rare cop who gets fired often gets to keep his pension. Mader won’t be getting one.
After he received his termination notice, Mr. Mader sought attorneys to help him fight the city. He was told because he was still a probationary employee in an “at-will” state, he could be fired for any reason and there was no point in fighting the city.
One attorney told him the best he could hope for was to ask to resign instead of being terminated.
“But I told [the attorney] ‘Look, I don’t want to admit guilt. I’ll take the termination instead of the resignation because I didn’t do anything wrong,’ ” Mr. Mader said. “To resign and admit I did something wrong here would have ate at me. I think I’m right in what I did. I’ll take it to the grave.”
Over the weekend, the New York Times ran an article about the longstanding problem in which even the rare bad cops who do get fired are often able to quickly find work at another policy agency. Mader, who served a tour in Afghanistan and has two sons under five-years-old, told the Post-Gazette that he’s now studying for a commercial truck driving license, but he’d consider another job in law enforcement if he were offered one. I hope that happens. I hope he’s given the same second chance that corrupt, trigger-happy cops are given. My hunch is that he’ll be driving trucks. SourceWell this is depressing. That guy should receive a medal, not a pick slip.
Repeat after me "There is no systematic problem with the US police force" ...
He should move to Europe. Our police will gladly have him.
|
On September 14 2016 01:26 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2016 00:15 Doodsmack wrote:
Wolf Blitzer: Is David Duke a deplorable person?
Mike Pence: I'm not in the business of name-calling, Wolf.
- Mike Pence, distinguishing himself from his running mate, 9/12/16 "Donald Trump and I have repeatedly denounced David Duke and we've said that we don't want his support and we don't want the support of people who think like David Duke."https://twitter.com/OnMessageForHer/status/775526849531097088+ Show Spoiler +CNN would have loved a clip of Pence calling someone 'deplorable' to piece together some kind of tu quoque argument excusing Hillary.
Yes, they have denounced Duke. But Donald is in fact in the business of name-calling, so it was important for Pence to distinguish himself.
Crooked Hillary
Lyin Ted
Little Marco
|
On September 14 2016 01:57 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2016 01:26 oBlade wrote:On September 14 2016 00:15 Doodsmack wrote:
Wolf Blitzer: Is David Duke a deplorable person?
Mike Pence: I'm not in the business of name-calling, Wolf.
- Mike Pence, distinguishing himself from his running mate, 9/12/16 "Donald Trump and I have repeatedly denounced David Duke and we've said that we don't want his support and we don't want the support of people who think like David Duke."https://twitter.com/OnMessageForHer/status/775526849531097088+ Show Spoiler +CNN would have loved a clip of Pence calling someone 'deplorable' to piece together some kind of tu quoque argument excusing Hillary. Yes, they have denounced Duke. But Donald is in fact in the business of name-calling, so it was important for Pence to distinguish himself. Crooked Hillary Lyin Ted Little Marco
Deplorable David. Fits right in! It alliterates nicely too!
E: Actually, deplorable is probably too big a word for someone who speaks like a 5th grader.
Rotten David doesn't alliterate, but it does have some zing to it, and could be used by a 10-y.o.
|
A day after Donald Trump passionately attacked Hillary Clinton’s assertion that half of his supporters fall into a “basket of deplorables,” the Democratic nominee’s campaign is hitting back with a new ad using his own comments about Americans to attack him.
The one-minute ad, published online late Monday, begins with a clip of Trump blasting Clinton at a rally in Baltimore earlier in the day.
“You can’t lead this nation if you have such a low opinion for its citizens,” Trump said of Clinton’s comments, which she partially walked back over the weekend.
The ad quickly pivots to a compilation of Trump soundbites from the campaign trail, including his criticism of his GOP rivals’ supporters (“How stupid are the people of this country?”); his questioning of the fact that an American-born federal judge of Mexican descent was adjudicating a lawsuit against Trump University (“We’re building a wall — he’s a Mexican”); his attempt to reach out to African-American voters (“You’re living in poverty. Your schools are no good. You have no jobs. What the hell do you have to lose?”); and his comments about Rosie O’Donnell (“She’s a disgusting pig”).
Yahoo
|
On September 14 2016 01:57 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2016 01:26 oBlade wrote:On September 14 2016 00:15 Doodsmack wrote:
Wolf Blitzer: Is David Duke a deplorable person?
Mike Pence: I'm not in the business of name-calling, Wolf.
- Mike Pence, distinguishing himself from his running mate, 9/12/16 "Donald Trump and I have repeatedly denounced David Duke and we've said that we don't want his support and we don't want the support of people who think like David Duke."https://twitter.com/OnMessageForHer/status/775526849531097088+ Show Spoiler +CNN would have loved a clip of Pence calling someone 'deplorable' to piece together some kind of tu quoque argument excusing Hillary. Yes, they have denounced Duke. But Donald is in fact in the business of name-calling, so it was important for Pence to distinguish himself. Crooked Hillary Lyin Ted Little Marco
Pocahontas - Elizabeth Warren. He still uses that one on live TV like its totally fine.
|
Could be a marvel's character aswell.
|
On September 14 2016 02:02 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +A day after Donald Trump passionately attacked Hillary Clinton’s assertion that half of his supporters fall into a “basket of deplorables,” the Democratic nominee’s campaign is hitting back with a new ad using his own comments about Americans to attack him.
The one-minute ad, published online late Monday, begins with a clip of Trump blasting Clinton at a rally in Baltimore earlier in the day.
“You can’t lead this nation if you have such a low opinion for its citizens,” Trump said of Clinton’s comments, which she partially walked back over the weekend.
The ad quickly pivots to a compilation of Trump soundbites from the campaign trail, including his criticism of his GOP rivals’ supporters (“How stupid are the people of this country?”); his questioning of the fact that an American-born federal judge of Mexican descent was adjudicating a lawsuit against Trump University (“We’re building a wall — he’s a Mexican”); his attempt to reach out to African-American voters (“You’re living in poverty. Your schools are no good. You have no jobs. What the hell do you have to lose?”); and his comments about Rosie O’Donnell (“She’s a disgusting pig”). Yahoo
Do you think this might actually have been planned? If so, Trump fell for it hook, line and sinker.
E: Not that that makes it a clever move. It's still a dumb thing to say, but perhaps they did research to figure out how far "over the limit" Hillary had to go in order to have a reasonable chance of baiting Trump without harming her own base? I dunno what campaign strategists do, but this seems like something they could dream up...
|
Really wish Trump would return to the "Hillary is only a candidate because she's female" line of attack too. Speaks nicely about those who have voted for her.
|
On September 14 2016 02:05 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2016 02:02 Doodsmack wrote:A day after Donald Trump passionately attacked Hillary Clinton’s assertion that half of his supporters fall into a “basket of deplorables,” the Democratic nominee’s campaign is hitting back with a new ad using his own comments about Americans to attack him.
The one-minute ad, published online late Monday, begins with a clip of Trump blasting Clinton at a rally in Baltimore earlier in the day.
“You can’t lead this nation if you have such a low opinion for its citizens,” Trump said of Clinton’s comments, which she partially walked back over the weekend.
The ad quickly pivots to a compilation of Trump soundbites from the campaign trail, including his criticism of his GOP rivals’ supporters (“How stupid are the people of this country?”); his questioning of the fact that an American-born federal judge of Mexican descent was adjudicating a lawsuit against Trump University (“We’re building a wall — he’s a Mexican”); his attempt to reach out to African-American voters (“You’re living in poverty. Your schools are no good. You have no jobs. What the hell do you have to lose?”); and his comments about Rosie O’Donnell (“She’s a disgusting pig”). Yahoo Do you think this might actually have been planned? If so, Trump fell for it hook, line and sinker.
Nah, just a case of glass houses. When it comes to talking down to voters, Trump has an endless line of sound bites.
|
On September 14 2016 00:29 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2016 23:57 IgnE wrote:On September 13 2016 09:45 zlefin wrote:
I wonder if one had a (hypothetical for the sake of argument) completely unbiased report, what % of people observing it would claim it is biased. it's like saying if one had a hypothetical square circle. remember when i was talking about facticity several weeks ago? I do not remember that discussion; also it is not an apt comparison, as they are not definitionally incompatible.
i disagree. they are definitionally incompatible. reports are biased by virtue of what they choose to include or not to include. an editor is always biased; it's intrinsic to editing. the only "unbiased report" is simply presenting the Real in its totality, which is no longer a report, since it is just unvarnished subjective experience.
|
I wonder how many job offers that cop has already gotten from places that'd love to have an officer like that. also I hope the police chief who fired him gets fired.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/rngs/USA-ELECTION-RACE/010020H7174/USA-ELECTION-RACE.jpg)
