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 19 2016 20:00 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: Strange Clinton video doing the rounds of a speech in North Carolina. Why is Clinton and the podium glitching out but the flag background is unaffected? Why does Clinton wave to audience members behind the flag at the end of the video? This is very peculiar.Watch the video especially the last 3 minutes.
Dude, can't you just flat out say what you think, rather than come with these ridiculous allusions that you can backtrack from through some 'I didn't say that, it's just weird, right?' type of statement. I really can't stand this conspiracy mindset that 'something is OFF'; be specific. What exactly do you think is wrong in that video? Like, do you think Hillary and her associates were faking her public appearance because she's too unhealthy to actually be out in public, but they weren't able to create realistic encoding issues, or what is your deal?
How have you not seen this type of glitch a million times before? One of the most popular ways videos get compressed is by motion compensation, most pixels from frame to frame stay in the same spot so you don't have to update them and instead only update the parts with movement. But if there's a problem you get a lot of remaining artifacts, that's why after the problem appears you see it happening only when she flails her arms around.
On September 19 2016 22:07 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Bomb goes off in NY. Another goes off in NJ. Thankfully nobody is killed. Clinton is losing millennial support.
To be fair, getting that age group to vote has been like calling cats for decades. Obama had the secret power to do so, but some could argue that it was using the same tactics some of us mocked Sanders for.
The bombs are troubling, but Trump is mostly gloating about them. Which is not a great look at all. If goes into another anti Muslim immigration spree, I don’t think it will help him much.
On September 19 2016 22:07 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Bomb goes off in NY. Another goes off in NJ. Thankfully nobody is killed. Clinton is losing millennial support.
Her support seems to be eroding among blacks, too. And yes, terrorist attacks on American soil are going to boost Trump's numbers even further.
Considering ISIS desperately wants Trump to be President so they can have their holy war, sadly we should expect another attempt before November.
Still plenty of time for Trump to fuck up though. Guy is still a historic level demagogue who uses 3rd world country strongman rhetoric with little restraint.
The idea that there exists a sizable group of voters who A) were voting for Clinton but have switched to Trump because of a terrorist act or B) weren't voting at all but are now voting for Trump because of a terrorist act doesn't really jive with the numbers previously provided by posters like Dan HH. That group, it it exists at all, is not very large and is likely present mostly in states that aren't electorally important anyway.
On September 19 2016 22:39 On_Slaught wrote: Considering ISIS desperately wants Trump to be President so they can have their holy war, sadly we should expect another attempt before November.
Wouldn't Clinton be even better for that? Hadn't she advocated sending ground troops in Syria?
On September 19 2016 22:07 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Bomb goes off in NY. Another goes off in NJ. Thankfully nobody is killed. Clinton is losing millennial support.
Her support seems to be eroding among blacks, too. And yes, terrorist attacks on American soil are going to boost Trump's numbers even further.
I'd be interested to see those numbers post dust up with the black pastor.
On September 19 2016 22:39 On_Slaught wrote: Considering ISIS desperately wants Trump to be President so they can have their holy war, sadly we should expect another attempt before November.
Wouldn't Clinton be even better for that? Hadn't she advocated sending ground troops in Syria?
It's a language issue. Only one of the candidates considers this a war against the religion of Islam. ISIS needs this to be the case to justify their cause.
(On my phone at the moment so can't combine posts)
A good chunk of this race is about turn out and limited number of undecided voters in key states. The debates are the next big event. We will see how Trump does when he has to answer questions for more than 8 minutes.
On September 19 2016 22:07 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Bomb goes off in NY. Another goes off in NJ. Thankfully nobody is killed. Clinton is losing millennial support.
Her support seems to be eroding among blacks, too. And yes, terrorist attacks on American soil are going to boost Trump's numbers even further.
I'd be interested to see those numbers post dust up with the black pastor.
And the return of birtherism. It is not going to change any minds, but might make the push for higher black turnout easier. That is the push going on right now.
On September 19 2016 22:39 On_Slaught wrote: Considering ISIS desperately wants Trump to be President so they can have their holy war, sadly we should expect another attempt before November.
Wouldn't Clinton be even better for that? Hadn't she advocated sending ground troops in Syria?
She specifically said no ground troops in Syria, which is a good call. We don’t want part of that mess.
On September 19 2016 22:39 On_Slaught wrote: Considering ISIS desperately wants Trump to be President so they can have their holy war, sadly we should expect another attempt before November.
Wouldn't Clinton be even better for that? Hadn't she advocated sending ground troops in Syria?
She specifically said no ground troops in Syria, which is a good call. We don’t want part of that mess.
Besides, bombing MSF hospitals is a way better use of taxpayer money anyway.
Looks promising yet skewed towards women. Do women tend to actually outvote men in NC? I am wondering if this is more of a sign that women are early-voting more than men.
EPT
