|
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 22 2016 11:58 jalstar wrote:
A lot of BLM people are to the left of Sanders, I don't think they care if they're hurting Hillary.
A lot of them not easily slotted into left or right, which is why they don't feel served or helped by the current system.
|
United States43948 Posts
On September 22 2016 12:05 Barrin wrote:savetheday.vote video: + Show Spoiler +Show nested quote +"WE ARE A SHORT-FORM DIGITAL PRODUCTION COMPANY DEDICATED TO THE IDEA THAT VOTING IS A NECESSARY AND HEROIC ACT. THAT EVERY VOICE IN THIS WONDERFULLY DIVERSE NATION SHOULD, AND MUST, BE HEARD. THAT THE ONLY THING THAT CAN SAVE DEMOCRACY IS THE ACT THAT DEFINES IT. WE ARE COMMITTED TO FIGHTING THE APATHY, CYNICISM, AND HONEST CONFUSION THAT KEEPS CITIZENS FROM USING THEIR VOTE. AND TO REMINDING AN INCREASINGLY OUT-OF-TOUCH AND COMPROMISED SET OF REPRESENTATIVES THAT THEY ARE ANSWERABLE TO THE PEOPLE THEY WERE HIRED TO SERVE." Poll: The savetheday.vote video was(Vote): Satire/Irony
(Vote): Corny/Cringy
(Vote): Strange/Confusing
It's important to vote!
d) Hillary
|
On September 22 2016 11:52 hunts wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2016 11:49 xDaunt wrote:
Someone over at the Hillary campaign should really let BLM that they aren't doing her any favors in North Carolina. I mean is BLM really associated with Hilary? I would imagine they would want to distance themselves from that group, as they are borderline terrorists, but I guess if they do they will lose the black vote which they need.
If BLM is borderline terrorists, than the police must be full blown terrorists.
|
BLM isn't really a thing... it's literally a hashtag. There's no real organization and hierarchy and to the extent there are groups calling themselves BLM, they certainly don't have any real control over events like these.
Yes, if they were in fact an organized group of "borderline terrorists" directed by the Clinton camp, their behavior would be illogical. But in actual fact, BLM is just a term for folks who are fed up with the way the cops interact with black communities.
+ Show Spoiler +There's an instructive comparative study to be done, by the way, on the three major protest waves of the last few years: Occupy Wall St., the Tea Party, and Black Lives Matter. The Tea Party pursued power through the ballot box and largely achieved it. Occupy seemed for a while to have failed utterly, but in the last year we've seen some evidence of its success as evidenced by the ascendancy of the Sanders/Warren progressive wing of the Democratic party. Of course, the movement failed to capture the nomination. (Whether Trump represents the victory of the Tea Party kinda depends on who you ask. I'd say yes, Cruz would disagree with me, and honestly he has a right to make claims about the Tea party.)
Black Lives Matter hasn't seen any real success yet. Black voters gave HRC the nomination, but she's certainly not running a BLM campaign. There are no major BLM candidates yet elected to office of whom I am aware. Sometimes I wonder if turning BLM from a movement into an institution capable of holding elected offices will be one of Obama's post-presidency activities. He'd certainly be the perfect person to make it happen.
|
United States43948 Posts
On September 22 2016 12:10 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2016 11:52 hunts wrote:On September 22 2016 11:49 xDaunt wrote:
Someone over at the Hillary campaign should really let BLM that they aren't doing her any favors in North Carolina. I mean is BLM really associated with Hilary? I would imagine they would want to distance themselves from that group, as they are borderline terrorists, but I guess if they do they will lose the black vote which they need. If BLM is borderline terrorists, than the police must be full blown terrorists.
Terrorists can't be state actors, pretty much by definition. If a state committed an equivalent act of terrorism then it would be an attack by one nation upon another.
|
On September 22 2016 11:41 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2016 11:31 Dan HH wrote:On September 22 2016 11:10 oBlade wrote:On September 22 2016 10:54 Dan HH wrote:On September 22 2016 10:32 oBlade wrote:On September 22 2016 10:24 Dan HH wrote:On September 22 2016 10:17 oBlade wrote:On September 22 2016 10:05 Nevuk wrote:On September 22 2016 09:59 ticklishmusic wrote:On September 22 2016 09:47 Nebuchad wrote:
[quote]
Well I would suggest you vote at the midterms so that Bernie gets to play with politicians who aren't going to stop him from delivering tangible progress towards what you want. Which was part of what Bernie was saying was required, by the way. But that will be true under Clinton as well, so get on that.
On top of that, this notion that Bernie wouldn't be able to compromise and wouldn't be able to do shit is really based on air. He's supporting Clinton right now. That's called a compromise.
Start from a social democrat position, then compromise, or start from a "center left" (GH's words, I would have said "center right"), then compromise. Seems pretty clear to me which one is more likely to get you to social democracy. I've voted in pretty much every single election since I became 18 (which isn't that many because I'm still pretty young), so not sure where that assumption came from. You have an incorrect view of the political situation in the US. We are more conservative than Europe or wherever you're from - we have Donald Trump as the Republican party nominee for crying out loud, and ridiculous religious freedom bills frequently make it to the governor's desk. I temper the kindof liberal things I'd like to see based on the reality I live in. Sanders is able to negotiate with Clinton because they are actually pretty close, and I think he's actually fairly realistic. Negotiating with the Republicans who made the ACA a party-line vote is a whole different ball game. Eh, Trump is actually a lot less conservative than the average GOP politician. The GOP party platform is something of an abomination this year. The US is more conservative than most western countries, though. On September 22 2016 09:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 22 2016 09:30 ticklishmusic wrote:
[quote]
How does the ability of the two candidates to deliver tangible progress towards what I want play into a decision?
I want a better healthcare system. To sound kind of lame, my big goal for my career and my life is to improve our healthcare system somehow. If we could go to Medicare for All, some NHS-style model or something I would be pretty enthused. However, the reality is we're not because the US healthcare system is a gargantuan, tangled entity with stakeholders (not only greedy doctors and insurance companies) that make that sort of revamp impossible. So, what I chose is a candidate who can get us to a better place. Pushing for improvements to the ACA. Restrictions on pharma pricing. Paid leave. Mental health coverage.
Things like that. First downs, not Hail Mary's. And what I'm trying to say is that if you look at the Manchin family and this EpiPen thing, then you combine it with Hillary's shift from the "medicare for all" idea to an "insurance premiums for-profit for all", and her fundraising/speech $ sources, we'd see that she's a perpetuator, not a reformist. Also, that this is a pattern across multiple issues, not specific to healthcare. I actually understand the argument that people are making for supporting Hillary, what they aren't getting is that I think they are being swindled. That the rational choice they've come to is indeed rational if Hillary was an honest broker, but she's not. They are falling for the same scam that Warren fell for. They think they are special, that Hillary is lying and swindling some people to move forward, but she's not tricking them. They see Warren begging Hillary to at least start with not just taking her big Wall st donors and immediately giving them positions in her administration, which Hillary is blowing off already. Then think to themselves, "but she'll improve healthcare", ignoring how as I'm pointing out, she's actually part of the problem. Though I think most here are actually aware of what's going on at this point and they just don't want to deal with what that means. For me it comes down to memories of W and the fact that he made Pence his VP after promising Kasich unlimited power if he took the VP slot. A Pence (nominally, Trump) administration rubber stamping literally all the batshit stuff the GOP house has come up with would be horrendous. An immediate repeal of Obamacare would affect me greatly, personally, though in the long term Hillary is insanely flawed on that front as well. The only consolation I have is that Trump was supposedly trying to undo the Pence pick the night after he announced, lol. So he may actually try to do the job. It takes a lot of faith in an anonymous NYT source to believe someone would work their ass off for 18 months to let someone else be president. Kasich confirmed it It's the same alleged source no matter whether the hearsay comes from the NYT or Politifact or Stephen Hawking or someone as publicly anti-Trump as Kasich. The combination of the implausibility and convenience of the story means it's something to take with a grain of salt, which politics has no shortage of. Does it really not matter? Because before he confirmed it was just the librul media making shit up. Now we've gone to Kasich saying it and maybe he's lying, maybe not. I assume you're not suggesting his aide is some deep undercover Hillary plant misleading Kasich, if this was a lie chances are Kasich is in on it. I also disagree with you that it's implausible given Trump's initial reaction to Pence and what comes out of his mouth whenever he talks about FP or international agreements, but that's another matter. Yes, it really doesn't. "That's what they tell me" is what you're referring to by confirmation. It was a rhetorical question. The reaction of the Trump supporters here went from 'bullshit' at the NYT article to 'take it with a grain of salt' at Kasich. It's equivalent bullshit, just repeated.
Saying that Kasich himself trusting in his aide's word is equivalent bullshit to the NYT having an anonymous source is a pretty interesting assumption to make, given the stakes here.
|
On September 22 2016 12:11 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2016 12:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 22 2016 11:52 hunts wrote:On September 22 2016 11:49 xDaunt wrote:
Someone over at the Hillary campaign should really let BLM that they aren't doing her any favors in North Carolina. I mean is BLM really associated with Hilary? I would imagine they would want to distance themselves from that group, as they are borderline terrorists, but I guess if they do they will lose the black vote which they need. If BLM is borderline terrorists, than the police must be full blown terrorists. Terrorists can't be state actors, pretty much by definition. If a state committed an equivalent act of terrorism then it would be an attack by one nation upon another.
I think they can be if using the definition of a person or group who employs " the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion"
But it's a stupid thing to quibble over anyway.
|
On September 22 2016 11:41 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2016 11:31 Dan HH wrote:On September 22 2016 11:10 oBlade wrote:On September 22 2016 10:54 Dan HH wrote:On September 22 2016 10:32 oBlade wrote:On September 22 2016 10:24 Dan HH wrote:On September 22 2016 10:17 oBlade wrote:On September 22 2016 10:05 Nevuk wrote:On September 22 2016 09:59 ticklishmusic wrote:On September 22 2016 09:47 Nebuchad wrote:
[quote]
Well I would suggest you vote at the midterms so that Bernie gets to play with politicians who aren't going to stop him from delivering tangible progress towards what you want. Which was part of what Bernie was saying was required, by the way. But that will be true under Clinton as well, so get on that.
On top of that, this notion that Bernie wouldn't be able to compromise and wouldn't be able to do shit is really based on air. He's supporting Clinton right now. That's called a compromise.
Start from a social democrat position, then compromise, or start from a "center left" (GH's words, I would have said "center right"), then compromise. Seems pretty clear to me which one is more likely to get you to social democracy. I've voted in pretty much every single election since I became 18 (which isn't that many because I'm still pretty young), so not sure where that assumption came from. You have an incorrect view of the political situation in the US. We are more conservative than Europe or wherever you're from - we have Donald Trump as the Republican party nominee for crying out loud, and ridiculous religious freedom bills frequently make it to the governor's desk. I temper the kindof liberal things I'd like to see based on the reality I live in. Sanders is able to negotiate with Clinton because they are actually pretty close, and I think he's actually fairly realistic. Negotiating with the Republicans who made the ACA a party-line vote is a whole different ball game. Eh, Trump is actually a lot less conservative than the average GOP politician. The GOP party platform is something of an abomination this year. The US is more conservative than most western countries, though. On September 22 2016 09:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 22 2016 09:30 ticklishmusic wrote:
[quote]
How does the ability of the two candidates to deliver tangible progress towards what I want play into a decision?
I want a better healthcare system. To sound kind of lame, my big goal for my career and my life is to improve our healthcare system somehow. If we could go to Medicare for All, some NHS-style model or something I would be pretty enthused. However, the reality is we're not because the US healthcare system is a gargantuan, tangled entity with stakeholders (not only greedy doctors and insurance companies) that make that sort of revamp impossible. So, what I chose is a candidate who can get us to a better place. Pushing for improvements to the ACA. Restrictions on pharma pricing. Paid leave. Mental health coverage.
Things like that. First downs, not Hail Mary's. And what I'm trying to say is that if you look at the Manchin family and this EpiPen thing, then you combine it with Hillary's shift from the "medicare for all" idea to an "insurance premiums for-profit for all", and her fundraising/speech $ sources, we'd see that she's a perpetuator, not a reformist. Also, that this is a pattern across multiple issues, not specific to healthcare. I actually understand the argument that people are making for supporting Hillary, what they aren't getting is that I think they are being swindled. That the rational choice they've come to is indeed rational if Hillary was an honest broker, but she's not. They are falling for the same scam that Warren fell for. They think they are special, that Hillary is lying and swindling some people to move forward, but she's not tricking them. They see Warren begging Hillary to at least start with not just taking her big Wall st donors and immediately giving them positions in her administration, which Hillary is blowing off already. Then think to themselves, "but she'll improve healthcare", ignoring how as I'm pointing out, she's actually part of the problem. Though I think most here are actually aware of what's going on at this point and they just don't want to deal with what that means. For me it comes down to memories of W and the fact that he made Pence his VP after promising Kasich unlimited power if he took the VP slot. A Pence (nominally, Trump) administration rubber stamping literally all the batshit stuff the GOP house has come up with would be horrendous. An immediate repeal of Obamacare would affect me greatly, personally, though in the long term Hillary is insanely flawed on that front as well. The only consolation I have is that Trump was supposedly trying to undo the Pence pick the night after he announced, lol. So he may actually try to do the job. It takes a lot of faith in an anonymous NYT source to believe someone would work their ass off for 18 months to let someone else be president. Kasich confirmed it It's the same alleged source no matter whether the hearsay comes from the NYT or Politifact or Stephen Hawking or someone as publicly anti-Trump as Kasich. The combination of the implausibility and convenience of the story means it's something to take with a grain of salt, which politics has no shortage of. Does it really not matter? Because before he confirmed it was just the librul media making shit up. Now we've gone to Kasich saying it and maybe he's lying, maybe not. I assume you're not suggesting his aide is some deep undercover Hillary plant misleading Kasich, if this was a lie chances are Kasich is in on it. I also disagree with you that it's implausible given Trump's initial reaction to Pence and what comes out of his mouth whenever he talks about FP or international agreements, but that's another matter. Yes, it really doesn't. "That's what they tell me" is what you're referring to by confirmation. It was a rhetorical question. The reaction of the Trump supporters here went from 'bullshit' at the NYT article to 'take it with a grain of salt' at Kasich. It's equivalent bullshit, just repeated.
The word of Trump's camp vs the word of an anonymous source that could be someone far away from both is not the same as the word of Trump's camp vs the word of Kasich' camp, though of course neither is actual proof. And you know very well that this is a false equivalence, not just because of the change in reticence I've mentioned above, but also because you've used the initial less believable version when trying to refute Nevuk, which better suited your attempt at making it look outlandish. And you're not the idiot you're pretending to be when it suits you.
|
Honestly if I was a Trump supporter I would prefer Pence being the guy in charge, because then I would have a shred of governance reasoning behind my pick.
Things actually start to make a little more sense for the Repubs if Pence is the one in charge. He can work with the Republican Congress and they could in theory get a lot done if they can agree amongst themselves. With Pence aiming for the Cheney model this seems like the most likely scenario if Trump wins.
|
|
|
There are some bracing photos coming out the protest. But CNN has gone full Riot porn and it does not appear to be reflective of the entire city.
|
It's CNN they need the viewers.
|
CNN allowing Lewandowski to shill for Trump wasn't cool. At least they still have Anderson Cooper.
|
They are the pro-wrestling of news agencies right now. You have Fox, MSNBC and CNN making up the triad of evil. Pander Left, Pander Right and "would live stream an execution if it would get them viewers"
I remember during the early stages of one of the attacks in France, within 10 minutes they had a "military expert" in the studio talking to them. And I was like "Did they find this guy in the lobby? Was he just visiting someone in the studio?" Do they have a bullpen of experts on staff at all times for whatever fucking nightmare they can live stream to people who don't know how social media works?
|
On September 22 2016 12:23 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2016 11:41 oBlade wrote:On September 22 2016 11:31 Dan HH wrote:On September 22 2016 11:10 oBlade wrote:On September 22 2016 10:54 Dan HH wrote:On September 22 2016 10:32 oBlade wrote:On September 22 2016 10:24 Dan HH wrote:On September 22 2016 10:17 oBlade wrote:On September 22 2016 10:05 Nevuk wrote:On September 22 2016 09:59 ticklishmusic wrote:
[quote]
I've voted in pretty much every single election since I became 18 (which isn't that many because I'm still pretty young), so not sure where that assumption came from.
You have an incorrect view of the political situation in the US. We are more conservative than Europe or wherever you're from - we have Donald Trump as the Republican party nominee for crying out loud, and ridiculous religious freedom bills frequently make it to the governor's desk. I temper the kindof liberal things I'd like to see based on the reality I live in.
Sanders is able to negotiate with Clinton because they are actually pretty close, and I think he's actually fairly realistic. Negotiating with the Republicans who made the ACA a party-line vote is a whole different ball game. Eh, Trump is actually a lot less conservative than the average GOP politician. The GOP party platform is something of an abomination this year. The US is more conservative than most western countries, though. On September 22 2016 09:50 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
And what I'm trying to say is that if you look at the Manchin family and this EpiPen thing, then you combine it with Hillary's shift from the "medicare for all" idea to an "insurance premiums for-profit for all", and her fundraising/speech $ sources, we'd see that she's a perpetuator, not a reformist. Also, that this is a pattern across multiple issues, not specific to healthcare.
I actually understand the argument that people are making for supporting Hillary, what they aren't getting is that I think they are being swindled. That the rational choice they've come to is indeed rational if Hillary was an honest broker, but she's not.
They are falling for the same scam that Warren fell for. They think they are special, that Hillary is lying and swindling some people to move forward, but she's not tricking them. They see Warren begging Hillary to at least start with not just taking her big Wall st donors and immediately giving them positions in her administration, which Hillary is blowing off already. Then think to themselves, "but she'll improve healthcare", ignoring how as I'm pointing out, she's actually part of the problem.
Though I think most here are actually aware of what's going on at this point and they just don't want to deal with what that means. For me it comes down to memories of W and the fact that he made Pence his VP after promising Kasich unlimited power if he took the VP slot. A Pence (nominally, Trump) administration rubber stamping literally all the batshit stuff the GOP house has come up with would be horrendous. An immediate repeal of Obamacare would affect me greatly, personally, though in the long term Hillary is insanely flawed on that front as well. The only consolation I have is that Trump was supposedly trying to undo the Pence pick the night after he announced, lol. So he may actually try to do the job. It takes a lot of faith in an anonymous NYT source to believe someone would work their ass off for 18 months to let someone else be president. Kasich confirmed it It's the same alleged source no matter whether the hearsay comes from the NYT or Politifact or Stephen Hawking or someone as publicly anti-Trump as Kasich. The combination of the implausibility and convenience of the story means it's something to take with a grain of salt, which politics has no shortage of. Does it really not matter? Because before he confirmed it was just the librul media making shit up. Now we've gone to Kasich saying it and maybe he's lying, maybe not. I assume you're not suggesting his aide is some deep undercover Hillary plant misleading Kasich, if this was a lie chances are Kasich is in on it. I also disagree with you that it's implausible given Trump's initial reaction to Pence and what comes out of his mouth whenever he talks about FP or international agreements, but that's another matter. Yes, it really doesn't. "That's what they tell me" is what you're referring to by confirmation. It was a rhetorical question. The reaction of the Trump supporters here went from 'bullshit' at the NYT article to 'take it with a grain of salt' at Kasich. It's equivalent bullshit, just repeated. The word of Trump's camp vs the word of an anonymous source that could be someone far away from both is not the same as the word of Trump's camp vs the word of Kasich' camp, though of course neither is actual proof. And you know very well that this is a false equivalence, not just because of the change in reticence I've mentioned above, but also because you've used the initial less believable version when trying to refute Nevuk, which better suited your attempt at making it look outlandish. And you're not the idiot you're pretending to be when it suits you.
You barged in with a 3 word eureka like you had exposed a great revelation, and I'm now pretending to be an idiot - this has been lovely. I did not omit Kasich from the story to win an argument, that's just a failed attempt at mindreading. Everybody knows Kasich's role in the story, it's common knowledge. The original story/leak was from the NYT. The Kasich soundbyte came later.
Your observation of "change in reticence" is an irrelevant attack on straw Trump supporters. I have explicitly told you I don't care who the source is, but it's hitting a brick wall. Think about what you're saying, it's essentially that you observed some people are more willing to shit on the NYT than Kasich.
Here's what we need to overturn:
-Months of Trump flatly saying people publicly rejecting the VP spot were never under consideration
-Guy talking about running for president for 30 years, considered running for mayor, governor, was even considered as GHWB VP candidate, giving multiple speeches in multiple states per day for a year just to get elected and do nothing?
-Trump camp saying it was nonsense
-No similar leaks from otherEdit: actual prospective VPs, like, for example, Pence, the guy that this entire train of thought is about him secretly being in charge
Here's the evidence we have to do it:
-An anonymous aide's hearsay, first through the NYT and then syndicated, then later (this is important) the same hearsay not denied ("That's what they tell me") by Kasich, who we already know to be anti-Trump. The content of which is that someone sent a Kasich aide a what, a letter, or was it a phone call that luckily would never have been recorded, floating the idea of a Kasich VP for the first time (remember, this would have allegedly been the campaign's first outreach) opening by begging him to be VP with the enticing offer that he would be in charge of running everything while Trump would be in charge of making the country great again? That sounds more plausible than made-up? Can you not smell the bullshit? This is a rhetorical question too. It's naive not to think there's a process in the media where journalists and sources fabricate weird shit together.
There are a number of people very close to Trump, like Christie, Gingrich, Pence, Flynn, and it's interesting to think about their roles in a Trump WH and see things develop as we get closer. But that's interesting without having to resort to an anonymous campaign aide, from a different guy entirely, as if to prove one of them is going to be a puppeteer.
These would all still be my thoughts if I were to abstain or vote elsewhere.
|
In the case of Donald Trump, with Donald Trump Jr the one making the call, I think it's plausible that would happen.
|
given ohio is pretty key to the republicans taking control of the white house, i'm not surprised that trump would put that sort of thing on the table, tbh. he's also not the type to be particularly interested in the day-to-days of governing, he just wants public appearances and trappings of power.
i take the story with a grain of salt, though i wouldn't dismiss it so readily. i do agree that pence was angling to be the vp choice of whoever the winner of the primary was though.
|
On September 22 2016 13:18 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2016 12:23 Dan HH wrote:On September 22 2016 11:41 oBlade wrote:On September 22 2016 11:31 Dan HH wrote:On September 22 2016 11:10 oBlade wrote:On September 22 2016 10:54 Dan HH wrote:On September 22 2016 10:32 oBlade wrote:On September 22 2016 10:24 Dan HH wrote:On September 22 2016 10:17 oBlade wrote:On September 22 2016 10:05 Nevuk wrote:
[quote]
Eh, Trump is actually a lot less conservative than the average GOP politician. The GOP party platform is something of an abomination this year. The US is more conservative than most western countries, though.
[quote]
For me it comes down to memories of W and the fact that he made Pence his VP after promising Kasich unlimited power if he took the VP slot. A Pence (nominally, Trump) administration rubber stamping literally all the batshit stuff the GOP house has come up with would be horrendous. An immediate repeal of Obamacare would affect me greatly, personally, though in the long term Hillary is insanely flawed on that front as well.
The only consolation I have is that Trump was supposedly trying to undo the Pence pick the night after he announced, lol. So he may actually try to do the job.
It takes a lot of faith in an anonymous NYT source to believe someone would work their ass off for 18 months to let someone else be president. Kasich confirmed it It's the same alleged source no matter whether the hearsay comes from the NYT or Politifact or Stephen Hawking or someone as publicly anti-Trump as Kasich. The combination of the implausibility and convenience of the story means it's something to take with a grain of salt, which politics has no shortage of. Does it really not matter? Because before he confirmed it was just the librul media making shit up. Now we've gone to Kasich saying it and maybe he's lying, maybe not. I assume you're not suggesting his aide is some deep undercover Hillary plant misleading Kasich, if this was a lie chances are Kasich is in on it. I also disagree with you that it's implausible given Trump's initial reaction to Pence and what comes out of his mouth whenever he talks about FP or international agreements, but that's another matter. Yes, it really doesn't. "That's what they tell me" is what you're referring to by confirmation. It was a rhetorical question. The reaction of the Trump supporters here went from 'bullshit' at the NYT article to 'take it with a grain of salt' at Kasich. It's equivalent bullshit, just repeated. The word of Trump's camp vs the word of an anonymous source that could be someone far away from both is not the same as the word of Trump's camp vs the word of Kasich' camp, though of course neither is actual proof. And you know very well that this is a false equivalence, not just because of the change in reticence I've mentioned above, but also because you've used the initial less believable version when trying to refute Nevuk, which better suited your attempt at making it look outlandish. And you're not the idiot you're pretending to be when it suits you. You barged in with a 3 word eureka like you had exposed a great revelation, and I'm now pretending to be an idiot - this has been lovely. I did not omit Kasich from the story to win an argument, that's just a failed attempt at mindreading. Everybody knows Kasich's role in the story, it's common knowledge. The original story/leak was from the NYT. The Kasich soundbyte came later. Your observation of "change in reticence" is an irrelevant attack on straw Trump supporters. I have explicitly told you I don't care who the source is, but it's hitting a brick wall. Think about what you're saying, it's essentially that you observed some people are more willing to shit on the NYT than Kasich. Here's what we need to overturn: -Months of Trump flatly saying people publicly rejecting the VP spot were never under consideration -Guy talking about running for president for 30 years, considered running for mayor, governor, was even considered as GHWB VP candidate, giving multiple speeches in multiple states per day for a year just to get elected and do nothing?-Trump camp saying it was nonsense -No similar leaks from otherEdit: actual prospective VPs, like, for example, Pence, the guy that this entire train of thought is about him secretly being in charge Here's the evidence we have to do it: -An anonymous aide's hearsay, first through the NYT and then syndicated, then later (this is important) the same hearsay not denied ("That's what they tell me") by Kasich, who we already know to be anti-Trump. The content of which is that someone sent a Kasich aide a what, a letter, or was it a phone call that luckily would never have been recorded, floating the idea of a Kasich VP for the first time (remember, this would have allegedly been the campaign's first outreach) opening by begging him to be VP with the enticing offer that he would be in charge of running everything while Trump would be in charge of making the country great again? That sounds more plausible than made-up? Can you not smell the bullshit? This is a rhetorical question too. It's naive not to think there's a process in the media where journalists and sources fabricate weird shit together. There are a number of people very close to Trump, like Christie, Gingrich, Pence, Flynn, and it's interesting to think about their roles in a Trump WH and see things develop as we get closer. But that's interesting without having to resort to an anonymous campaign aide, from a different guy entirely, as if to prove one of them is going to be a puppeteer. These would all still be my thoughts if I were to abstain or vote elsewhere.
Where exactly does Pence stating in an interview that he wants to be the Dick Cheney fit into this? Or are you saying being a "very active" vice president, a la Cheney, is not in any way language coded to reassure people he'll be the brains behind the operation?
|
What does Trump have other than a TV presence? Does he have substance? His political existence is inside TV land. He is a politician because he pursued a strategy of structuring sentences in a way that would generate media controversies, and then doing morning shows and primetime shows almost daily. His narrow policy profile, which is exaggerated and simplified for TV digestion, is well suited to his strategy because it involves minority groups like Muslims and illegal Mexicans, and thus he can get media controversies out of it.
His narrow policy profile, with its exaggerated claims, also provided him a loud base of support to get him through Republican primaries, with their limited voter turnout.
The above formula does not require much at all in the way of a governance conception or plan. And indeed, Trump has shown beyond any reasonable doubt that he doesn't have such a thing.
Trump does not have substance. He is the TV candidate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
