|
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 October 06 2016 01:54 oBlade wrote:We are living in a post-factual election, but it's not because of the right. People would believe that Trump is angry about his running mate winning, Kaine asks Pence how he knows Trump has a business, and people can't verify that Trump has had rallies of over 20k. http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/21/politics/donald-trump-rally-mobile-alabama/
Way to twist words. I don't think anybody was claiming Trump hasn't had a single rally with over 20k attendants. It's just that when there are 20k attendants, he probably claims there are 50k+ 
|
Gonna be fucking wild if Clinton manages to take both Florida and Ohio. With PA looking really good, and NC looking promising, our goddess is surely smirking right now.
|
On October 06 2016 01:54 oBlade wrote:We are living in a post-factual election, but it's not because of the right. People would believe that Trump is angry about his running mate winning, Kaine asks Pence how he knows Trump has a business, and people can't verify that Trump has had rallies of over 20k. http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/21/politics/donald-trump-rally-mobile-alabama/
More than a year ago. But you don't even acknowledge he lies about his rally size ever, so.
|
On October 06 2016 01:44 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2016 01:19 Acrofales wrote:On October 06 2016 01:16 oBlade wrote:On October 06 2016 00:53 Acrofales wrote:On October 06 2016 00:16 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/10/04/nigel_farage_will_attend_second_debate_as_trumps_guest_rise_above_the_catfight.htmlNigel Farage Will Attend Second Debate As Trump's Guest The leader behind 'Brexit' speaks with Fox News Channel's Neil Cavuto about his advice for Donald Trump ahead of the second presidential debate. Farage will attend the debate as a guest of Mr. Trump.
"The advice I have for Donald Trump, I don't have to give it to him face-to-face," the UKIP leader said. "I will share it with you right now on this show, it is very simple. The Clinton team analyzed that Trump is a proud man -- proud of his achievements, proud of himself, proud of his family. And if you attack him on his record, try to tear to bits his business empire and his past, he will try to defend himself."
He continued: "My advice to Mr. Trump is dead simple: Do not be accused of financial impropriety by the Clintons. Do not be told you are a misogynist by a woman whose Foundation takes money from Saudi Arabia. Rise above, don't get involved in some sort of terrible catfight. Rise above it and tell the American people why you are the candidate for change." Great. So the guy who fled the UK in disgrace after the Brexit campaign, is an honored guest of the other populist demagogue on the other side of the pond. I guess birds of a feather flock together. Fled in disgrace... the goal of his career, that he campaigned for for decades... And having attained this crowning achievement, instead of seeing it come to pass, he resigned from leading his party and ran away from the UK. E: I'm sure KwarK has more to say on the matter. I am not particularly well versed on the details, but insofar as I know the fallout from the Brexit campaign was nobody at all being happy with the results, ironically least of all the pro-Brexit campaigners. It's a clusterfuck. Cameron gambled and lost with his political career and instantly bailed rather than oversee his folly. May got a free ticket to the top job, despite her horrible record on human rights etc because in a Parliamentary system the leader is elected by the house, not by the people. The Labour party instantly imploded for no fucking reason which means that when a general election is called May might actually win, despite having half the likability of Cameron who has half the likability of the dead pig he was so intimately familiar with. The SNP are pretty much just doing their own independent Scotland thing now and mean to start some shit when Brexit rolls around. The pound is in freefall and there is still no actual plan for Brexit. Part of the problem was that within the coalition of Brexiteers there was no consensus about what they wanted. Some just wanted to vote against the establishment but assumed Brexit would fail, some wanted renegotiation, some wanted access to the common market with exemption from the political process, some wanted less people from South Asia in the UK and were confused about whether South Asia was in the EU, some wanted a return to Empire etc etc. However the political class, who actually have to interpret the will of the people after the vote, were much more pro EU which causes a problem. There was no specific policy question, it wasn't "should Britain demand control over migration to the UK and if that cannot be negotiated, leave the common market?" or anything like that. Nobody knows what the fuck to do. The people don't have a unified position on it and the political class have a divide with the people anyway. Farage's party, UKIP, is funded by the EU Parliament which is the only body in which it has any political power. The EU Parliamentary elections are done using a regional PR system which allows minority parties, like UKIP, to win seats. The Westminster elections within the UK always fuck UKIP over (hence why Farage doesn't have a seat, he can't win one) so without the EU UKIP will become more of a pressure group than a political party. It's not clear what will happen to them either. Farage's side won the vote but he's being blamed for the outcome by people from every side of the spectrum. Whatever happens will displease 95% of the people, 45% because it wasn't the kind of Brexit they wanted and 50% because it was any kind of Brexit, and he's the face of that.
You forgot the part where, just hours after winning, the Brexit side came out saying that their campaign promises were horseshit and that there would infact not be an additional 300+million pounds going into the NHS instead of to the EU.
|
United States43219 Posts
On October 06 2016 02:08 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2016 01:44 KwarK wrote:On October 06 2016 01:19 Acrofales wrote:On October 06 2016 01:16 oBlade wrote:On October 06 2016 00:53 Acrofales wrote:On October 06 2016 00:16 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/10/04/nigel_farage_will_attend_second_debate_as_trumps_guest_rise_above_the_catfight.htmlNigel Farage Will Attend Second Debate As Trump's Guest The leader behind 'Brexit' speaks with Fox News Channel's Neil Cavuto about his advice for Donald Trump ahead of the second presidential debate. Farage will attend the debate as a guest of Mr. Trump.
"The advice I have for Donald Trump, I don't have to give it to him face-to-face," the UKIP leader said. "I will share it with you right now on this show, it is very simple. The Clinton team analyzed that Trump is a proud man -- proud of his achievements, proud of himself, proud of his family. And if you attack him on his record, try to tear to bits his business empire and his past, he will try to defend himself."
He continued: "My advice to Mr. Trump is dead simple: Do not be accused of financial impropriety by the Clintons. Do not be told you are a misogynist by a woman whose Foundation takes money from Saudi Arabia. Rise above, don't get involved in some sort of terrible catfight. Rise above it and tell the American people why you are the candidate for change." Great. So the guy who fled the UK in disgrace after the Brexit campaign, is an honored guest of the other populist demagogue on the other side of the pond. I guess birds of a feather flock together. Fled in disgrace... the goal of his career, that he campaigned for for decades... And having attained this crowning achievement, instead of seeing it come to pass, he resigned from leading his party and ran away from the UK. E: I'm sure KwarK has more to say on the matter. I am not particularly well versed on the details, but insofar as I know the fallout from the Brexit campaign was nobody at all being happy with the results, ironically least of all the pro-Brexit campaigners. It's a clusterfuck. Cameron gambled and lost with his political career and instantly bailed rather than oversee his folly. May got a free ticket to the top job, despite her horrible record on human rights etc because in a Parliamentary system the leader is elected by the house, not by the people. The Labour party instantly imploded for no fucking reason which means that when a general election is called May might actually win, despite having half the likability of Cameron who has half the likability of the dead pig he was so intimately familiar with. The SNP are pretty much just doing their own independent Scotland thing now and mean to start some shit when Brexit rolls around. The pound is in freefall and there is still no actual plan for Brexit. Part of the problem was that within the coalition of Brexiteers there was no consensus about what they wanted. Some just wanted to vote against the establishment but assumed Brexit would fail, some wanted renegotiation, some wanted access to the common market with exemption from the political process, some wanted less people from South Asia in the UK and were confused about whether South Asia was in the EU, some wanted a return to Empire etc etc. However the political class, who actually have to interpret the will of the people after the vote, were much more pro EU which causes a problem. There was no specific policy question, it wasn't "should Britain demand control over migration to the UK and if that cannot be negotiated, leave the common market?" or anything like that. Nobody knows what the fuck to do. The people don't have a unified position on it and the political class have a divide with the people anyway. Farage's party, UKIP, is funded by the EU Parliament which is the only body in which it has any political power. The EU Parliamentary elections are done using a regional PR system which allows minority parties, like UKIP, to win seats. The Westminster elections within the UK always fuck UKIP over (hence why Farage doesn't have a seat, he can't win one) so without the EU UKIP will become more of a pressure group than a political party. It's not clear what will happen to them either. Farage's side won the vote but he's being blamed for the outcome by people from every side of the spectrum. Whatever happens will displease 95% of the people, 45% because it wasn't the kind of Brexit they wanted and 50% because it was any kind of Brexit, and he's the face of that. You forgot the part where, just hours after winning, the Brexit side came out saying that their campaign promises were horseshit and that there would infact not be an additional 300+million pounds going into the NHS instead of to the EU.
The "Brexit side" didn't make that claim, it wasn't one organized group. But Farage still picked up blame for someone else refusing to honour a promise he didn't even make. That's part of why it's such a clusterfuck. He's the face that everyone throws shit at because nobody else wants a piece of the blame.
|
On October 06 2016 01:45 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2016 01:19 Acrofales wrote:On October 06 2016 01:16 oBlade wrote:On October 06 2016 00:53 Acrofales wrote:On October 06 2016 00:16 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/10/04/nigel_farage_will_attend_second_debate_as_trumps_guest_rise_above_the_catfight.htmlNigel Farage Will Attend Second Debate As Trump's Guest The leader behind 'Brexit' speaks with Fox News Channel's Neil Cavuto about his advice for Donald Trump ahead of the second presidential debate. Farage will attend the debate as a guest of Mr. Trump.
"The advice I have for Donald Trump, I don't have to give it to him face-to-face," the UKIP leader said. "I will share it with you right now on this show, it is very simple. The Clinton team analyzed that Trump is a proud man -- proud of his achievements, proud of himself, proud of his family. And if you attack him on his record, try to tear to bits his business empire and his past, he will try to defend himself."
He continued: "My advice to Mr. Trump is dead simple: Do not be accused of financial impropriety by the Clintons. Do not be told you are a misogynist by a woman whose Foundation takes money from Saudi Arabia. Rise above, don't get involved in some sort of terrible catfight. Rise above it and tell the American people why you are the candidate for change." Great. So the guy who fled the UK in disgrace after the Brexit campaign, is an honored guest of the other populist demagogue on the other side of the pond. I guess birds of a feather flock together. Fled in disgrace... the goal of his career, that he campaigned for for decades... And having attained this crowning achievement, instead of seeing it come to pass, he resigned from leading his party and ran away from the UK. E: I'm sure KwarK has more to say on the matter. I am not particularly well versed on the details, but insofar as I know the fallout from the Brexit campaign was nobody at all being happy with the results, ironically least of all the pro-Brexit campaigners. But are there vocal right-wingers on TL that supported UKIP/Farage's MEP campaign? The takeaway in today's era of hyperpartisanship, very visible in this thread, is not to take at face value critics with bare agendas in isoluation. I'd like to at least hear the other side before coming to a conclusion. Two big players abruptly quit and it looks bad. If they did it in an altruistic desire for political unity and to foster new alliances free of their influence, I suspect they'd still be called cowards leaving messes at the doorsteps of others.
While there's something to be said for Cameron stepping down, as he was against Brexit, but "felt that the people had a right to vote on it" (or rather, he gambled with it so he could win the election, and then fell flat on his face when it didn't go as well as the Scotland referendum went for him). After campaigning against Brexit, he is clearly not the man to lead the government through the Brexit. I don't know the first thing about May (the news painted her has a bit of an opportunist in the grab for the PM spot).
Farage campaigned most of his political career for the Brexit. People voted for the Brexit. Rather than saying "right, now lets do this properly. Here´s how UKIP would tackle this Brexit: <policy>", he said "errrmmm, I want to spend more time with my family. cya, wouldn't wanna be ya". As all other populists in Europe, he had a list of "things wrong with the country" and absolutely no clue how to fix them.
|
On October 06 2016 02:07 Acrofales wrote:Way to twist words. I don't think anybody was claiming Trump hasn't had a single rally with over 20k attendants. It's just that when there are 20k attendants, he probably claims there are 50k+
Even this thread can't go one page without being post-factual.
On October 06 2016 01:17 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2016 00:25 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
Hillary is getting 200 to her rallies, Trump is filling stadiums with 20,000+.
I'd be more worried about turnout than the polls if i were a democrat. You need an asterisk there-Trump routinely lies about the size of his rallies (often times in hilariously impossible ways). I dunno if he's actually cracked 20K in reality.
On October 06 2016 02:08 TheTenthDoc wrote:More than a year ago. But you don't even acknowledge he lies about his rally size ever, so.
I wasn't asked. Disavow? Do I disavow?
|
On October 06 2016 02:08 TheTenthDoc wrote:More than a year ago. But you don't even acknowledge he lies about his rally size ever, so.
Also if you dig into the 30K number further, there was no office ticket count and estimates very. Some said 20K. It was a lot of people in a state that was going to vote for him no matter what and it was a year ago. Trump plays to small crowds, just like Clinton. He just likes to hype the big crowds when he is in an area that will pull in that sort of crowd. But that is not how one wins elections.
|
On October 06 2016 02:08 TheTenthDoc wrote:More than a year ago. But you don't even acknowledge he lies about his rally size ever, so.
That's a good point. He's spoken repeatedly about how large his rally is. Bigger than normal. In fact, his rally is yuge.
|
On October 06 2016 02:17 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2016 02:08 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 06 2016 01:54 oBlade wrote:We are living in a post-factual election, but it's not because of the right. People would believe that Trump is angry about his running mate winning, Kaine asks Pence how he knows Trump has a business, and people can't verify that Trump has had rallies of over 20k. http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/21/politics/donald-trump-rally-mobile-alabama/ More than a year ago. But you don't even acknowledge he lies about his rally size ever, so. That's a good point. He's spoken repeatedly about how large his rally is. Bigger than normal. In fact, his rally is yuge.
Yuge like his hands?
|
On October 06 2016 02:16 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2016 02:07 Acrofales wrote:On October 06 2016 01:54 oBlade wrote:We are living in a post-factual election, but it's not because of the right. People would believe that Trump is angry about his running mate winning, Kaine asks Pence how he knows Trump has a business, and people can't verify that Trump has had rallies of over 20k. http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/21/politics/donald-trump-rally-mobile-alabama/ Way to twist words. I don't think anybody was claiming Trump hasn't had a single rally with over 20k attendants. It's just that when there are 20k attendants, he probably claims there are 50k+ Even this thread can't go one page without being post-factual.
What are you talking about? People in the thread took issue claim that Trump plays to 20K crowds at all times, while Clinton plays to 200 people. It was a vague post, but the intent was clear it was about the general election. People were then unsure of the max number of people Trump has played to recently and you dug up some article from a year ago like someone said that Trump has never been before a huge crowd.
And you did skip over the fact that Trump lies about the size of crowds and the ticket counts are rarely available.
|
There is nothing to lie about, Trump crowds are indeed massive. There are usually thousands of people who can't even get in. There might be no translation into extra votes, but there is not even a contest in rallies.
|
United States43219 Posts
On October 06 2016 02:25 biology]major wrote:
There is nothing to lie about, Trump crowds are indeed massive. There are usually thousands of people who can't even get in. There might be no translation into extra votes, but there is not even a contest in rallies.
Someone (GH maybe) used to post photos of his events with the big crowd shown from one angle and then another angle showing the other 90% of the arena empty.
|
On October 06 2016 02:16 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2016 02:08 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 06 2016 01:54 oBlade wrote:We are living in a post-factual election, but it's not because of the right. People would believe that Trump is angry about his running mate winning, Kaine asks Pence how he knows Trump has a business, and people can't verify that Trump has had rallies of over 20k. http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/21/politics/donald-trump-rally-mobile-alabama/ More than a year ago. But you don't even acknowledge he lies about his rally size ever, so. Also if you dig into the 30K number further, there was no office ticket count and estimates very. Some said 20K. It was a lot of people in a state that was going to vote for him no matter what and it was a year ago. Trump plays to small crowds, just like Clinton. He just likes to hype the big crowds when he is in an area that will pull in that sort of crowd. But that is not how one wins elections.
Right, you win by campaigning. But going in front of large groups of people around the country and talking to them about your candidacy isn't necessarily related to that.
|
On October 06 2016 02:30 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2016 02:16 Plansix wrote:On October 06 2016 02:08 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 06 2016 01:54 oBlade wrote:We are living in a post-factual election, but it's not because of the right. People would believe that Trump is angry about his running mate winning, Kaine asks Pence how he knows Trump has a business, and people can't verify that Trump has had rallies of over 20k. http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/21/politics/donald-trump-rally-mobile-alabama/ More than a year ago. But you don't even acknowledge he lies about his rally size ever, so. Also if you dig into the 30K number further, there was no office ticket count and estimates very. Some said 20K. It was a lot of people in a state that was going to vote for him no matter what and it was a year ago. Trump plays to small crowds, just like Clinton. He just likes to hype the big crowds when he is in an area that will pull in that sort of crowd. But that is not how one wins elections. Right, you win by campaigning. But going in front of large groups of people around the country and talking to them about your candidacy isn't necessarily related to that.
Good, glad you agree Trump lies about his rally numbers and they are not a direct metric for success in this election. Glad we had this discussion.
|
there's no convenient list of the questions asked of the candidates in the debate; so I'd have to go through the full transcript; not worth it just for the fun of answering the questions myself. oh well.
I'm surprised a bit; I'd have thought there'd be a condensed list up somewhere easy to find on google, but it didn't show in my searches.
|
United States43219 Posts
You'd need two lists zlefin. One of the questions asked and one of the questions answered. There is very little crossover.
|
well, I was gonna answer the questions asked, so that's all I needed.
|
On October 06 2016 02:34 zlefin wrote:
there's no convenient list of the questions asked of the candidates in the debate; so I'd have to go through the full transcript; not worth it just for the fun of answering the questions myself. oh well.
I'm surprised a bit; I'd have thought there'd be a condensed list up somewhere easy to find on google, but it didn't show in my searches.
They weren't particularly good questions anyways.
Besides, if you're answering in text format, it's better to get questions more suitable for that format. Part of the trick of being asked in real time is the impromptu aspect that doesn't exist here.
Also if your answers aren't completely off topic bashing then you're doing it wrong.
|
On October 06 2016 02:38 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2016 02:34 zlefin wrote:
there's no convenient list of the questions asked of the candidates in the debate; so I'd have to go through the full transcript; not worth it just for the fun of answering the questions myself. oh well.
I'm surprised a bit; I'd have thought there'd be a condensed list up somewhere easy to find on google, but it didn't show in my searches. They weren't particularly good questions anyways. Besides, if you're answering in text format, it's better to get questions more suitable for that format. Part of the trick of being asked in real time is the impromptu aspect that doesn't exist here.
yeah; but otoh i'm not an actual candidate who should've prepped for the debate; so I think that compensates for not having the impromptu difficulty.
and I haven't had much luck getting questions from people anyways; something about me being not a candidate makes people even less interested in my answers 
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
