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 20 2016 21:24 farvacola wrote: The only thing local Trump fans are talking about on my Facebook feed today is that Hillary's lack of American Flag pin is a true sign that she's a communist insurgent. As for the debate, my law student org hosted a watch party at a bar and, as you can imagine, shit got rowdy. The bad hombre line practically caused a riot lol.
This sounds like an email discussing poll to be conducted with McCain supporters to find out what they dislike most about Obama. Hence the "we need to put an actual legit grievance into the poll" response.
So I'm pretty fucking confused why you think the people writing it give a shit about Obama wearing flag pins anymore than they care about Obama supporting gay adoption.
They were testing negatives way back in 2008.They saw it as an issue eight years ago.Surely they'd realise a candidate has nothing to lose by wearing a flag pin by now?
Anyway we need to start a collection on CNN live feed cuts at convenient times.Here's a couple including one brand new one.
On October 20 2016 21:54 OuchyDathurts wrote: People came to the realization that having to wear a silly pin to somehow prove you care about the country is childish?
You would think her emulating the dress style of Mao Tsetung is more alarming than a silly pin but meh.
I would think this coming to your mind when you see that dress, that you have issues and need help.
PRINCETON, N.J. -- Amid the news frenzy leading up to the first general election debate of 2016, fewer U.S. adults rate themselves highly likely to vote for president than did so in September of each of the past four presidential election years. Sixty-nine percent of Americans currently rate their chances of voting a "10" on a 1-to-10 likelihood of voting scale. That is down from 76% in 2012 and 80% in 2008, the year with the highest turnout since 2000.
Still, by 76% to 65%, Republicans remain more likely than Democrats to say they will definitely vote -- a gap that is similar to 2012, but higher than in previous elections. Further, the 65% of Democrats saying they will definitely vote is well below their average for the prior four presidential elections (77%), whereas the 76% of Republicans saying they will definitely vote is only a bit lower than their prior average (81%).
One reason for the decline in Democrats' intent to vote could be the depressed percentage of young voters this year saying they will definitely vote -- now at 47%, down from 58% in 2012 and from a peak of 74% in 2008.
In contrast to the 11-point drop since 2012 in young adults' voting intention, there has been a seven-point decline among 35- to 54-year-olds and virtually no decline among those aged 55 and older.
On October 20 2016 21:24 farvacola wrote: The only thing local Trump fans are talking about on my Facebook feed today is that Hillary's lack of American Flag pin is a true sign that she's a communist insurgent. As for the debate, my law student org hosted a watch party at a bar and, as you can imagine, shit got rowdy. The bad hombre line practically caused a riot lol.
This sounds like an email discussing poll to be conducted with McCain supporters to find out what they dislike most about Obama. Hence the "we need to put an actual legit grievance into the poll" response.
So I'm pretty fucking confused why you think the people writing it give a shit about Obama wearing flag pins anymore than they care about Obama supporting gay adoption.
They were testing negatives way back in 2008.They saw it as an issue eight years ago.Surely they'd realise a candidate has nothing to lose by wearing a flag pin by now?
Perhaps when they tested those negatives they found out nobody cares and thus it's a complete non-issue. Like it actually is.
Every time you post more garbage non-news emails like this with 0 critical thinking in an attempt to make a point, you are not doing yourself any favors.
Appeals to hypocrisy won't stop the international and national headlines condemning Trump for his ever-so-meme-able "I'll Keep You in Suspense, Okay?" Trump flubbed his only possible chance to come back with that nonsense.
Yes, because the people writing those headlines don't have the self-awareness to explain the difference even to themselves before coming up with something like "appeal to hypocrisy" as you did.
Are you being real right now? Bush also refused by that logic. Florida went to Bush by 500 votes FIVE HUNDRED. Of course neither person was going to concede until the recount was done. You'd have to be insane to throw in the towel if things are that close until the final ruling was in. If Florida went to Gore by 500 votes and Bush wanted to wait for the final tally to give up no sane person would hold that against him either. But once it was all said and done Gore conceded the election like a man. Something Donald has no idea how to do. Neither Gore nor Bush said things were rigged or cried like a loser months before the election.
Okay, good, Bush also refused, so we can count him as another example - did you think I was attacking Al Gore or something? The real possibility of this election ending up in court is one of the reasons people on both sides of the aisle chastised Ruth Bader Ginsburg's comments.
There's no possible way this ends up in courts if Donald is an adult when he gets slaughtered. But he's a manchild of unprecedented levels and a clear and present threat to our democracy. 2000 has zero parallels to this year.
If you have an argument for why he's a "clear and present threat" to democracy, that would be a much more interesting point to witness than you calling the nominee a manchild and saying that he cries like a loser.
Because all I see is poll flogging and a media that's found yet another story to concoct, whether it's how Trump won't denounce David Duke, won't denounce Putin, won't denounce this, won't denounce that, won't say he'll "accept" the result of a future vote. What kind of question is that, and why keep at it after the answer they got springing it on him at the first debate? Because they're stumping for his opponent and want him to say it's over? Or because you're scared he'll somehow start a civil war? I beseech you or anyone to use more than their feels to explain what's so threatening.
You realize not even Pence & Conway are defending this shit? When did you become the #1 Trump zealot? How is it a fabricated story that a major party nominee is saying with 0 evidence that there will be massive voter fraud, the election will be rigged and he may not accept the result
Pence and Conway are obviously sheeple who don't understand the political and election process as well as Mr. Future President Donald J. Trump /s
The only thing that I have managed to gain from these 3 debates and the campaign process in general is that Trump does not understand, care about, or even perceive the gravitas of the position for which he is applying. His lack of preparation and lack of knowledge on current and past events has made this nearly unbearable. We do not have the luxury of time for Trump to spend the first 2 years of his term rewatching the school house rock video on how bills are made. When he talked about the retreat from Mosul that happened a few years ago he acts as if staying was the simplest thing to do. (And even if he was referring to having our soldiers stay in Iraq there have been plenty of discussions in this thread regarding why that wasn't feasible either due to concerns for the security of our troops). I have always tried to be as fair and centrist as possible when addressing either of the candidates but I am tired of this candidate parading his abject stupidity all over my television and computer screens. oBlade, zeo, and Nettles I understand that there are issues with Hilary Clinton,
I dislike how willing I feel she will be to pull us into another war, but I also feel that she will have the balls (unlike Obama) to follow through on a red line comment and not walk it back. I dislike how the primary played out to her significant advantage, but I cant see evidence that she may have had a personal hand in it so I cant hate on her for that. . I dislike how she has coopted a feminist movement to further her own gains when in the past she has (and continues) to pay men more than she pays women at the Clinton Foundation (I need a source for this because I just heard Conway say it) I dislike how she allowed herself to make the stupid decision to host her own email server, because without that she would have literally run away with this election. (keep in mind that this email server stuff got kicked off by the Benghazi investigation and was really just a way for congressional republicans to continue investigating her after Benghazi lost steam. Sure she actually did something wrong worth investigating, but the fact that it had been done before without anyone caring points to the fact that there was more of a narrative here.) You may dislike her stance on taxes You may dislike her stance on abortion You may dislike her stance on any one of a million fucking things on her ticket including her as a person
But what I cannot in any way understand is how you+ Show Spoiler +
Edited out "feel that"
can support him when Trump says Oleppo is a disaster - No details on exaclty how he means that or intends to deal with it
Mosul is a disaster - No details on exactly how he means that or intends to deal with it
Taxes are a disaster - Universally poo poo'd tax plan that benefits himself and his organizations (estate and flat tax) using a trickle down theory of economics that hasn't held up well in the past.
Trade is a disaster - Fails to recognize that for a trade deal the other guy needs to agree to it and if they are losing... why would they?? (I will say that I appreciate the fact that he brought this to the table as a discussion topic when no one else wanted to touch it. Alot has changed in the time that it was signed and I think a renegotiation and a deal with periodic revisions/expiration is a good step forward)
Clintons in Haiti are a disaster - No details on exactly how he means that and likely doesn't actually know or he would have thrown it in her face right then and there. I believe he was just parroting what he heard other more informed people mention either on the news or radio.
Border is a disaster - Doesn't understand the cost and effort necessary of deporting 12MM people, or the cost of the wall that he proposes. John Oliver has a clip where he shows Trump quoting the price of the wall at 4B, 8B, 10B, and 12B. Meanwhile experts have pegged the cost of the wall at around 24B,
Security is a disaster - Ambiguous claims about defeating ISIS in 90 days... what if they go to hid out in Pakistan or Iran? is he going to chase them in there? it is unrealistic and insulting that he thinks im stupid enough to believe him. He wants to ban entire religious groups (completely against everything I and I believe this country stands for- oh wait no he walked that one back to a more tame everyone from countries I think have radical muslims in it AFTER he had to be told that it was against this country's only remaining moral high ground) and has motivated countless American individuals to regress back to nativism.
Corruption is a disaster - Contrary to what he has claimed he is not uniquely fitted to put an end to the pay to play schemes, because as a profiteer of those schemes I can only trust him to enshrine and expand those loop holes in order to secure himself a more profitable future after obtaining office. The only person I can trust to fix those is someone who has always played by the rules, and as of yet we haven't been presented with any candidate like that so personally this is a non issue and the status quo is preferable to anything he can muster. (as an aside im pretty sure you have to have a little dirt on you for anyone in politics to take you seriously, likely the cost of entry, but as an outsider i cant say that with any confidence)
Law and Order are a disaster - Though crime in some areas has increased crime in general is down or maintaining the average, and those increases should be dealt with a local phenomena to be dealt with by the local authorities. Id rather not see my tax dollars in NYC go to some govt program in CHI when we sure as hell need it here as it is. In addition I think that this is an overreaction to the recent protests held by BLM, which by and large have been civil. There have certainly been incidents of violence but when you are talking about a topic as sensitive as race relations and the fair and equal distribution of justice tempers will flare and the ugly face of human nature has a chance to rear its ugly head. Its unfortunate and needs to be handled, but it is not some fucking existential white crisis. People just dont want to get shot for no reason. its not that hard to grasp and its not that hard to agree with. Why are people even arguing about the semantics when it really is that simple.
I hate this election, I hate the hate that it has brought out of me when it comes to facing Trump supporters, and most of all I hate how this country has reacted to the truth they don't agree with as propaganda from the "other side" when did this become an us vs them. Whats with all this stupid Obama is a Muslim ISIS sleeper cell agent waiting to blow up the white house and dance on George Washington's grave bullshit. Were all just trying to take this country to a better place, and cant agree on how to do it. That doesn't mean one side is right and the other is wrong or they are morons for thinking XYZ. Since when did we become so paralyzed by indecision and the fear of being wrong that we cant just say "fuck it. You know what I don't agree with you but lets give it a shot because I'm pretty sure you're not a Russian spy trying to upend the government so lets see where this goes, and if it doesn't work we will go the other way. "
Okay Donald so I've made you two lists. The list in your left pocket is a list of useful talking points and attacks which you can use to win over moderates. Use those to regain the initiative and to score points on the easy setups you're given.
Got it.
And in your right pocket we put a list of things that you must absolutely not say under any circumstances. Still with me?
Yep, makes sense.
So you know to say the things on the left list?
Yes.
And what do we do with all the things written down on the list in your right pocket?
Not say them.
Okay, it looks like we're finally going to have a debate that isn't a train wreck.
Well..... Was nice knowing you pinoys. You guys might have a worse president than both of our options here lol. Any thoughts on what this will mean for the south china sea?
On October 20 2016 23:41 Ayaz2810 wrote: Well..... Was nice knowing you pinoys. You guys might have a worse president than both of our options here lol. Any thoughts on what this will mean for the south china sea?
It doesnt say in this story that he specifically said economic and military ties would be severed, but he did.
And this is exactly why the TPP was important because it locked us in to that entire region. Trumps recent rhetoric would give no one pause to abandon ship and move on to the next deal which they have obviously done here. the TPP may not have been perfect, and could have certainly been renegotiated, but outright calling it a "disaster", as Trump is wont to do, and claiming that it should be destroyed altogether rather than look at its redeeming qualities and expanding on those is childish, and has resulted in a further childish response from the philippine president. <---- THIS is why I can never support trump.
It's weird place to be in when Jesse Ventura is making a lot of sense to you (certainly not 100% with him but he's spot on in terms of the criticism as far as I'm concerned)
On October 20 2016 23:49 a_flayer wrote: It's weird place to be in when Jesse Ventura is making a lot of sense to you (certainly not 100% with him but he's spot on in terms of the criticism as far as I'm concerned)
LAS VEGAS — The third and final debate Wednesday marked the beginning of the end of a presidential race that most Republican leaders cannot wait to forget. But the party’s Donald Trump-driven divisions will not cease on election night.
The axis of furious conservative activists and hard-right media that spawned Trump’s nationalist and conspiratorial campaign is determined to complete its hostile takeover of the GOP, win or lose.
Trump’s insistence that the election will be “rigged,” which he again suggested at the debate, has only stoked the specter of a grievance movement that will haunt Republicans for months and years to come — threatening to leave the longtime norms of American politics shattered and Washington paralyzed by his followers’ agitation and suspicion.
“What I’m saying is that I will tell you at the time,” Trump said Wednesday, refusing to say whether he would accept the result of the election as legitimate. “I’ll keep you in suspense.”
The first post-election target for the grievance movement is likely to be House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.), who has drawn Trump’s wrath for not supporting him more fully. Trump’s backers, both inside the House Republican caucus and out, are already talking about a takedown.
Fox News host and Trump ally Sean Hannity said in an interview after the debate that Ryan was a “saboteur” and “needed to be called out and replaced.” Hannity said he would actively urge hard-line conservatives to launch bids against Ryan.
That follows Trump’s blistering attack last week on Ryan as “weak and ineffective” and a rush of anger on social media in which Ryan and other elected Republican officials have been cast as enemies.
[At third debate, Trump won’t commit to accepting election results if he loses]
For top Republicans, the challenges could be staggering in the aftermath of a Trump defeat, as polls show is probable. Their numbers are likely to shrink in both chambers of Congress, and they would have to navigate a Hillary Clinton presidency with constant questions about their loyalties and scorn for any attempts at bipartisan governing.
“The revolt that has been going on in the Republican Party, that brought Trump to where he is, is not going away. If anything, it’s going to intensify,” said Patrick J. Caddell, a veteran Democratic strategist who advises Breitbart, the Trump-aligned website, on polling.
“Republicans are living in a dream world if they think their voters are going to stop fighting the political class,” Caddell said. “What has happened will metamorphosize. The American people will not go gently into the good night of obscurity.”
At the fore of this conglomeration is Stephen K. Bannon, the former head of Breitbart who has become Trump’s most influential confidant. Bannon encouraged the candidate’s claims of voter fraud and references to a deeply corrupt global conspiracy of international banks and corporate-friendly politicians.
Bannon has been a prominent backer of political assaults against Ryan and other Republican leaders over the past decade from the party’s fringes — boosting primary challengers against Ryan and others, and warning against compromise on hot-button issues such as immigration. But with the fringes of the GOP now managing the Republican nominee, a retreat is far from likely.
Bannon’s friends say that he has become emboldened during his time with Trump, and that they expect him to work with his network of allies, super PACs and websites to battle Ryan and the Republican establishment throughout 2017 as that wing of the party tries to rebuild the GOP brand.
On October 20 2016 23:49 a_flayer wrote: It's weird place to be in when Jesse Ventura is making a lot of sense to you (certainly not 100% with him but he's spot on in terms of the criticism as far as I'm concerned)
why is it so weird that a former governor says some things that make a lot of sense?
I think we need to spin off News outlets from Media outlets. Any for profit news agency should be forced to have the words entertainment in the name, and any other news agency that intends to treat information in an unbiased and legitimate fashion should be a non-profit organization. We need a way to pull out the fact from fiction, and i am not under any delusion that this is perfect, but it is certainly better than what we have.
EPT
![[image loading]](https://scontent-ord1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/t31.0-8/14701017_10157704316565352_8929153409361651272_o.jpg)
