|
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 November 08 2016 04:23 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2016 04:20 KwarK wrote:On November 08 2016 04:17 GoTuNk! wrote:On November 08 2016 03:42 Doodsmack wrote:Trump is actually jealous of Clinton that celebrities are shunning him lol...it's like he's not a "star" anymore. And he just can't help but comment on it... Sarasota, Florida (CNN) — Donald Trump on Monday mocked hip-hop music as he once again criticized the performance Jay Z and Beyonce delivered at a rally for Hillary Clinton, asking whether it was "talking or singing."
"The language is so bad and as they were singing -- singing right? Was it talking or singing? Right? But the language was so bad," Trump said Monday during his first of five rallies the day before Election Day.
Trump's apparent criticism of rap and hip-hop comes in spite of the GOP nominee's repeated attempts to appeal to African-American voters during the final months of his campaign. It also comes as Clinton has ramped up get out the vote efforts in recent days by targeting young and African-American voters in particular. CNN CNN is ridiculous, what that article says (or what you are implying) has nothing to do with what he actually convey in the rally. I watched a bit of the rally online and his points were: a) Look this huge stadium is full of people, and more are crowding outside. Hillary has to bring Jay-z for free and even then no one shows up. b) Whenever Trump says bad things he gets berated from everywhere, but Jay-z can say all sorts of bads words with no problem (this was in a half joke/half serious way) If Trump had described his habit of sexually assaulting women as "grabbing them by their no-no parts" it wouldn't be any better. The outrage isn't over the word pussy, it was over "I don't even ask". I'm also a bit puzzled that Go Tunk thinks that a politician and a hip hop artist's language should be compared at the same level. You can like Eminem and think that what he says in his song would be absolutely terrifying if ever heard from the mouth of the POTUS.
Read my reply to Kwark, my point was that CNN was misrepresenting Trump on purpose. I said nothing about Trump's claim as you are falsely acussing me.
"I'm also a bit puzzled that Go Tunk thinks that a politician and a hip hop artist's language should be compared at the same level. I did not say that.
|
On November 08 2016 04:30 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2016 04:20 KwarK wrote:On November 08 2016 04:17 GoTuNk! wrote:On November 08 2016 03:42 Doodsmack wrote:Trump is actually jealous of Clinton that celebrities are shunning him lol...it's like he's not a "star" anymore. And he just can't help but comment on it... Sarasota, Florida (CNN) — Donald Trump on Monday mocked hip-hop music as he once again criticized the performance Jay Z and Beyonce delivered at a rally for Hillary Clinton, asking whether it was "talking or singing."
"The language is so bad and as they were singing -- singing right? Was it talking or singing? Right? But the language was so bad," Trump said Monday during his first of five rallies the day before Election Day.
Trump's apparent criticism of rap and hip-hop comes in spite of the GOP nominee's repeated attempts to appeal to African-American voters during the final months of his campaign. It also comes as Clinton has ramped up get out the vote efforts in recent days by targeting young and African-American voters in particular. CNN CNN is ridiculous, what that article says (or what you are implying) has nothing to do with what he actually convey in the rally. I watched a bit of the rally online and his points were: a) Look this huge stadium is full of people, and more are crowding outside. Hillary has to bring Jay-z for free and even then no one shows up. b) Whenever Trump says bad things he gets berated from everywhere, but Jay-z can say all sorts of bads words with no problem (this was in a half joke/half serious way) If Trump had described his habit of sexually assaulting women as "grabbing them by their no-no parts" it wouldn't be any better. The outrage isn't over the word pussy, it was over "I don't even ask". I was simply saying CNN was misrepresenting his words, on purpose, and instead presented what Trump did say. I was not expressing any opinions on Trump's actual points.
Notice how Trump slipped in an insult of hip hop music though. The issue isn't just about whether there are bad words, it's about whether it's singing or talking. That part is not relevant to Trump's actual point, and it's meant to be a personal dig to get revenge on Jay Z for not treating Trump like a star.
|
On November 08 2016 04:30 KwarK wrote:
It's gonna be a super easy post mortem for them though.
"It looks like we did poorly with women voters. I think in 2020 we should go with a candidate who doesn't publicly brag about his history of sexual assault".
"Noted".
I guess they have short memories then because their last postmortem had quite a lot to say and Trump is doing pretty much the opposite.
|
On November 08 2016 03:55 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2016 03:51 plasmidghost wrote:
Given all the polls that have come out, I'm ready to call this election for Clinton We're still within the margin of error. If a poll says Clinton +2 (margin of error +-3) then we have a range of options from Clinton +5 to Trump +1. Clinton +2 is the approximate average but Trump +1 is an outcome that was supported by the range the polls predicted, if that makes sense.
MoE is not for the difference between two choices, it's for one individual choice, which makes it double for the difference. If a poll says Clinton 46% / Trump 44% with +-3% MoE, then Clinton 43% / Trump 47% is within MoE.
If a poll says Clinton +2, the actual range is from Clinton +8 to Trump +4
|
What you say is true Probe1 but their strategy is ultimately fairly bad from the get go. You don't need to appeal to the racists when you're a right wing party in a two-party system. It's not like they're going to go, Oh shit, the republicans didn't sufficiently cater to me in this election, I guess I'll go democrat instead. They're going to be on your side either way. I assume their decision to make that their strategy is connected to their shift from being the left wing party to being the right wing party, though?
The only thing that actually happens when you include extremes in your rhetoric is that you lose grip on the moderate vote. That's perfect for the democrats, they get to occupy the moderate right wing space and say "either you're me or you're a far right extremist". If they're at all skilled, they can translate that to "either you're sane and you vote for me or you're insane". That's also why the democrats are never going to go progressive on their own; cause in doing that they would ensure the battle for moderate right wing votes begins again.
|
On November 08 2016 04:23 Probe1 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2016 03:42 OuchyDathurts wrote:On November 08 2016 03:34 KwarK wrote:On November 08 2016 03:26 GoTuNk! wrote:On November 07 2016 22:46 Plansix wrote:On November 07 2016 22:27 GoTuNk! wrote:On November 07 2016 22:03 Doodsmack wrote:
Virginia's highest court ruled in July that Gov McAuliffe can't pardon felons en masse (to free them up to vote), but must consider them on a case by case basis. He then managed to pardon 60,000 felons by using a mechanical pen that signed letters very quickly. Guess they are Democratic voters lol. Wonder if this could be challenged after the election... Well they are hell bent on creating and open border so more democrats can come in, this would be the next step. The more, the merrier (as long as they vote democrat). They don’t even need open borders. The natural progression of demographics will make whites the minority by 2040. In 2020 there will be more non-white children than white children in the US. All citizens able to vote. NPR reported last week the Texas has the shifted to a non-white majority population, but the voter participation is leans to white voters. Unless the Republicans ditch their current tactics, they will fade into a nothing party by the sheer weight of changing demographics. Well that's my point exactly,so I guess we agree? They love illegal inmigrants because their children vote democrat (and so will they with the "path to citizenship"). So you are perfectly ok with the replacement of the native population? Literally nothing is more in line with the dreams of the American founders than a bunch of people with their own language, culture and race exterminating the existing population and building their own country on the corpses. Also immigrants typically vote Democrat because Democrats don't spend all their time trying to fuck them over. The fact that the pro-life Republican party has somehow managed to lose the hardline Catholic vote is really pretty incredible. There is nothing innately Democratic leaning about immigrants, it's what happens after they immigrate that turns them into Democrats.
Also if the US didn't want so many Hispanic people maybe they should have thought of that before they took over the northern half of Mexico and included it within the US. And then thought of it again before they invited waves of Hispanic immigration to deal with labor shortages. Always mind boggling to me how they apparently don't understand this. If they continue to dig their heels in they're going to become totally irrelevant. You've gotta come to your senses and change your tune at some point and the sooner it happens the better for them as far as switching people over. However instead of doing that and becoming softer on the issue they decided to go 180 degrees in the other direction with their nominee. It's so short sighted and stupid I just don't get it. I guess the plan, if there is one, is to wait till the last possible second, then wait a few minutes longer, then switch when its way too late. On November 08 2016 03:42 Doodsmack wrote:Trump is actually jealous of Clinton that celebrities are shunning him lol...it's like he's not a "star" anymore. And he just can't help but comment on it... Sarasota, Florida (CNN) — Donald Trump on Monday mocked hip-hop music as he once again criticized the performance Jay Z and Beyonce delivered at a rally for Hillary Clinton, asking whether it was "talking or singing."
"The language is so bad and as they were singing -- singing right? Was it talking or singing? Right? But the language was so bad," Trump said Monday during his first of five rallies the day before Election Day.
Trump's apparent criticism of rap and hip-hop comes in spite of the GOP nominee's repeated attempts to appeal to African-American voters during the final months of his campaign. It also comes as Clinton has ramped up get out the vote efforts in recent days by targeting young and African-American voters in particular. CNN Meanwhile Trump had Ted Nugent with him literally grabbing his penis on stage. The man also uses "motherfucker" in speeches and says we should "bomb the shit out of them" at rallies but he's trying to claim the moral high ground. Oh boy we're living in a fevered dream guys. They do understand. In fact every Republican primary -> national election has been a dissertation on how they understand it. Throughout the primary process Republicans appeal to (radical, hardline, extremist, call them what you like) far right voters who are dissatisfied with Democrats soft approach to things like equal treatment for all. Then during the national election with a wink and a nudge they shed off the "Build the wall" rhetoric and alter themselves to a more moderate stance. They promise the racist one thing and the black another. And it works. They don't go too far as to upset their far right constituents and they don't say anything so definitive that they turn all minority voters against them. Then once elected it's business as usual. This is the great shake up for 2016. Trump, instead of backing off his rhetoric and donning a mask of moderate inclusiveness, has doubled down. Hell, that's why he blew the other candidates the fuck out in the primary. Rather than just saying to the man that wants to remove illegal immigrants "I think the rule of law should be respected and people should come here legally" he screams "BUILD THAT WALL". How can another Republican compete when someone is going 100% full steam ahead for Republican voters? In 2 days we're gonna see exactly what that means for getting the majority of Americans to vote for him. The news says he's toast. They're at the point where they're using increasingly esoteric polling methods because the story was told weeks ago - Trumps gonna get dumped. What will the Republicans learn from this? Probably not much except to try and block out anyone that actually believes in the crazy shit they say for votes. Cause when a moderate Republican stands next to a hard line true believer Republican, holy hell. Poor old Jeb never stood a chance.
It only works so far and it doesn't work on a national level. If you just want to get elected to your congressional seat in your little state saying awful things about people works quite well there. You're appealing to an essentially homogeneous crowd, especially with gerrymandering! When it comes time for the big dance you can't expect to win by being a giant hateful child.
Trump's primary victory has many factors. The crazy frothing at the mouth base is part of it. Not having a super delegate like system to kill off a potential party destroying candidate is another. But the biggest factor was the media giving him free wall to wall coverage on the retarded things he was saying and doing. No one in history has received more free coverage. I think people forget he essentially got a blank check for all media coverage, that's worth billions of actual dollars.
They're going into a game with a losing strategy and the boundaries of that game are only going to get skewed away from them more and more as time goes on.
|
On November 08 2016 04:33 Slaughter wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2016 04:30 KwarK wrote:
It's gonna be a super easy post mortem for them though.
"It looks like we did poorly with women voters. I think in 2020 we should go with a candidate who doesn't publicly brag about his history of sexual assault".
"Noted". I guess they have short memories then because their last postmortem had quite a lot to say and Trump is doing pretty much the opposite.
To be fair, the party leaders didn't really want to hand the reigns over to Trump.
|
On November 08 2016 04:30 KwarK wrote:
It's gonna be a super easy post mortem for them though.
"It looks like we did poorly with women voters. I think in 2020 we should go with a candidate who doesn't publicly brag about his history of sexual assault".
"Noted".
Well.. One would have thought they did that eight years ago after the Sarah Palin fiasco.
But apparently they found someone even more classless and obnoxiously oblivious of facts and reality than her.
|
Is Trump really tripling down on the "how dare they let everyone in line vote until 10" line? What a dumbass.
User was warned for this post
|
On November 08 2016 04:35 Nebuchad wrote:
What you say is true Probe1 but their strategy is ultimately fairly bad from the get go. You don't need to appeal to the racists when you're a right wing party in a two-party system. It's not like they're going to go, Oh shit, the republicans didn't sufficiently cater to me in this election, I guess I'll go democrat instead. They're going to be on your side either way. I assume their decision to make that their strategy is connected to their shift from being the left wing party to being the right wing party, though?
The only thing that actually happens when you include extremes in your rhetoric is that you lose grip on the moderate vote. That's perfect for the democrats, they get to occupy the moderate right wing space and say "either you're me or you're a far right extremist". If they're at all skilled, they can translate that to "either you're sane and you vote for me or you're insane". And they never need to go progressive, cause in doing that they ensure the battle for moderate right wing votes begins again.
Well, the problem with the Republican party right now is not their bad strategies but the fact that they are hostage of a radicalized base. A republican who looks anything like a moderate gets trashed by the Tera Party these days, and Kasich has shown that you can't hope to do anything at the primary with a normal right wing platform.
All in all, it looks like the GOP has turned into a machine to lose presidential elections, and it's gonna go worse and worse because their demographic target is shrinking.
|
On November 08 2016 04:33 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2016 04:23 Biff The Understudy wrote:On November 08 2016 04:20 KwarK wrote:On November 08 2016 04:17 GoTuNk! wrote:On November 08 2016 03:42 Doodsmack wrote:Trump is actually jealous of Clinton that celebrities are shunning him lol...it's like he's not a "star" anymore. And he just can't help but comment on it... Sarasota, Florida (CNN) — Donald Trump on Monday mocked hip-hop music as he once again criticized the performance Jay Z and Beyonce delivered at a rally for Hillary Clinton, asking whether it was "talking or singing."
"The language is so bad and as they were singing -- singing right? Was it talking or singing? Right? But the language was so bad," Trump said Monday during his first of five rallies the day before Election Day.
Trump's apparent criticism of rap and hip-hop comes in spite of the GOP nominee's repeated attempts to appeal to African-American voters during the final months of his campaign. It also comes as Clinton has ramped up get out the vote efforts in recent days by targeting young and African-American voters in particular. CNN CNN is ridiculous, what that article says (or what you are implying) has nothing to do with what he actually convey in the rally. I watched a bit of the rally online and his points were: a) Look this huge stadium is full of people, and more are crowding outside. Hillary has to bring Jay-z for free and even then no one shows up. b) Whenever Trump says bad things he gets berated from everywhere, but Jay-z can say all sorts of bads words with no problem (this was in a half joke/half serious way) If Trump had described his habit of sexually assaulting women as "grabbing them by their no-no parts" it wouldn't be any better. The outrage isn't over the word pussy, it was over "I don't even ask". I'm also a bit puzzled that Go Tunk thinks that a politician and a hip hop artist's language should be compared at the same level. You can like Eminem and think that what he says in his song would be absolutely terrifying if ever heard from the mouth of the POTUS. Read my reply to Kwark, my point was that CNN was misrepresenting Trump on purpose. I said nothing about Trump's claim as you are falsely acussing me. " I'm also a bit puzzled that Go Tunk thinks that a politician and a hip hop artist's language should be compared at the same level. I did not say that.
What's funny to me is you can't tweet a picture of yourself eating a taco bowl, it's an embarrassing stunt, but the article insinuates not liking Jay-Z is anti-black. There's a limitless supply of layers of just completely irrelevant nonsense this season.
|
On November 08 2016 04:43 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2016 04:35 Nebuchad wrote:
What you say is true Probe1 but their strategy is ultimately fairly bad from the get go. You don't need to appeal to the racists when you're a right wing party in a two-party system. It's not like they're going to go, Oh shit, the republicans didn't sufficiently cater to me in this election, I guess I'll go democrat instead. They're going to be on your side either way. I assume their decision to make that their strategy is connected to their shift from being the left wing party to being the right wing party, though?
The only thing that actually happens when you include extremes in your rhetoric is that you lose grip on the moderate vote. That's perfect for the democrats, they get to occupy the moderate right wing space and say "either you're me or you're a far right extremist". If they're at all skilled, they can translate that to "either you're sane and you vote for me or you're insane". And they never need to go progressive, cause in doing that they ensure the battle for moderate right wing votes begins again. Well, the problem with the Republican party right now is not their bad strategies but the fact that they are hostage of a radicalized base.
I think you can make a credible argument that their base is radicalized as a result of their bad strategies.
|
On November 08 2016 02:23 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2016 01:38 Probe1 wrote:On November 08 2016 01:31 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On November 08 2016 01:29 Probe1 wrote:On November 08 2016 01:25 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
This is getting so hype 36 hrs from now we'll know who won I think its safe to assume that 36 hours from now we'll know who won and there's a good chance someone will be saying some treasonous shit. This is gonna be superspicy No kidding. One of the undermentioned aspects of this election has been pushing just how far you can go with free speech. Trump has said seditious things. It's shocking that we've just accepted it as something that is okay to say. Eh. I care less about the pants-on-head stupid nonsense and more about deliberately misrepresenting reality over and over again by politicians. It's perfectly fine to say outrageous stupid things. That's your right as long as you aren't hurting people. But lying when people take your word as gospel is just disgusting.
Hey if he wants to contest the election that's his right as an American citizen (and his privilege since he has the money). But what he has said, and what he will say matter a lot. And I think he is within a really bad rant from outright saying what he's implying - people should contest the election violently.
On November 08 2016 02:15 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2016 02:12 Probe1 wrote:On November 08 2016 01:41 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On November 08 2016 01:38 Probe1 wrote:On November 08 2016 01:31 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On November 08 2016 01:29 Probe1 wrote:On November 08 2016 01:25 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
This is getting so hype 36 hrs from now we'll know who won I think its safe to assume that 36 hours from now we'll know who won and there's a good chance someone will be saying some treasonous shit. This is gonna be superspicy No kidding. One of the undermentioned aspects of this election has been pushing just how far you can go with free speech. Trump has said seditious things. It's shocking that we've just accepted it as something that is okay to say. I think you're overreacting Really? - Outright encouraged Russia to hack US government accounts - Refuses to accept the outcome of the election if he loses - Threatens to jail political opponents without evidence of criminal activity - Threatens to deport American citizens because of the country they were born in (while ironically his wife was an illegal immigrant working without a proper work visa) At what point do you draw the line? The kindest thing you could say about it is he got carried away. For years. He has consistently worked to undermine the countries stability if he is not given power. A lot of the Americans he said he wanted to deport were born in America. But he's not a fan of birthright citizenship.
You are right I was solely thinking about the first generation Hispanic immigrants, opposed to the second generation Hispanics and Muslims.
On November 08 2016 02:40 Seuss wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2016 02:12 Probe1 wrote:On November 08 2016 01:41 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On November 08 2016 01:38 Probe1 wrote:On November 08 2016 01:31 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On November 08 2016 01:29 Probe1 wrote:On November 08 2016 01:25 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
This is getting so hype 36 hrs from now we'll know who won I think its safe to assume that 36 hours from now we'll know who won and there's a good chance someone will be saying some treasonous shit. This is gonna be superspicy No kidding. One of the undermentioned aspects of this election has been pushing just how far you can go with free speech. Trump has said seditious things. It's shocking that we've just accepted it as something that is okay to say. I think you're overreacting Really? - Outright encouraged Russia to hack US government accounts - Refuses to accept the outcome of the election if he loses - Threatens to jail political opponents without evidence of criminal activity - Threatens to deport American citizens because of the country they were born in (while ironically his wife was an illegal immigrant working without a proper work visa) At what point do you draw the line? The kindest thing you could say about it is he got carried away. For years. He has consistently worked to undermine the countries stability if he is not given power. There really isn't a line but a handful of exceptions (e.g. it's illegal to cause a panic in a crowded theater), otherwise anything goes and that's how it should be. The problem with drawing lines is that inevitably those lines will be about maintaining the status quo, and the status quo doesn't differentiate between good and bad, right or wrong. The power to shut up Trump today would have been the power to shut up Martin Luther King Jr. or Susan B. Anthony in the past, and could be the power to shut up positive disruptive influences like Bernie Sanders in the future. That's bad, and because that's bad and we don't want that we let a lot of things slide that seem insane.
You are absolutely right to make the comparison to civil rights leaders who willfully broke the laws of the nation in protest for equal rights. But have reached a status comparable to sainthood in American history whereas black power movement leaders who chose to violently resist the racist and violent suppression of black Americans ended up jailed. They weren't planting car bombs and attacking politicians. They only believed that if white terrorists were to continue bombing black communities then black communities should defend themselves in times when white folk would generally do little to stop the violence perpetrated against them. They were treated as criminals for it. They were remembered for their violence.
Likewise Trump has a choice. Will he be remembered as an outsider who challenged the system or as an instigator who tried to divide the nation and spur far right citizens to violence?
|
On November 08 2016 04:35 Nebuchad wrote:
What you say is true Probe1 but their strategy is ultimately fairly bad from the get go. You don't need to appeal to the racists when you're a right wing party in a two-party system. It's not like they're going to go, Oh shit, the republicans didn't sufficiently cater to me in this election, I guess I'll go democrat instead. They're going to be on your side either way. I assume their decision to make that their strategy is connected to their shift from being the left wing party to being the right wing party, though?
The only thing that actually happens when you include extremes in your rhetoric is that you lose grip on the moderate vote. That's perfect for the democrats, they get to occupy the moderate right wing space and say "either you're me or you're a far right extremist". If they're at all skilled, they can translate that to "either you're sane and you vote for me or you're insane". And they never need to go progressive, cause in doing that they ensure the battle for moderate right wing votes begins again.
Exactly. The extreme right will vote for the Republican or they'll vote for no one at all. If they went with Rubio who is much softer on the racism and immigration issues instead of Trump then the extreme right base would either vote for him or they'd stay home. Rubio pulls in moderates, pulls in minorities way more than Trump could ever dream of. He's also a genius compared to Donald. He has composure and self control, except with water, he doesn't need his twitter taken away from him. Those diehard Trump voters, the anti immigration folks, the actual out and out racists, the anti muslim, anti PC, etc. Those people aren't going to vote for Hillary ever.
You kick the extremists to the curb, they don't matter and they'll be forgotten by time eventually. If you want to win an election you've gotta embrace sanity.
|
United States41991 Posts
On November 08 2016 04:36 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2016 04:30 KwarK wrote:
It's gonna be a super easy post mortem for them though.
"It looks like we did poorly with women voters. I think in 2020 we should go with a candidate who doesn't publicly brag about his history of sexual assault".
"Noted". Well.. One would have thought they did that eight years ago after the Sarah Palin fiasco. But apparently they found someone even more classless and obnoxiously oblivious of facts and reality than her.
It's like the discussion I had with Bio Major a few weeks back. I want to be a conservative (and in the UK I vote Conservative (although I may not next time if they keep fucking with the NHS)) but they just won't let me. They set the price for entry at "you must be this crazy to join" and I just don't qualify.
|
On November 08 2016 04:44 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2016 04:43 Biff The Understudy wrote:On November 08 2016 04:35 Nebuchad wrote:
What you say is true Probe1 but their strategy is ultimately fairly bad from the get go. You don't need to appeal to the racists when you're a right wing party in a two-party system. It's not like they're going to go, Oh shit, the republicans didn't sufficiently cater to me in this election, I guess I'll go democrat instead. They're going to be on your side either way. I assume their decision to make that their strategy is connected to their shift from being the left wing party to being the right wing party, though?
The only thing that actually happens when you include extremes in your rhetoric is that you lose grip on the moderate vote. That's perfect for the democrats, they get to occupy the moderate right wing space and say "either you're me or you're a far right extremist". If they're at all skilled, they can translate that to "either you're sane and you vote for me or you're insane". And they never need to go progressive, cause in doing that they ensure the battle for moderate right wing votes begins again. Well, the problem with the Republican party right now is not their bad strategies but the fact that they are hostage of a radicalized base. I think you can make a credible argument that their base is radicalized as a result of their bad strategies.
8 years of demonizing the democrats and endless investigations into their highest profile party member? All while justifying doing nothing because “the democrats refuse to work with us” while poison pilling every bill that gets voted on.
They grabbed the tiger’s tail and can’t figure how to let go.
|
On November 08 2016 04:43 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2016 04:33 GoTuNk! wrote:On November 08 2016 04:23 Biff The Understudy wrote:On November 08 2016 04:20 KwarK wrote:On November 08 2016 04:17 GoTuNk! wrote:On November 08 2016 03:42 Doodsmack wrote:Trump is actually jealous of Clinton that celebrities are shunning him lol...it's like he's not a "star" anymore. And he just can't help but comment on it... Sarasota, Florida (CNN) — Donald Trump on Monday mocked hip-hop music as he once again criticized the performance Jay Z and Beyonce delivered at a rally for Hillary Clinton, asking whether it was "talking or singing."
"The language is so bad and as they were singing -- singing right? Was it talking or singing? Right? But the language was so bad," Trump said Monday during his first of five rallies the day before Election Day.
Trump's apparent criticism of rap and hip-hop comes in spite of the GOP nominee's repeated attempts to appeal to African-American voters during the final months of his campaign. It also comes as Clinton has ramped up get out the vote efforts in recent days by targeting young and African-American voters in particular. CNN CNN is ridiculous, what that article says (or what you are implying) has nothing to do with what he actually convey in the rally. I watched a bit of the rally online and his points were: a) Look this huge stadium is full of people, and more are crowding outside. Hillary has to bring Jay-z for free and even then no one shows up. b) Whenever Trump says bad things he gets berated from everywhere, but Jay-z can say all sorts of bads words with no problem (this was in a half joke/half serious way) If Trump had described his habit of sexually assaulting women as "grabbing them by their no-no parts" it wouldn't be any better. The outrage isn't over the word pussy, it was over "I don't even ask". I'm also a bit puzzled that Go Tunk thinks that a politician and a hip hop artist's language should be compared at the same level. You can like Eminem and think that what he says in his song would be absolutely terrifying if ever heard from the mouth of the POTUS. Read my reply to Kwark, my point was that CNN was misrepresenting Trump on purpose. I said nothing about Trump's claim as you are falsely acussing me. " I'm also a bit puzzled that Go Tunk thinks that a politician and a hip hop artist's language should be compared at the same level. I did not say that. What's funny to me is you can't tweet a picture of yourself eating a taco bowl, it's an embarrassing stunt, but the article insinuates not liking Jay-Z is anti-black. There's a limitless supply of layers of just completely irrelevant nonsense this season.
Did you guys even read that article? I see no misrepresentation. I don't see how they misrepresent something when they quote his exact words. He complains about how the language Jay-z uses is bad and then gloats about how he appeals to African Americans better than Hillary despite every piece of contradictory evidence and then paints a picture about how all African Americans are living in hell. Trump is literally telling you his shitty views. It's not irrelevant, he's still a lying fool, and I can't imagine how you haven't caught on by now.
Anyways, did I miss a piece about how Sarah Palin was advising Trump on FP or was that just a rumour? I found a couple of links saying that.
|
On November 08 2016 04:33 Slaughter wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2016 04:30 KwarK wrote:
It's gonna be a super easy post mortem for them though.
"It looks like we did poorly with women voters. I think in 2020 we should go with a candidate who doesn't publicly brag about his history of sexual assault".
"Noted". I guess they have short memories then because their last postmortem had quite a lot to say and Trump is doing pretty much the opposite.
Funny how so much of the time spent by pundits on cable news was about how Republicans can better appeal to Hispanic voters in 2016. Didn't really go to plan did it?
On November 08 2016 04:35 Nebuchad wrote:
What you say is true Probe1 but their strategy is ultimately fairly bad from the get go. You don't need to appeal to the racists when you're a right wing party in a two-party system. It's not like they're going to go, Oh shit, the republicans didn't sufficiently cater to me in this election, I guess I'll go democrat instead. They're going to be on your side either way. I assume their decision to make that their strategy is connected to their shift from being the left wing party to being the right wing party, though?
The only thing that actually happens when you include extremes in your rhetoric is that you lose grip on the moderate vote. That's perfect for the democrats, they get to occupy the moderate right wing space and say "either you're me or you're a far right extremist". If they're at all skilled, they can translate that to "either you're sane and you vote for me or you're insane". That's also why the democrats are never going to go progressive on their own; cause in doing that they would ensure the battle for moderate right wing votes begins again.
People can choose not to participant in the election if they feel no candidate adequately represents them. Clintons campaign is terrified of this. Every week Obama is out there saying "Don't boo, Vote!". They understand that Clinton isn't the first choice of many voters. In order to win they have to convince people that by not voting, or voting for a third party, they are supporting Trump. I believe they have been successful at this and I believe Clinton will win in part because her opponent has supplied her with the motivational material to encourage unlikely voters to cast a ballot this week against Trump. Rather than for Clinton.
You have also very deftly described one of the underlying issues with the Democratic Party and why so many people said "Bernie or Bust". They aren't really a progressive party They're just more progressive by comparison. Bernie Sanders said he would actually get shit done for progressives. That's very much like Trump saying he'll actually get shit done for far right voters. But I believe the DNC really did play against Bernie, recognizing that he wasn't a lip service candidate and would really target their interests and (cough) make America great again.
On November 08 2016 04:35 OuchyDathurts wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2016 04:23 Probe1 wrote:On November 08 2016 03:42 OuchyDathurts wrote:On November 08 2016 03:34 KwarK wrote:On November 08 2016 03:26 GoTuNk! wrote:On November 07 2016 22:46 Plansix wrote:On November 07 2016 22:27 GoTuNk! wrote:On November 07 2016 22:03 Doodsmack wrote:
Virginia's highest court ruled in July that Gov McAuliffe can't pardon felons en masse (to free them up to vote), but must consider them on a case by case basis. He then managed to pardon 60,000 felons by using a mechanical pen that signed letters very quickly. Guess they are Democratic voters lol. Wonder if this could be challenged after the election... Well they are hell bent on creating and open border so more democrats can come in, this would be the next step. The more, the merrier (as long as they vote democrat). They don’t even need open borders. The natural progression of demographics will make whites the minority by 2040. In 2020 there will be more non-white children than white children in the US. All citizens able to vote. NPR reported last week the Texas has the shifted to a non-white majority population, but the voter participation is leans to white voters. Unless the Republicans ditch their current tactics, they will fade into a nothing party by the sheer weight of changing demographics. Well that's my point exactly,so I guess we agree? They love illegal inmigrants because their children vote democrat (and so will they with the "path to citizenship"). So you are perfectly ok with the replacement of the native population? Literally nothing is more in line with the dreams of the American founders than a bunch of people with their own language, culture and race exterminating the existing population and building their own country on the corpses. Also immigrants typically vote Democrat because Democrats don't spend all their time trying to fuck them over. The fact that the pro-life Republican party has somehow managed to lose the hardline Catholic vote is really pretty incredible. There is nothing innately Democratic leaning about immigrants, it's what happens after they immigrate that turns them into Democrats.
Also if the US didn't want so many Hispanic people maybe they should have thought of that before they took over the northern half of Mexico and included it within the US. And then thought of it again before they invited waves of Hispanic immigration to deal with labor shortages. Always mind boggling to me how they apparently don't understand this. If they continue to dig their heels in they're going to become totally irrelevant. You've gotta come to your senses and change your tune at some point and the sooner it happens the better for them as far as switching people over. However instead of doing that and becoming softer on the issue they decided to go 180 degrees in the other direction with their nominee. It's so short sighted and stupid I just don't get it. I guess the plan, if there is one, is to wait till the last possible second, then wait a few minutes longer, then switch when its way too late. On November 08 2016 03:42 Doodsmack wrote:Trump is actually jealous of Clinton that celebrities are shunning him lol...it's like he's not a "star" anymore. And he just can't help but comment on it... Sarasota, Florida (CNN) — Donald Trump on Monday mocked hip-hop music as he once again criticized the performance Jay Z and Beyonce delivered at a rally for Hillary Clinton, asking whether it was "talking or singing."
"The language is so bad and as they were singing -- singing right? Was it talking or singing? Right? But the language was so bad," Trump said Monday during his first of five rallies the day before Election Day.
Trump's apparent criticism of rap and hip-hop comes in spite of the GOP nominee's repeated attempts to appeal to African-American voters during the final months of his campaign. It also comes as Clinton has ramped up get out the vote efforts in recent days by targeting young and African-American voters in particular. CNN Meanwhile Trump had Ted Nugent with him literally grabbing his penis on stage. The man also uses "motherfucker" in speeches and says we should "bomb the shit out of them" at rallies but he's trying to claim the moral high ground. Oh boy we're living in a fevered dream guys. They do understand. In fact every Republican primary -> national election has been a dissertation on how they understand it. Throughout the primary process Republicans appeal to (radical, hardline, extremist, call them what you like) far right voters who are dissatisfied with Democrats soft approach to things like equal treatment for all. Then during the national election with a wink and a nudge they shed off the "Build the wall" rhetoric and alter themselves to a more moderate stance. They promise the racist one thing and the black another. And it works. They don't go too far as to upset their far right constituents and they don't say anything so definitive that they turn all minority voters against them. Then once elected it's business as usual. This is the great shake up for 2016. Trump, instead of backing off his rhetoric and donning a mask of moderate inclusiveness, has doubled down. Hell, that's why he blew the other candidates the fuck out in the primary. Rather than just saying to the man that wants to remove illegal immigrants "I think the rule of law should be respected and people should come here legally" he screams "BUILD THAT WALL". How can another Republican compete when someone is going 100% full steam ahead for Republican voters? In 2 days we're gonna see exactly what that means for getting the majority of Americans to vote for him. The news says he's toast. They're at the point where they're using increasingly esoteric polling methods because the story was told weeks ago - Trumps gonna get dumped. What will the Republicans learn from this? Probably not much except to try and block out anyone that actually believes in the crazy shit they say for votes. Cause when a moderate Republican stands next to a hard line true believer Republican, holy hell. Poor old Jeb never stood a chance. It only works so far and it doesn't work on a national level. If you just want to get elected to your congressional seat in your little state saying awful things about people works quite well there. You're appealing to an essentially homogeneous crowd, especially with gerrymandering! When it comes time for the big dance you can't expect to win by being a giant hateful child. Trump's primary victory has many factors. The crazy frothing at the mouth base is part of it. Not having a super delegate like system to kill off a potential party destroying candidate is another. But the biggest factor was the media giving him free wall to wall coverage on the retarded things he was saying and doing. No one in history has received more free coverage. I think people forget he essentially got a blank check for all media coverage, that's worth billions of actual dollars. They're going into a game with a losing strategy and the boundaries of that game are only going to get skewed away from them more and more as time goes on.
You are correct as well. In my casual post wrote while eating lunch I discussed one aspect without context of how Trump has been successful. Nothing in life is so clean and easily explainable. Especially politics. It is as you correctly pointed out a large, interwoven process that no one aspect played a monolithic role in.
|
On November 08 2016 04:44 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2016 04:43 Biff The Understudy wrote:On November 08 2016 04:35 Nebuchad wrote:
What you say is true Probe1 but their strategy is ultimately fairly bad from the get go. You don't need to appeal to the racists when you're a right wing party in a two-party system. It's not like they're going to go, Oh shit, the republicans didn't sufficiently cater to me in this election, I guess I'll go democrat instead. They're going to be on your side either way. I assume their decision to make that their strategy is connected to their shift from being the left wing party to being the right wing party, though?
The only thing that actually happens when you include extremes in your rhetoric is that you lose grip on the moderate vote. That's perfect for the democrats, they get to occupy the moderate right wing space and say "either you're me or you're a far right extremist". If they're at all skilled, they can translate that to "either you're sane and you vote for me or you're insane". And they never need to go progressive, cause in doing that they ensure the battle for moderate right wing votes begins again. Well, the problem with the Republican party right now is not their bad strategies but the fact that they are hostage of a radicalized base. I think you can make a credible argument that their base is radicalized as a result of their bad strategies.
I have heard credible reports that it was actually because Liberals were too mean to Mitt Romney, and now the Liberal warnings against Trump went unheeded. Thus, it isn't the Deplorables fault that they overwhelmingly voted for Trump, instead it was the smug Liberals all along.
|
On November 08 2016 04:50 Blisse wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2016 04:43 oBlade wrote:On November 08 2016 04:33 GoTuNk! wrote:On November 08 2016 04:23 Biff The Understudy wrote:On November 08 2016 04:20 KwarK wrote:On November 08 2016 04:17 GoTuNk! wrote:On November 08 2016 03:42 Doodsmack wrote:Trump is actually jealous of Clinton that celebrities are shunning him lol...it's like he's not a "star" anymore. And he just can't help but comment on it... Sarasota, Florida (CNN) — Donald Trump on Monday mocked hip-hop music as he once again criticized the performance Jay Z and Beyonce delivered at a rally for Hillary Clinton, asking whether it was "talking or singing."
"The language is so bad and as they were singing -- singing right? Was it talking or singing? Right? But the language was so bad," Trump said Monday during his first of five rallies the day before Election Day.
Trump's apparent criticism of rap and hip-hop comes in spite of the GOP nominee's repeated attempts to appeal to African-American voters during the final months of his campaign. It also comes as Clinton has ramped up get out the vote efforts in recent days by targeting young and African-American voters in particular. CNN CNN is ridiculous, what that article says (or what you are implying) has nothing to do with what he actually convey in the rally. I watched a bit of the rally online and his points were: a) Look this huge stadium is full of people, and more are crowding outside. Hillary has to bring Jay-z for free and even then no one shows up. b) Whenever Trump says bad things he gets berated from everywhere, but Jay-z can say all sorts of bads words with no problem (this was in a half joke/half serious way) If Trump had described his habit of sexually assaulting women as "grabbing them by their no-no parts" it wouldn't be any better. The outrage isn't over the word pussy, it was over "I don't even ask". I'm also a bit puzzled that Go Tunk thinks that a politician and a hip hop artist's language should be compared at the same level. You can like Eminem and think that what he says in his song would be absolutely terrifying if ever heard from the mouth of the POTUS. Read my reply to Kwark, my point was that CNN was misrepresenting Trump on purpose. I said nothing about Trump's claim as you are falsely acussing me. " I'm also a bit puzzled that Go Tunk thinks that a politician and a hip hop artist's language should be compared at the same level. I did not say that. What's funny to me is you can't tweet a picture of yourself eating a taco bowl, it's an embarrassing stunt, but the article insinuates not liking Jay-Z is anti-black. There's a limitless supply of layers of just completely irrelevant nonsense this season. Did you guys even read that article? I see no misrepresentation. I don't see how they misrepresent something when they quote his exact words. He complains about how the language Jay-z uses is bad and then gloats about how he appeals to African Americans better than Hillary despite every piece of contradictory evidence and then paints a picture about how all African Americans are living in hell. Trump is literally telling you his shitty views. It's not irrelevant, he's still a lying fool, and I can't imagine how you haven't caught on by now.
Blacks are worse off in the US which wouldn't be controversial or up for debate if anyone else said it, but if it comes from the mouth of someone you have a visceral hatred for, it becomes possible - and necessary - to find things wrong with it. When 26% of blacks vs. 10% of whites are considered impoverished, 40% on welfare vs 17%, the article proudly states that the majority of African-Americans aren't impoverished as a zinger to refute something Trump said that they wouldn't even directly quote... There's something wrong in the media.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
