|
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. |
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On December 09 2016 10:44 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2016 10:24 Gorsameth wrote:On December 09 2016 10:16 xDaunt wrote:On December 09 2016 10:13 Gorsameth wrote:On December 09 2016 10:05 Liquid`Jinro wrote:On December 09 2016 09:29 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Well, but I'm arguing that in this case I don't see how the strategic importance is big enough to overlook the horrific internal policies. And that even if you think the strategic importance is big enough to not enact any sort of pariah-branding (which I would favor), then there's a big difference between 'quietly accepting wrongdoings' and 'invites over to the white house in what most certainly will be regarded as granting legitimacy towards his actions'. Where do you stand? I'm obviously quite horrified by that article as well but isn't turning a blind eye towards human rights abuses in favour of personal interest very much business as usual (i.e Saudi Arabia etc)? There is a difference between turning a blind eye and inviting him over for a few beers and praising him infront of the press for his amazing job at abusing human rights. The US quietly accepts the situation in Saudi Arabia and sometimes says a slight dissaproving word. They not highlighting that SA does a really great job at maintaining a male centred society (for example). The problem with the Philippines and Duterte is that Obama didn't keep his big mouth shut. He aired some dirty laundry ahead of a big meeting with Duterte and pissed Duterte off. Trump is smartly trying to rebuild the relationship that Obama squandered. Right, the problem with the Duterte is Obama, and totally not the guy butchering people left and right... I'm just hoping Jeff Sessions ignorant self doesn't get any bright ideas from Duterte. Since he's of the opinion that "good people don't use drugs", killing addicts might sound like a good solution to him.
That reminds me of the old "Winners don't use drugs" FBI ad on arcade games, also from a Mr. Sessions (William Sessions, then the FBI director).
|
On December 09 2016 10:22 Nebuchad wrote:
I never understood the appeal of the Trump 7d chess narrative. If he's playing 7d chess, you're the pawns.
People like to think there is some hidden, underlying reason for the ridiculous things he says and does. Unfortunately he is simply just a ridiculous man with little foresight for his actions.
|
On December 09 2016 10:44 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2016 10:24 Gorsameth wrote:On December 09 2016 10:16 xDaunt wrote:On December 09 2016 10:13 Gorsameth wrote:On December 09 2016 10:05 Liquid`Jinro wrote:On December 09 2016 09:29 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Well, but I'm arguing that in this case I don't see how the strategic importance is big enough to overlook the horrific internal policies. And that even if you think the strategic importance is big enough to not enact any sort of pariah-branding (which I would favor), then there's a big difference between 'quietly accepting wrongdoings' and 'invites over to the white house in what most certainly will be regarded as granting legitimacy towards his actions'. Where do you stand? I'm obviously quite horrified by that article as well but isn't turning a blind eye towards human rights abuses in favour of personal interest very much business as usual (i.e Saudi Arabia etc)? There is a difference between turning a blind eye and inviting him over for a few beers and praising him infront of the press for his amazing job at abusing human rights. The US quietly accepts the situation in Saudi Arabia and sometimes says a slight dissaproving word. They not highlighting that SA does a really great job at maintaining a male centred society (for example). The problem with the Philippines and Duterte is that Obama didn't keep his big mouth shut. He aired some dirty laundry ahead of a big meeting with Duterte and pissed Duterte off. Trump is smartly trying to rebuild the relationship that Obama squandered. Right, the problem with the Duterte is Obama, and totally not the guy butchering people left and right... I'm just hoping Jeff Sessions ignorant self doesn't get any bright ideas from Duterte. Since he's of the opinion that "good people don't use drugs", killing addicts might sound like a good solution to him.
About 2000 people are supposed to have been killed by the police so far, and more than 3000 killed by vigilantes without investigation. No need to go after drug dealers and drug addicts if you simply make laws that puts red tape on the prosecutors preventing them from easily investigating.
|
On December 09 2016 10:40 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2016 10:22 Nebuchad wrote:
I never understood the appeal of the Trump 7d chess narrative. If he's playing 7d chess, you're the pawns. I know you guys don't want to hear this, but y'all on the left are badly underestimating Trump. Trump is going to keep winning politically until y'all wise up and start looking at him with a real critical eye as opposed to through the lens of the stupid the caricature that the media and democrats have provided y'all with. Believe me when I say that I hope y'all stay the course.
I'm not even discussing the likelihood of his playing 7d chess, I think it's pretty obvious that he isn't but that's not really a conversation I'm interested in having. I'm just asking why you want that to be the case. If he's playing 7d chess, clearly one of his moves has been to convince you that he wanted to do what you want him to do.
|
On December 09 2016 10:53 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2016 08:41 Gorsameth wrote:On December 09 2016 08:37 LegalLord wrote:On December 09 2016 08:31 Liquid`Drone wrote:On December 09 2016 08:12 LegalLord wrote:
If someone were elected on the promise of killing
100,000 criminals and set out to do just that, I would indeed consider it to be fulfilling electoral promises (or a version tempered by reality), even if they are horrifying. I don't see the problem here.
What do you not see the problem with here? Do you think he shouldn't do it if he was elected to do it? "Fuck morality, he was elected so its all fine". If someone does something that 'we' do not consider morally right then maybe we should call them out on it and show our disapproval, maybe we shouldn't. What we sure as hell shouldn't be fine with is to have the president elect of the US invite him over and publicly comment on how great of a guy he is and how amazingly great his work is. Conservatives think progressive are killing millions of children each year. Millions of infanticide murders without investigation, without punishment. Should a conservative president follow his moral compass and arrest/detain/shun 100% of the pro choice community because of his moral code? Or by morality, do you really mean your own morality and not the morality of others. LegalLord is merely pointing out that Duterte wasn't exactly hiding his plans and double crossing the Filipino people. What he's doing is horrible, I agree, but imagine a population of 70+ million supportive of those actions. How bad could their life be if someone shows up with that message and it resonates with them? Life is complicated. Stop judging.
Your conservative president could try to outlaw abortion. I doubt you would approve if he decided to murder every pro choice us citizen or kill any doctor who performed one. (detaining would be fine if it was made illegal).
Millions thought slavery was fine, cavemen may have thought it was fine to cave in a mans skull to take his wife.
I like to think humanity has moved on a bit since then even if it was acceptable at the time.
Yes I will judge 70 million people who support him killing whatever drug addict he can get his hands on. Even if we ignore the political opponents who 'happen' to get caught in the crossfire.
I can try to sympathise with the desperation of their situation but that doesn't make it right or acceptable.
|
On December 09 2016 10:56 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2016 10:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 09 2016 10:24 Gorsameth wrote:On December 09 2016 10:16 xDaunt wrote:On December 09 2016 10:13 Gorsameth wrote:On December 09 2016 10:05 Liquid`Jinro wrote:On December 09 2016 09:29 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Well, but I'm arguing that in this case I don't see how the strategic importance is big enough to overlook the horrific internal policies. And that even if you think the strategic importance is big enough to not enact any sort of pariah-branding (which I would favor), then there's a big difference between 'quietly accepting wrongdoings' and 'invites over to the white house in what most certainly will be regarded as granting legitimacy towards his actions'. Where do you stand? I'm obviously quite horrified by that article as well but isn't turning a blind eye towards human rights abuses in favour of personal interest very much business as usual (i.e Saudi Arabia etc)? There is a difference between turning a blind eye and inviting him over for a few beers and praising him infront of the press for his amazing job at abusing human rights. The US quietly accepts the situation in Saudi Arabia and sometimes says a slight dissaproving word. They not highlighting that SA does a really great job at maintaining a male centred society (for example). The problem with the Philippines and Duterte is that Obama didn't keep his big mouth shut. He aired some dirty laundry ahead of a big meeting with Duterte and pissed Duterte off. Trump is smartly trying to rebuild the relationship that Obama squandered. Right, the problem with the Duterte is Obama, and totally not the guy butchering people left and right... I'm just hoping Jeff Sessions ignorant self doesn't get any bright ideas from Duterte. Since he's of the opinion that "good people don't use drugs", killing addicts might sound like a good solution to him. About 2000 people are supposed to have been killed by the police so far, and more than 3000 killed by vigilantes without investigation. No need to go after drug dealers and drug addicts if you simply make laws that puts red tape on the prosecutors preventing them from easily investigating.
also thousand and thousands of drug users who are turning themselves into the police. (not sure what the exact number is but I think it's pretty high)
|
The 'stupid caricature' that 'the media' created is simply Trump being Trump. And this is not some malicious out of context quoting, usually Trump's statements ended up being worse when you started adding more context, which is quite an achievement.
|
On December 09 2016 11:00 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2016 10:53 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 09 2016 08:41 Gorsameth wrote:On December 09 2016 08:37 LegalLord wrote:On December 09 2016 08:31 Liquid`Drone wrote:On December 09 2016 08:12 LegalLord wrote:
If someone were elected on the promise of killing
100,000 criminals and set out to do just that, I would indeed consider it to be fulfilling electoral promises (or a version tempered by reality), even if they are horrifying. I don't see the problem here.
What do you not see the problem with here? Do you think he shouldn't do it if he was elected to do it? "Fuck morality, he was elected so its all fine". If someone does something that 'we' do not consider morally right then maybe we should call them out on it and show our disapproval, maybe we shouldn't. What we sure as hell shouldn't be fine with is to have the president elect of the US invite him over and publicly comment on how great of a guy he is and how amazingly great his work is. Conservatives think progressive are killing millions of children each year. Millions of infanticide murders without investigation, without punishment. Should a conservative president follow his moral compass and arrest/detain/shun 100% of the pro choice community because of his moral code? Or by morality, do you really mean your own morality and not the morality of others. LegalLord is merely pointing out that Duterte wasn't exactly hiding his plans and double crossing the Filipino people. What he's doing is horrible, I agree, but imagine a population of 70+ million supportive of those actions. How bad could their life be if someone shows up with that message and it resonates with them? Life is complicated. Stop judging. Your conservative president could try to outlaw abortion. I doubt you would approve if he decided to murder every pro choice us citizen or kill any doctor who performed one. (detaining would be fine if it was made illegal). Millions thought slavery was fine, cavemen may have thought it was fine to cave in a mans skull to take his wife. I like to think humanity has moved on a bit since then even if it was acceptable at the time. Yes I will judge 70 million people who support him killing whatever drug addict he can get his hands on. Even if we ignore the political opponents who 'happen' to get caught in the crossfire. I can try to sympathise with the desperation of their situation but that doesn't make it right or acceptable.
Trump is not my President. I am simply pointing out that morality is relative. Trying to say we should dislike Duterte because we have different morals than he does is a stupid argument as the same could be made against you. You need something stronger than simply because you can't see yourself agreeing with it. You need an actual argument, an actual solution.
That's my people dying there in the Philippines. That's my culture, my legacy that is being tarnished. So I know damn well how shitty the situation is. But I can tell you that just because you believe your moral is better than the morals of others shows how little you know about why people like Trump and Duterte get into power.
|
On December 09 2016 10:55 Tachion wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2016 10:22 Nebuchad wrote:
I never understood the appeal of the Trump 7d chess narrative. If he's playing 7d chess, you're the pawns. People like to think there is some hidden, underlying reason for the ridiculous things he says and does. Unfortunately he is simply just a ridiculous man with little foresight for his actions.
He won the nomination and became President elect by sheer luck.
|
On December 09 2016 11:10 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2016 10:55 Tachion wrote:On December 09 2016 10:22 Nebuchad wrote:
I never understood the appeal of the Trump 7d chess narrative. If he's playing 7d chess, you're the pawns. People like to think there is some hidden, underlying reason for the ridiculous things he says and does. Unfortunately he is simply just a ridiculous man with little foresight for his actions. He won the nomination and became President elect by sheer luck.
I know you are being sarcastic but let me correct you anyways. Sheer instincts.
|
On December 09 2016 11:07 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2016 11:00 Gorsameth wrote:On December 09 2016 10:53 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 09 2016 08:41 Gorsameth wrote:On December 09 2016 08:37 LegalLord wrote:On December 09 2016 08:31 Liquid`Drone wrote:On December 09 2016 08:12 LegalLord wrote:
If someone were elected on the promise of killing
100,000 criminals and set out to do just that, I would indeed consider it to be fulfilling electoral promises (or a version tempered by reality), even if they are horrifying. I don't see the problem here.
What do you not see the problem with here? Do you think he shouldn't do it if he was elected to do it? "Fuck morality, he was elected so its all fine". If someone does something that 'we' do not consider morally right then maybe we should call them out on it and show our disapproval, maybe we shouldn't. What we sure as hell shouldn't be fine with is to have the president elect of the US invite him over and publicly comment on how great of a guy he is and how amazingly great his work is. Conservatives think progressive are killing millions of children each year. Millions of infanticide murders without investigation, without punishment. Should a conservative president follow his moral compass and arrest/detain/shun 100% of the pro choice community because of his moral code? Or by morality, do you really mean your own morality and not the morality of others. LegalLord is merely pointing out that Duterte wasn't exactly hiding his plans and double crossing the Filipino people. What he's doing is horrible, I agree, but imagine a population of 70+ million supportive of those actions. How bad could their life be if someone shows up with that message and it resonates with them? Life is complicated. Stop judging. Your conservative president could try to outlaw abortion. I doubt you would approve if he decided to murder every pro choice us citizen or kill any doctor who performed one. (detaining would be fine if it was made illegal). Millions thought slavery was fine, cavemen may have thought it was fine to cave in a mans skull to take his wife. I like to think humanity has moved on a bit since then even if it was acceptable at the time. Yes I will judge 70 million people who support him killing whatever drug addict he can get his hands on. Even if we ignore the political opponents who 'happen' to get caught in the crossfire. I can try to sympathise with the desperation of their situation but that doesn't make it right or acceptable. Trump is not my President. I am simply pointing out that morality is relative. Trying to say we should dislike Duterte because we have different morals than he does is a stupid argument as the same could be made against you. You need something stronger than simply because you can't see yourself agreeing with it. You need an actual argument, an actual solution. That's my people dying there in the Philippines. That's my culture, my legacy that is being tarnished. So I know damn well how shitty the situation is. But I can tell you that just because you believe your moral is better than the morals of others shows how little you know about why people like Trump and Duterte get into power.
We're human, we judge everyone we come into contact with.
I'm not saying we should publicly denounce him (and yes Obama did, if that was a mistake is another discussion entirely). but there is a tiny difference between silently judging and commenting on how an amazing job he is doing killing thousands of people.
|
On December 09 2016 10:44 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2016 10:24 Gorsameth wrote:On December 09 2016 10:16 xDaunt wrote:On December 09 2016 10:13 Gorsameth wrote:On December 09 2016 10:05 Liquid`Jinro wrote:On December 09 2016 09:29 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Well, but I'm arguing that in this case I don't see how the strategic importance is big enough to overlook the horrific internal policies. And that even if you think the strategic importance is big enough to not enact any sort of pariah-branding (which I would favor), then there's a big difference between 'quietly accepting wrongdoings' and 'invites over to the white house in what most certainly will be regarded as granting legitimacy towards his actions'. Where do you stand? I'm obviously quite horrified by that article as well but isn't turning a blind eye towards human rights abuses in favour of personal interest very much business as usual (i.e Saudi Arabia etc)? There is a difference between turning a blind eye and inviting him over for a few beers and praising him infront of the press for his amazing job at abusing human rights. The US quietly accepts the situation in Saudi Arabia and sometimes says a slight dissaproving word. They not highlighting that SA does a really great job at maintaining a male centred society (for example). The problem with the Philippines and Duterte is that Obama didn't keep his big mouth shut. He aired some dirty laundry ahead of a big meeting with Duterte and pissed Duterte off. Trump is smartly trying to rebuild the relationship that Obama squandered. Right, the problem with the Duterte is Obama, and totally not the guy butchering people left and right... I'm just hoping Jeff Sessions ignorant self doesn't get any bright ideas from Duterte. Since he's of the opinion that "good people don't use drugs", killing addicts might sound like a good solution to him.
Hey, that's what we should do to the poor heroin addled white communities the, isn't it? Or is this one of those only the brown, black folks are truly a problem things.
|
On December 09 2016 11:10 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2016 10:55 Tachion wrote:On December 09 2016 10:22 Nebuchad wrote:
I never understood the appeal of the Trump 7d chess narrative. If he's playing 7d chess, you're the pawns. People like to think there is some hidden, underlying reason for the ridiculous things he says and does. Unfortunately he is simply just a ridiculous man with little foresight for his actions. He won the nomination and became President elect by sheer luck.
Your metric has no relevance to the question. If he had played against Sanders, chances are he would have lost. That's not because Sanders is playing 8d chess.
|
On December 09 2016 11:33 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2016 11:10 GoTuNk! wrote:On December 09 2016 10:55 Tachion wrote:On December 09 2016 10:22 Nebuchad wrote:
I never understood the appeal of the Trump 7d chess narrative. If he's playing 7d chess, you're the pawns. People like to think there is some hidden, underlying reason for the ridiculous things he says and does. Unfortunately he is simply just a ridiculous man with little foresight for his actions. He won the nomination and became President elect by sheer luck. Your metric has no relevance to the question. If he had played against Sanders, chances are he would have lost. That's not because Sanders is playing 8d chess.
I don't know if being down by more than 2million votes is him winning or the rules being awkward.
|
On December 09 2016 11:24 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2016 10:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 09 2016 10:24 Gorsameth wrote:On December 09 2016 10:16 xDaunt wrote:On December 09 2016 10:13 Gorsameth wrote:On December 09 2016 10:05 Liquid`Jinro wrote:On December 09 2016 09:29 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Well, but I'm arguing that in this case I don't see how the strategic importance is big enough to overlook the horrific internal policies. And that even if you think the strategic importance is big enough to not enact any sort of pariah-branding (which I would favor), then there's a big difference between 'quietly accepting wrongdoings' and 'invites over to the white house in what most certainly will be regarded as granting legitimacy towards his actions'. Where do you stand? I'm obviously quite horrified by that article as well but isn't turning a blind eye towards human rights abuses in favour of personal interest very much business as usual (i.e Saudi Arabia etc)? There is a difference between turning a blind eye and inviting him over for a few beers and praising him infront of the press for his amazing job at abusing human rights. The US quietly accepts the situation in Saudi Arabia and sometimes says a slight dissaproving word. They not highlighting that SA does a really great job at maintaining a male centred society (for example). The problem with the Philippines and Duterte is that Obama didn't keep his big mouth shut. He aired some dirty laundry ahead of a big meeting with Duterte and pissed Duterte off. Trump is smartly trying to rebuild the relationship that Obama squandered. Right, the problem with the Duterte is Obama, and totally not the guy butchering people left and right... I'm just hoping Jeff Sessions ignorant self doesn't get any bright ideas from Duterte. Since he's of the opinion that "good people don't use drugs", killing addicts might sound like a good solution to him. Hey, that's what we should do to the poor heroin addled white communities the, isn't it? Or is this one of those only the brown, black folks are truly a problem things.
You already know.
So Trump's going to be the first president with a TV show.
Donald Trump will remain as an executive producer on NBC's "Celebrity Apprentice," even while serving as president of the United States.
That agreement, first reported by Variety and confirmed by sources at NBC and the Trump campaign, means the president will have an interest in a show aired by a media company that also reports on his presidency -- a major conflict of interest for the network.
"The Apprentice," which Trump hosted for 14 seasons, was created by Mark Burnett and is owned and produced by MGM. The 15th season, hosted by former California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, will air on NBC starting January 2.
NBC Entertainment, NBC News and MGM all did not immediately respond to requests for comment regarding the decision to keep Trump as an executive producer.
Source
There's so many layers just in those handful of lines lol.
NBC is kinda pathetic.
|
On December 09 2016 11:33 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2016 11:10 GoTuNk! wrote:On December 09 2016 10:55 Tachion wrote:On December 09 2016 10:22 Nebuchad wrote:
I never understood the appeal of the Trump 7d chess narrative. If he's playing 7d chess, you're the pawns. People like to think there is some hidden, underlying reason for the ridiculous things he says and does. Unfortunately he is simply just a ridiculous man with little foresight for his actions. He won the nomination and became President elect by sheer luck. Your metric has no relevance to the question. If he had played against Sanders, chances are he would have lost. That's not because Sanders is playing 8d chess.
I don't think you have to go up very high in dimensions. Clinton and Trump were playing 2d chess. Clinton made a ton of really obvious mistakes on any level. So did Trump. Clinton just made more. A fair amount more.
|
On December 09 2016 11:43 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2016 11:33 Nebuchad wrote:On December 09 2016 11:10 GoTuNk! wrote:On December 09 2016 10:55 Tachion wrote:On December 09 2016 10:22 Nebuchad wrote:
I never understood the appeal of the Trump 7d chess narrative. If he's playing 7d chess, you're the pawns. People like to think there is some hidden, underlying reason for the ridiculous things he says and does. Unfortunately he is simply just a ridiculous man with little foresight for his actions. He won the nomination and became President elect by sheer luck. Your metric has no relevance to the question. If he had played against Sanders, chances are he would have lost. That's not because Sanders is playing 8d chess. I don't think you have to go up very high in dimensions. Clinton and Trump were playing 2d chess. Clinton made a ton of really obvious mistakes on any level. So did Trump. Clinton just made more. A fair amount more.
Are you suggesting the person who got more votes made more mistakes?
|
On December 09 2016 11:50 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2016 11:43 Nevuk wrote:On December 09 2016 11:33 Nebuchad wrote:On December 09 2016 11:10 GoTuNk! wrote:On December 09 2016 10:55 Tachion wrote:On December 09 2016 10:22 Nebuchad wrote:
I never understood the appeal of the Trump 7d chess narrative. If he's playing 7d chess, you're the pawns. People like to think there is some hidden, underlying reason for the ridiculous things he says and does. Unfortunately he is simply just a ridiculous man with little foresight for his actions. He won the nomination and became President elect by sheer luck. Your metric has no relevance to the question. If he had played against Sanders, chances are he would have lost. That's not because Sanders is playing 8d chess. I don't think you have to go up very high in dimensions. Clinton and Trump were playing 2d chess. Clinton made a ton of really obvious mistakes on any level. So did Trump. Clinton just made more. A fair amount more. Are you suggesting the person who got more votes made more mistakes?
I'm suggesting a person who lost to Donald Trump after "grab her by the pussy" in numerous swing states DEFINITELY made a massive amount of mistakes.
I could barely stand to vote for her after she made DWS part of her campaign. Not because of principles or anything, but because anyone who would do that given the circumstances was either a fucking idiot or completely uninterested in winning.
Aide #1 : "We're being accused of colluding with DWS to give us an unfair advantage in the primaries."
Clinton : "Why not make her part of the campaign? Surely that will end all rumors of collusion between the DNC and our campaign"
2 : Deplorables. It was a mistake. There's no way around it.
3: Airing ads in texas but not in WI or MI. This is more indicative of the deeper strategic problems of her campaign.
4. Hiding pneumonia and having a fainting spell in public on 9/11.
5. Making Kaine her VP, in a direct refusal to appeal to anyone other than her base.
The only reason the campaign was close at all was because Trump made nearly as many mistakes and was just as flawed a candidate. Some of these things could be blamed on Robby Mook being awful as a campaign chairman, but when Trump's chairman was awful at least he fired him.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On December 09 2016 12:04 Nevuk wrote:
Some of these things could be blamed on Robby Mook being awful as a campaign chairman, but when Trump's chairman was awful at least he fired him.
I sincerely don't think that Hillary thinks she did anything wrong, that her way of appealing to people was what should have given her a blowout victory. Some of her more "principled" supporters yet still disagree that she ran her campaign badly while alluding to some phantom "she made mistakes" that is never really elaborated on (the only thing that is is how people are wrong about how her biggest blunders are actually blunders).
I still am not fully sure what was associated with Trump's bump at the end. I'm guessing that it was mostly that third party voters ultimately returned to the Trump train at the end of the day.
|
On December 09 2016 12:14 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2016 12:04 Nevuk wrote:
Some of these things could be blamed on Robby Mook being awful as a campaign chairman, but when Trump's chairman was awful at least he fired him.
I sincerely don't think that Hillary thinks she did anything wrong, that her way of appealing to people was what should have given her a blowout victory. Some of her more "principled" supporters yet still disagree that she ran her campaign badly while alluding to some phantom "she made mistakes" that is never really elaborated on (the only thing that is is how people are wrong about how her biggest blunders are actually blunders). I still am not fully sure what was associated with Trump's bump at the end. I'm guessing that it was mostly that third party voters ultimately returned to the Trump train at the end of the day.
They mostly seem to be blaming it on Comey. Thing is, there's still a Hillary mistake in all that : using private email servers in the first place. If she hadn't used them she would never have been in a position where it would matter. Or if she had ever found a decent defense (she clearly didn't understand that she actually did anything wrong there for way too long, and I'm not convinced she ever did)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
