2016 US Presidential Election

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6813
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Wed Aug 10, 2016 1:08 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:If it gets close enough to the point where I think the latter is a possibility, I will probably sell some of my stocks and donate up to the limit.

Don't bother. Your time is way more valuable than your money. Clinton is getting increasingly marginal returns on her money because it's mostly television ads. What Clinton needs more of its volunteers. Maybe take your vacation and spend it knocking on doors for Clinton. Unless your entire region is blue, then go donate. There's usually suburbs you can hit or an industrial zone. Lots of Republicans in the former and wavering Democrats in the latter.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Aug 10, 2016 2:17 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:Trump has gotten this far because of a huge number of people who see this as an advantage, not a disadvantage.

Political korrectness is ruining America, apparently. (Misspelled to avoid a mod-madness filter)


The right has it's own form of political korrectness, and it should be called out. And in any case, political korrectness is avoiding speaking unpleasant truths. It isn't appointing judges one dislikes.

KnightExemplar wrote:
Vahir wrote:You'd think the most devastating attack ad you could run on Trump would be to just replay the stupidest things he's said, with a South Park-esque "THIS IS WHAT DONALD TRUMP REALLY BELIEVES" to emphasize the point.


Clinton is basically doing that... with advertisements during the Olympics.

Trump really thinks he can just Tweet his way to victory. Trump doesn't seem to have any Olympics ads yet. Maybe Trump doesn't think 3-months out is a good time to start the attack?


I believe he's overestimating new media. Shit, I think *everyone* overemphasizes twitter. That fact that news agencies view tweets as a good way to collect news is frigging strange. Only about 7% of the US actually uses twitter, if memory serves. And that's likely biased towards the younger crowd, which makes up a smaller proportion of likely voters. I mean, sure, exploit the media laziness and tendency to essentially just reuse whatever you tweet to get messages out there, but that's definitely not all you need to do.

Though I suppose one could make a devil's advocate argument that holding off a bit before starting the big push better utilizes funds/reduces voter fatigue with seeing your face? I know I'm already a little tired of this election, and we got a long haul to go.

Thesh wrote:If it gets close enough to the point where I think the latter is a possibility, I will probably sell some of my stocks and donate up to the limit.


I concur with Sardia that any gains to Clinton's campaign from more money is likely marginal at this point. Don't stress too much about the dollars, and definitely don't sell off anything important to your financial planning.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6888
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby ucim » Wed Aug 10, 2016 3:03 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:(the race was much closer when I donated, and I was a little worried Trump could actually win at the time)
Your money probably helped move the race at a time when it was most needed. Timing matters.

Tyndmyr wrote:That fact that news agencies view tweets as a good way to collect news is frigging strange.
Any stranger than man-in-the-street "interviews" as a way collect news?

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Heartfelt thanks from addams and from me - you really made a difference.

Mutex
Posts: 1491
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:32 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Mutex » Wed Aug 10, 2016 3:10 pm UTC

ucim wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:That fact that news agencies view tweets as a good way to collect news is frigging strange.
Any stranger than man-in-the-street "interviews" as a way collect news?

Jose


Slightly stranger in that the man-in-the-street is chosen more at random and probably more likely to be representative of normal people than the self-selecting group of people who use Twitter. Obviously the editor will choose interviews they like the most to show, but then that effect is true of showing tweets too.

User avatar
Quizatzhaderac
Posts: 1821
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2008 5:28 pm UTC
Location: Space Florida

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Quizatzhaderac » Wed Aug 10, 2016 3:13 pm UTC

I imagine twitter data is easier to collect; especially if one wants "the word on the street" on West Virginia plumbers or whatever is topical.


I remember back when Trump had that kerfuffle with Rosie O'Donnell. He said something that sounded like him threatening her wife, but AFAIK it went totally unmentioned.

I'm thinking that even if we assume the best and suppose all his threats are just verbal diarrhea, it's still a critical issue. How are Putin and Kim going to react to that? It's not that crazy from some foreign leaders' perspectives to think the US president is trying to kill them.
Last edited by Quizatzhaderac on Wed Sep 07, 2016 8:28 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
The thing about recursion problems is that they tend to contain other recursion problems.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Aug 10, 2016 3:34 pm UTC

I assume Putin will be able to tell a real threat from the bad joke that is Trump. He's not an idiot.

That said, verbal diarrhea is not exactly a plus for conducting diplomacy. I think he'll be simply outplayed, because he's not actually nearly as good a negotiator as he thinks he is.

User avatar
Dauric
Posts: 3995
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:58 pm UTC
Location: In midair, traversing laterally over a container of sharks. No water, just sharks, with lasers.

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Dauric » Wed Aug 10, 2016 3:43 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:That said, verbal diarrhea is not exactly a plus for conducting diplomacy. I think he'll be simply outplayed, because he's not actually nearly as good a negotiator as he thinks he is.


especially when his tactic goes something like:

Trump: "I've got five aces in my hand, you're never going to beat that, just fold now and save yourself the embarrassment"

"There's only four aces in the deck, if you've got five aces you're cheating..."

Trump: "Did I say 'Five', I meant Six Aces! Take that!"
We're in the traffic-chopper over the XKCD boards where there's been a thread-derailment. A Liquified Godwin spill has evacuated threads in a fourty-post radius of the accident, Lolcats and TVTropes have broken free of their containers. It is believed that the Point has perished.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Aug 10, 2016 3:47 pm UTC

I think he's used to always negotiating from a position of advantage. Being born into money, well, that tends to help with that. Yeah, you can get away with bullying, being grandiose, etc when you hold sufficient advantage. The disadvantage of poor strategy won't always sink ya.

I would give a lot more credit in negotiating skill to someone who was less frequently successful, but faced more difficult challenges.

User avatar
ahammel
My Little Cabbage
Posts: 2135
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2012 12:46 am UTC
Location: Vancouver BC
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby ahammel » Wed Aug 10, 2016 4:23 pm UTC

He/Him/His/Alex
God damn these electric sex pants!

User avatar
Plasma_Wolf
Posts: 148
Joined: Mon Aug 22, 2011 8:11 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Plasma_Wolf » Wed Aug 10, 2016 4:26 pm UTC

Wikileaks is promising to reveal more about Clinton, the Clinton foundation and the DNC. Julian Assange mentioned that to the Dutch public news network. I've got a link to the Dutch website with two bits of video in it. They mostly say what is written on the page:

http://nos.nl/nieuwsuur/artikel/2124316-assange-belooft-nieuwe-onthullingen-over-clinton.html?title=assange-belooft-nieuwe-onthullingen-over-clinton

Regardless of what is really happening and regardless of whether the motives of Assange are genuine (I'd like to think so but this time I'm also slightly suspicious about how he brings it. He's got a bit of conspiracy theorist in it, especially in the announcement and he's a man of the big moments), if this is picked up in the media after the release of those documents on Wikileaks (it's only been on the Dutch tv yet), then this can be Clinton's greatest threat.

User avatar
Xeio
Friends, Faidites, Countrymen
Posts: 5101
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 11:12 am UTC
Location: C:\Users\Xeio\
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Xeio » Wed Aug 10, 2016 4:41 pm UTC

It seems more like an attempt at Assange to deflect from the Russia link.

I doubt this will see much media play, especially if he's only going to vaguely insinuate and let conspiracy theorists connect the dots. If Seth Rich was really the leaker, why not just state it outright? Who would he be protecting at this point?
Last edited by Xeio on Wed Aug 10, 2016 4:48 pm UTC, edited 2 times in total.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Aug 10, 2016 4:47 pm UTC

He's always trying to play stuff up and hog the spotlight. It's probably less interesting than he lets on.

User avatar
Xeio
Friends, Faidites, Countrymen
Posts: 5101
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 11:12 am UTC
Location: C:\Users\Xeio\
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Xeio » Wed Aug 10, 2016 4:50 pm UTC

It brings up a bunch of other questions too.

Does this mean Rich was "Guccifer 2.0" who publicly claimed to be behind the hack? Why is the metadata in the leaks in cyrillic/Russian if it was an American source? How did he trick most of the intelligence community that he was actually Russian?

There's a whole slew of questions that would have to be answered for this to seem like anything other than a publicity stunt.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6888
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby ucim » Wed Aug 10, 2016 5:20 pm UTC

... and how do we know that all of the stuff in the wikileaks disclosures accurately represents what it purports to be?

He's had it long enough to make stuff up out of whole cloth, and since it's all supposed to be secret, there isn't a good way for officials to challenge it if it's false.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Heartfelt thanks from addams and from me - you really made a difference.

User avatar
Quizatzhaderac
Posts: 1821
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2008 5:28 pm UTC
Location: Space Florida

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Quizatzhaderac » Wed Aug 10, 2016 5:39 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:I assume Putin will be able to tell a real threat from the bad joke that is Trump. He's not an idiot.
So you would say that if you had to deal with attempted coups, assassination attempts, and civil unrest, then someone leading a powerful country (that has a history of doing those things) made of of those ambiguous weasel word threats at you, you wouldn't interpret it as a legitimate threat against your person?

I guess Putin might be that smart. I don't know about Kim, he's killed people for less and I some of those probably really were out to get him. Nicolás Maduro seems either the type to misunderstand this or propagate the narrative "The Americans are out to get us".
The thing about recursion problems is that they tend to contain other recursion problems.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Aug 10, 2016 5:46 pm UTC

Putin's an old intel officer. I'm sure he's quite capable of sizing Trump up for what he is. Thus, he'll easily dismiss the pointless bluster and bombast...but Trump really doesn't have much else. Which means that, negotiation wise, Trump's at a disadvantage, skill-wise. I'm not so much worried that Trump will make people attack us out of fear, so much as that he'll be an idiot, and will handle delicate things poorly. We'll get a lot of deals falling through rather than incremental gains. It's hardly the end of the world, but there's still reason to dislike his style on pragmatic grounds.

North Korea behaves like a country sized Trump in many ways. Lots of bluster, lots of threats, lots of failing to follow through on pointless threats... Honestly don't think much will change there, regardless of candidate. They're gonna make us out to be the enemy anyways, and their population is sufficiently isolated that what we actually say doesn't matter much to the population at large.

cphite
Posts: 1370
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:27 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby cphite » Wed Aug 10, 2016 7:28 pm UTC

PeteP wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EcxkkrNSv-4 Trump suggest the second amendment folks could do something if Hillary gets to pick her judges…


He later claimed that "doing something" referred to them using their political pull to sway legislation. Whether that really is what he actually meant, or if it was another really bad attempt at humor, is hard to say.

But that being said, here is something that Hillary Clinton said in 2008, in reference to Barack Obama:
"Between my opponent and some in the media, uhhh, there has been this urgency to end this. You know, my husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of the June. We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. I don't understand it."

Which, if put to the same level of nitpicking as Trump, suggests that Hillary was hoping someone "do something" to remove her opponent.

That same year, Joe Biden:
"I guarantee ya, Barack Obama ain't taking my shotguns! So don't buy that malarkey! Don't buy that malarkey! They're gonna start peddlin' that to ya! I got two! If he tries to fool with my Beretta, he's got a problem."

Which frankly sounds like ole' Joe threatening to take matters into his own hands if Obama came for his guns...

The point is simply that, Trump isn't the only one who says stupid shit that can be construed to mean more than it does... he just gets more attention when he says it.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6813
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Wed Aug 10, 2016 7:47 pm UTC

cphite wrote:
PeteP wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EcxkkrNSv-4 Trump suggest the second amendment folks could do something if Hillary gets to pick her judges…


He later claimed that "doing something" referred to them using their political pull to sway legislation. Whether that really is what he actually meant, or if it was another really bad attempt at humor, is hard to say.

But that being said, here is something that Hillary Clinton said in 2008, in reference to Barack Obama:
"Between my opponent and some in the media, uhhh, there has been this urgency to end this. You know, my husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of the June. We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. I don't understand it."

Which, if put to the same level of nitpicking as Trump, suggests that Hillary was hoping someone "do something" to remove her opponent.

That same year, Joe Biden:
"I guarantee ya, Barack Obama ain't taking my shotguns! So don't buy that malarkey! Don't buy that malarkey! They're gonna start peddlin' that to ya! I got two! If he tries to fool with my Beretta, he's got a problem."

Which frankly sounds like ole' Joe threatening to take matters into his own hands if Obama came for his guns...

The point is simply that, Trump isn't the only one who says stupid shit that can be construed to mean more than it does... he just gets more attention when he says it.

Trump keeps saying this shit quite often. You can excuse one or two, or even one a month. Trump says crap that makes Trump apologizers to be on TV constantly. If you have to apologize or excuse for Trump all the time, maybe it's not the media misreading Trump.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Aug 10, 2016 7:51 pm UTC

And honestly, Biden DOES have kind of a reputation for foot in mouth syndrome.

It tends to come across as slightly less self aggrandizing than Trump's dialogue, so it's less grating, but it's something others are definitely given crap for as appropriate.

Also, the bar of "Clinton did it too" is not a terribly high one for maintaining a good reputation, because she, yknow, doesn't.

User avatar
PeteP
What the peck?
Posts: 1451
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2011 4:51 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby PeteP » Wed Aug 10, 2016 8:20 pm UTC

Not buying the "Hillary statement can be interpreted the same with the same level of nitpicking" thing. HIllary shouldn't have said that but it is not the same to saying something in the direction of "hey something extraordinary might still happen like my opponent getting killed" and explaining how your opponent will do bad thing when she wins (btw no she won't abolish the Second Amendment) and how they won't be able to do anything and then hinting at violence as a possible solution. (Whether you take it as hinting at violence against HIllary (or her judges) or hint at revolting.) Without that I consider the required "nitpicking" level as significantly higher.

User avatar
Dauric
Posts: 3995
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:58 pm UTC
Location: In midair, traversing laterally over a container of sharks. No water, just sharks, with lasers.

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Dauric » Wed Aug 10, 2016 8:25 pm UTC

The other thing of note is Trump has made various references to revolution if he loses before. It's not an isolated incident of misplaced words, his verbal diarrhea tends to have a consistently violent tone.
We're in the traffic-chopper over the XKCD boards where there's been a thread-derailment. A Liquified Godwin spill has evacuated threads in a fourty-post radius of the accident, Lolcats and TVTropes have broken free of their containers. It is believed that the Point has perished.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6813
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Wed Aug 10, 2016 8:33 pm UTC

Dauric wrote:The other thing of note is Trump has made various references to revolution if he loses before. It's not an isolated incident of misplaced words, his verbal diarrhea tends to have a consistently violent tone.

Not everything he says is violent. For example, his misogyny is mostly nonviolent. His complaints about vote rigging or corrupt elections is usually nonviolent. The problem with those is they are incredibly harmful/dangerous to women and democracy. The Mexican judge thing wasn't violent, but incredible racist.

cphite
Posts: 1370
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:27 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby cphite » Wed Aug 10, 2016 9:01 pm UTC

sardia wrote:
The point is simply that, Trump isn't the only one who says stupid shit that can be construed to mean more than it does... he just gets more attention when he says it.

Trump keeps saying this shit quite often. You can excuse one or two, or even one a month. Trump says crap that makes Trump apologizers to be on TV constantly. If you have to apologize or excuse for Trump all the time, maybe it's not the media misreading Trump.


I'm not apologizing for him or excusing him; I'm simply pointing out that he isn't the only candidate out there in recent years who's said some ridiculous shit. I actually find it kind of funny to see people twisting themselves into knots over his bullshit - and let's be honest, it's all bullshit - while excusing or ignoring other candidates.

Trump is a buffoon, but he's actually a really good marketer. He's going to say whatever he believes will appeal to the people who support him. All of this crap about building a wall, for example... as recently as 2013 Trump was advocating completely opening the border with Mexico. Frankly, I'm not worried about Trump or anything that he says... it's the millions of idiots who believe him and actually agree with the shit he's spewing that frighten me. All of his bluster and bullshit, be it about immigration or Muslims or trade or anything else - it's shit that he knows that those people want to hear. They're the ones you have to worry about.

That being said... it's one thing to worry about some of the bullshit he's throwing out about policy; a lot of it's pretty fucked up. But all of this worry over every random bit of crap that he says, and all this parsing and examination, it's just getting silly.

User avatar
Quizatzhaderac
Posts: 1821
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2008 5:28 pm UTC
Location: Space Florida

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Quizatzhaderac » Wed Aug 10, 2016 9:28 pm UTC

sardia wrote:
Dauric wrote:The other thing of note is Trump has made various references to revolution if he loses before. It's not an isolated incident of misplaced words, his verbal diarrhea tends to have a consistently violent tone.

Not everything he says is violent.
Dauric said "consistently", not "exclusively". Trump's pro-violence statements are too frequent and regular to be explained as a collection of flukes.
The thing about recursion problems is that they tend to contain other recursion problems.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby morriswalters » Wed Aug 10, 2016 9:39 pm UTC

Silly it may be, but the idea is to assure Trump won't be President. Between now and election day, they are going to go at him with every technique that exists. And Trump is the gift that keeps on giving. Whatever controls his mouth doesn't connect to inner censor. He's an idiot. And in all the elections I've seen, I've never seen hardcore Republicans who publicly say they won't vote for the nominee.

User avatar
Vahir
Posts: 456
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2012 7:20 pm UTC
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Vahir » Wed Aug 10, 2016 11:37 pm UTC

cphite wrote:That being said... it's one thing to worry about some of the bullshit he's throwing out about policy; a lot of it's pretty fucked up. But all of this worry over every random bit of crap that he says, and all this parsing and examination, it's just getting silly.


Welcome to being a candidate for president of the United States.

User avatar
Dauric
Posts: 3995
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:58 pm UTC
Location: In midair, traversing laterally over a container of sharks. No water, just sharks, with lasers.

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Dauric » Thu Aug 11, 2016 2:15 am UTC

Vahir wrote:
cphite wrote:That being said... it's one thing to worry about some of the bullshit he's throwing out about policy; a lot of it's pretty fucked up. But all of this worry over every random bit of crap that he says, and all this parsing and examination, it's just getting silly.


Welcome to being a candidate for president of the United States.


... and with reasonably good reason. The random crap that comes out of most of us doesn't have much of an effect in the wider scheme of things, we're all just random as assholes on the internet. The random crap that comes out of a typical CEO's mouth could tank their own companies, possibly have an effect on their entire industry, but with rare exceptions (recent meltdown of AIG, Merrill Lynch, etc.) it doesn'the go much beyond that.

Words and their proper use are the core of any politician's job, powers, duties, and responsibilities. Random crap that comes out of the mouth of the PotUS can launch nukes. It would be one thing if Trump was given to making retractions after he goes 'off script', ("no, I didn't literally mean 'Nuke China!', I was just frustrated with them, it's been a long day, can we table this trade negotiation bullshit until tomorrow? I need a nap."), but Trump will make statements that only saintly generosity could label as politely as a "faux pas", and rather than walk it back when called out on it, he doubles down and takes it to absurdities* ("Yes I said 'Nuke China', and goddammit use ALL the Nukes!!").

*unless his political handlers manage to find his reigns, but even then control over his mouth seems 'loose' at best.

We tear apart and investigate in minute detail the use of language of -every- president because that language shapes policy and national defense. Presidents afterward will have to build on, or clean up after, what the previous administration left behind with their use of words.

And while Trump's use of words would seem to indicate a blindingly obvious unsuitability to the office of PotUS, he still has managed to get one step away from that office. It does behoove us to parse and examine his use of language, so we all can argue effectively against its use in the future.
We're in the traffic-chopper over the XKCD boards where there's been a thread-derailment. A Liquified Godwin spill has evacuated threads in a fourty-post radius of the accident, Lolcats and TVTropes have broken free of their containers. It is believed that the Point has perished.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10331
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby addams » Thu Aug 11, 2016 3:57 am UTC

This link is a comedian's monologue on a serious subject.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bq2_wSsDwkQ

Journalists are not what they once were.
Journalists may not be in our near future.

A different comedian says,
"The truth is dead."
"The Internet killed it."


If Trump can manipulate the media,
He may be our next President.

I have first hand experience with his supporters.
They are a Mob. Mobs are scary and powerful.

Mobs do not sit down and carefully consider anything.
Mobs Act! Mobs Grow! Mobs Vote! Remember Brexit!
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
Xeio
Friends, Faidites, Countrymen
Posts: 5101
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 11:12 am UTC
Location: C:\Users\Xeio\
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Xeio » Thu Aug 11, 2016 4:57 am UTC

Trump: "[Obama] is the founder of ISIS ... and I would say the co-founder would be crooked Hillary Clinton"

You know, maybe Trump is trying to put The Onion out of business? Is there anything they can print that wouldn't be believable at this point?

maybeagnostic
Posts: 669
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 3:34 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby maybeagnostic » Thu Aug 11, 2016 6:56 am UTC

Xeio wrote:Is there anything they can print that wouldn't be believable at this point?

Sure. "Trump issues sincere apology."
T: ... through an emergency induction port.
S: That's a straw, Tali.
T: Emerrrgency induction port.

Trebla
Posts: 387
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2010 1:51 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Trebla » Thu Aug 11, 2016 12:27 pm UTC

cphite wrote:That being said... it's one thing to worry about some of the bullshit he's throwing out about policy; a lot of it's pretty fucked up. But all of this worry over every random bit of crap that he says, and all this parsing and examination, it's just getting silly.


But new policy BS doesn't change frequently enough to be an entertaining story for the news.

And from the perspective of his opponents, the people they're trying to reach won't be swayed by policy... it doesn't matter what Trump/Clinton's policies are if people don't actually believe they'll follow through. How many Trump supporters actually believe that Clinton's policy is actually to repeal the Second Amendment? I don't know, but I'd wager it's a sizable portion of them, and they're unlikely to admit they're wrong even to themselves... attacking Trump's character (lol) is a real in-road they can make, though.

cphite
Posts: 1370
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:27 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby cphite » Thu Aug 11, 2016 1:48 pm UTC

Dauric wrote:
Vahir wrote:
cphite wrote:That being said... it's one thing to worry about some of the bullshit he's throwing out about policy; a lot of it's pretty fucked up. But all of this worry over every random bit of crap that he says, and all this parsing and examination, it's just getting silly.


Welcome to being a candidate for president of the United States.


... and with reasonably good reason. The random crap that comes out of most of us doesn't have much of an effect in the wider scheme of things, we're all just random as assholes on the internet. The random crap that comes out of a typical CEO's mouth could tank their own companies, possibly have an effect on their entire industry, but with rare exceptions (recent meltdown of AIG, Merrill Lynch, etc.) it doesn'the go much beyond that.


Sure, in some cases; generally if their words imply something negative about the company or industry, not just random crap.

Words and their proper use are the core of any politician's job, powers, duties, and responsibilities. Random crap that comes out of the mouth of the PotUS can launch nukes. It would be one thing if Trump was given to making retractions after he goes 'off script', ("no, I didn't literally mean 'Nuke China!', I was just frustrated with them, it's been a long day, can we table this trade negotiation bullshit until tomorrow? I need a nap."), but Trump will make statements that only saintly generosity could label as politely as a "faux pas", and rather than walk it back when called out on it, he doubles down and takes it to absurdities* ("Yes I said 'Nuke China', and goddammit use ALL the Nukes!!").


No. This is something that a lot of people seem to worry about but it really doesn't work that way. There are no circumstances under which any president can launch nukes simply by saying so; and there isn't even a "button" in the sense that most people seem to think. The president can authorize a nuclear strike, yes - but in the absence of a known threat, an order to do so would never be carried out. There is protocol in place to prevent that, and frankly even if there wasn't there is no way that the chain of command is going to kick-start the end the world just because Donald Trump says so on a whim.

*unless his political handlers manage to find his reigns, but even then control over his mouth seems 'loose' at best.

We tear apart and investigate in minute detail the use of language of -every- president because that language shapes policy and national defense. Presidents afterward will have to build on, or clean up after, what the previous administration left behind with their use of words.


Tear apart yes; but the level of faux outrage shown in regards to Trump, especially in regards to obviously nonsensical statements, is getting to be a bit much.

And while Trump's use of words would seem to indicate a blindingly obvious unsuitability to the office of PotUS, he still has managed to get one step away from that office. It does behoove us to parse and examine his use of language, so we all can argue effectively against its use in the future.


Well, I certainly won't argue that he is suited for the job, because I don't believe he is at all. But that's based on a lot more than random bullshit that he utters during press conferences.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6813
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Thu Aug 11, 2016 2:15 pm UTC

Considering Trump's long pattern of walking the line and blatantly crossing over, I think you need to prove he was being harmless instead of us.
Trumps speeches aren't like any previous candidate speeches in the modern era. It be like if a priest said he repeatedly likes playing with boys in the shower but was definitely not a pedophile. then that priest drives to a school with candy, and you called us out on pre judging him.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Aug 11, 2016 2:56 pm UTC

cphite wrote:
Words and their proper use are the core of any politician's job, powers, duties, and responsibilities. Random crap that comes out of the mouth of the PotUS can launch nukes. It would be one thing if Trump was given to making retractions after he goes 'off script', ("no, I didn't literally mean 'Nuke China!', I was just frustrated with them, it's been a long day, can we table this trade negotiation bullshit until tomorrow? I need a nap."), but Trump will make statements that only saintly generosity could label as politely as a "faux pas", and rather than walk it back when called out on it, he doubles down and takes it to absurdities* ("Yes I said 'Nuke China', and goddammit use ALL the Nukes!!").


No. This is something that a lot of people seem to worry about but it really doesn't work that way. There are no circumstances under which any president can launch nukes simply by saying so; and there isn't even a "button" in the sense that most people seem to think. The president can authorize a nuclear strike, yes - but in the absence of a known threat, an order to do so would never be carried out. There is protocol in place to prevent that, and frankly even if there wasn't there is no way that the chain of command is going to kick-start the end the world just because Donald Trump says so on a whim.


This is correct. There are many, many valid, legitimate reasons to worry about Trump's lack of verbal self restraint. Nuclear launch procedure is not among them.

That particular line of criticism seems to be missing the point in the hyperbole, and kinda hearkens back to the Goldwater campaign. Just, yknow, with rather less justification.

User avatar
mosc
Doesn't care what you think.
Posts: 5403
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 3:03 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby mosc » Thu Aug 11, 2016 3:53 pm UTC

It's hard to find the right level of outrage to pair with each of his ridiculous statements. Sometimes it's a bad joke, sometimes it's a statement with unclear meaning that could be bad, and sometimes it's not in itself terrribly off message but something no sane politician would say. I'm torn between wanting to talk about these types vs completely ignoring them in favor of pointing directly to satements he has not only said but re-iterated that are terrible.

I mean, he says some of the most racist thing I've heard out of a presidential candidate since... Nixon? Even Buchanan wouldn't have talked like Trump. His comments about Judge Curiel and Ghazala Khan are not casual missteps, issues with political correctness, or bad jokes. They're direct attacks on the core principles of American Democracy. I didn't think I'd live to hear a candidate proposing religious screening questions for immigration in my lifetime let alone so soon after the 1940s.

Do we do a disservice focusing on almost random word vomit that adds up to stupidity or does ignoring the sheer volume of such comments downplay their impact in totality?
Title: It was given by the XKCD moderators to me because they didn't care what I thought (I made some rantings, etc). I care what YOU think, the joke is forums.xkcd doesn't care what I think.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6888
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby ucim » Thu Aug 11, 2016 4:32 pm UTC

The things he's saying are pretty much all autocratic repudiations of the rule of law. When somebody says so many reckless things like that and gets away with it, he inures us to it. We begin to accept recklessness as the norm. That allows him to get away with it once in office. Once that happens, democracy is lost.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Heartfelt thanks from addams and from me - you really made a difference.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Aug 11, 2016 4:50 pm UTC

I don't think Trump has the power to get rid of democracy. Split powers and all that.

I do think he has the potential to be a quite bad president.

User avatar
Vahir
Posts: 456
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2012 7:20 pm UTC
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Vahir » Thu Aug 11, 2016 4:56 pm UTC

cphite wrote:No. This is something that a lot of people seem to worry about but it really doesn't work that way. There are no circumstances under which any president can launch nukes simply by saying so; and there isn't even a "button" in the sense that most people seem to think. The president can authorize a nuclear strike, yes - but in the absence of a known threat, an order to do so would never be carried out. There is protocol in place to prevent that, and frankly even if there wasn't there is no way that the chain of command is going to kick-start the end the world just because Donald Trump says so on a whim.


Yes, yes, he can't by a word nuke a country, but his decision whether or not to use nuclear weapons would be hugely important nonetheless. If the chain of command is split, for example, then he would be able to do something horrible like that. And besides, that someone so stupid, terrible, and silly has such an important voice in whether or not we use weapons which can END THE WORLD should be scary enough by itself!

Donald Trump has abused his position and powers whenever he could for his entire life, for his own benefit or worse, to satisfy his enormous ego. This is a man who has been in near-continuous frivolous lawsuits for decades, who's pettiness borders on sociopathy. Do you REALLY think he won't abuse his presidential position to attack everyone and anyone who's ever slighted him? He'd be the most corrupt and destructive president in the last century. Just the suggestion that such a man could be elected should be a shocking wake up call for American democracy. And yet here he is, a serious candidate with a serious chance to gain the office.

I don't want to live on this planet anymore.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6813
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Thu Aug 11, 2016 4:58 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:I don't think Trump has the power to get rid of democracy. Split powers and all that.

I do think he has the potential to be a quite bad president.

It would depend on how much our institutions failed. Trump is just as much the symptom of institutional failure. Based off his low polling numbers, there's danger but the country hasn't crumbled into the fourth Reich just yet.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby morriswalters » Thu Aug 11, 2016 5:04 pm UTC

mosc wrote:Do we do a disservice focusing on almost random word vomit that adds up to stupidity or does ignoring the sheer volume of such comments downplay their impact in totality?
No. If he can't take this he is unsuited for the job. His is anyway, of course. And he dishes as well as receives. Goldwater's fitness for holding the nuclear trigger was attacked by the Democrats with this ad.
The advertisement begins with a little girl (three-year-old Monique M. Corzilius) standing in a meadow with chirping birds, picking the petals of a daisy while counting each one—repeating some numbers and counting some in the wrong order.[3][4] After she reaches "nine", she pauses, as if trying to remember the next number, and a male voice is then heard saying "ten", at the start of a missile launch countdown. Seemingly in response to the countdown, the girl turns her head toward a point off-screen, and then the scene freezes. As the countdown continues, a zoom of the video still focuses on the girl's right eye until her pupil fills the screen, eventually blacking it out as the countdown simultaneously reaches zero. The blackness is instantly replaced by the bright flash and thunderous sound of a nuclear explosion, featuring video footage of an detonation similar in appearance to the near surface burst Trinity test of 1945. The scene then cuts to footage of a mushroom cloud from a different nuclear explosion, and then to a final cut of a slowed close-up section of incandescence in yet another nuclear explosion.
Politics is nasty.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Dark567 and 25 guests