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
Yakk
Poster with most posts but no title.
Posts: 11129
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 7:27 pm UTC
Location: E pur si muove

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Yakk » Tue Sep 27, 2016 3:13 pm UTC

80%-90% of undecideds in focus groups saying Clinton won is unusually large.

Fox news has "Trump lost" in one, and in another "Trump won in online polls", quoting a Fox News poll with only 50% thinking Trump won to 35% Hillary.

If 50% of people visiting Fox News' website don't think Trump won, that is bad news for Trump.
One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision - BR

Last edited by JHVH on Fri Oct 23, 4004 BCE 6:17 pm, edited 6 times in total.

User avatar
Lazar
Landed Gentry
Posts: 2151
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 11:49 pm UTC
Location: Massachusetts

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Lazar » Tue Sep 27, 2016 3:15 pm UTC

Angua wrote:There's someone on facebook who is pretty triumphantly posting links to lots of polls including Time that all say people thought that Trump one (except for CNN).

I don't know how people measure these things so I have no idea how to tell.

The only Time poll I can find is an open online poll (i.e. a measure of which candidate's shitposters are the best at brigading online polls), and the other ones that that person is citing likely are too. CNN did a legit survey, which found that Clinton won pretty decisively.
Exit the vampires' castle.

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Diadem » Tue Sep 27, 2016 3:24 pm UTC

Clinton is up quite a bit in the betting markets. So people certainly seem to think that Clinton won.
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Tue Sep 27, 2016 3:26 pm UTC

Angua wrote:There's someone on facebook who is pretty triumphantly posting links to lots of polls including Time that all say people thought that Trump one (except for CNN).

I don't know how people measure these things so I have no idea how to tell.


See Lazar's post above. Donald has a very active Reddit community. I distrust any online polls on this matter. Similarly, I'd distrust any online polls with regards to Bernie Sanders (who also has a very strong online presence).

Case in Point: https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/com ... n_twitter/

Whether or not the subreddit realizes it, they are manipulating these online polls. They tell each other about the polls, and then all the subscribers brigade the votes.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
Liri
Healthy non-floating pooper reporting for doodie.
Posts: 1113
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2014 8:11 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Liri » Tue Sep 27, 2016 3:44 pm UTC

I know by this point I should believe it, but talk about the wrong thing to double down on and defend.
http://www.npr.org/2016/09/27/495611105 ... ers-weight
There's a certain amount of freedom involved in cycling: you're self-propelled and decide exactly where to go. If you see something that catches your eye to the left, you can veer off there, which isn't so easy in a car, and you can't cover as much ground walking.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Izawwlgood » Tue Sep 27, 2016 3:49 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:Case in Point: https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/com ... n_twitter/


So... much... concentrated stupid...
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

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 » Tue Sep 27, 2016 3:51 pm UTC

Hey, it could have been worse, he could have doubled down on having a country club that didn't discriminate in response to another of his businesses descriminating!

Then again, he doesn't have much to lose with black Americans at this point, he does have a non-zero base with women.

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Vahir » Tue Sep 27, 2016 3:55 pm UTC

I'm inconsolable that we never got a Bernie-Trump debate. Oh, what could have been...

User avatar
Liri
Healthy non-floating pooper reporting for doodie.
Posts: 1113
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2014 8:11 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Liri » Tue Sep 27, 2016 4:14 pm UTC

Vahir wrote:I'm inconsolable that we never got a Bernie-Trump debate. Oh, what could have been...

I dunno, I'm happy I voted for him, but I think he would have struggled. All the things that Clinton did great - staying calm, not interrupting, in essence being presidential - aren't his forte. He wouldn't really have appeared any better suited. Policy-wise, they could have been at each other's throats, but I think Trump's relentless mocking of socialism would have more of an effect than Sanders' critiques of his wealth/how he got his money.
There's a certain amount of freedom involved in cycling: you're self-propelled and decide exactly where to go. If you see something that catches your eye to the left, you can veer off there, which isn't so easy in a car, and you can't cover as much ground walking.

Drumheller769
Posts: 733
Joined: Mon May 11, 2009 7:46 pm UTC
Location: ♞♞♞

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Drumheller769 » Tue Sep 27, 2016 4:20 pm UTC

All I saw was an orange buffoon, and a slimy snake. Where were these politicians who were debating that everyone keeps talking about?
The Great Hippo wrote:Arguing with the internet is a lot like arguing with a bullet. The internet's chief exports are cute kittens, porn, and Reasons Why You Are Completely Fucking Wrong.

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Tue Sep 27, 2016 4:21 pm UTC

Liri wrote:
Vahir wrote:I'm inconsolable that we never got a Bernie-Trump debate. Oh, what could have been...

I dunno, I'm happy I voted for him, but I think he would have struggled. All the things that Clinton did great - staying calm, not interrupting, in essence being presidential - aren't his forte. He wouldn't really have appeared any better suited. Policy-wise, they could have been at each other's throats, but I think Trump's relentless mocking of socialism would have more of an effect than Sanders' critiques of his wealth/how he got his money.

Sanders has the advantage of being a man, and wouldn't be hurt for being aggressive, or not smiling, or being an ambitious cold bitch. Of course, Democrats would have to fall in line, and then struggle against being too liberal, but it would probably work against a candidate like Donald. Well, pretty much anything has a good chance against Donald on the Democratic side.

Drumheller769 wrote:All I saw was an orange buffoon, and a slimy snake. Where were these politicians who were debating that everyone keeps talking about?

While I get the joke, do you actually know what a politician is suppose to act like?

Drumheller769
Posts: 733
Joined: Mon May 11, 2009 7:46 pm UTC
Location: ♞♞♞

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Drumheller769 » Tue Sep 27, 2016 4:24 pm UTC

Hillary behaved exactly like a politician should, she was calm, poised, collected, and spoke relatively articulately. I just don't trust her as far as I could throw her.
The Great Hippo wrote:Arguing with the internet is a lot like arguing with a bullet. The internet's chief exports are cute kittens, porn, and Reasons Why You Are Completely Fucking Wrong.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6598
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Tue Sep 27, 2016 4:28 pm UTC

Sanders forte is domestic socio-economic policy, so he struggles badly on foreign policy. However, he isn't as impulsive as Trump, and he is able to speak coherently. A few weeks with a good speech coach and a good strategist provided using the resources of the Democratic party, and he can probably do pretty well against Trump - Hillary, however, would still trounce Bernie Sanders.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Sep 27, 2016 5:24 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:On the other hand, Clinton absolutely destroyed Trump on the Tax Returns issue. And instead of hitting Clinton back where she was weak (IE: trying it back to the emails thing), Trump just blabbered about how paying 0% taxes makes himself smart. He didn't even deny the outrageous claims that Clinton was making. Indeed, Trump seemed like an unapologetic tax-dodging billionare.


Oh, I quite agree, but I think that's the public perception of Trump already. Even if someone hasn't been paying attention to the election, Trump's image has always been kind of an asshole businessman.

I agree that Trump absolutely could have done better, but I think in the end, he basically was just himself. His crappy, crappy self.

Edit: I do think that, oddly enough, Bernie would have done better against Trump.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Izawwlgood » Tue Sep 27, 2016 5:29 pm UTC

I'm floored that trump admitted to and even bragged about profiting off the housing crisis and not paying his taxes.

I think Clinton did a phenomenal job.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Tue Sep 27, 2016 5:43 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:I'm floored that trump admitted to and even bragged about profiting off the housing crisis and not paying his taxes.

I think Clinton did a phenomenal job.


I'm torn.

On the one hand, Trump absolutely destroyed himself by bragging about those issues. On the other hand, I don't think (say...) Sanders could have gotten Trump to respond in the way he did last night.

Sanders would have definitely painted Trump as a billionare class character. But Trump is well accustomed to beating back direct attacks against him. The reason why Clinton was able to extract so much out of Trump was that she was patient and willing to sit back and watch the man destroy himself.

I give Clinton mad props for her patience and yes... "Temperment" in this regards. I have my doubts that Sanders would have had the patience to let Trump ramble in the ways he did last night.

----------

Clinton's fundamental strategy was to let Trump do the talking. Its not so much that I think "Clinton did a good job" as much as "Trump completely fucked up" last night. But it takes a huge amount of patience to play that sort of game, so I have to give Clinton respect for staying out of a lot of issues. (IE: How Clinton deliberately ignored the birther counter-accusations from Trump).

Clinton managed to shut down Trump by outright ignoring a lot of his accusations and assertions. Is that a "good job" ?? Perhaps, but Clinton wasn't really "doing" anything.

I bet you if we did a minute-by-minute count: Trump hogged the spotlight and said far more things than Clinton last night. Is Sander's the kind of guy to let someone else get more talking time in? I don't think so. It would have been a more confusing shouting match if Sanders were debating Trump. As opposed to what seemed to be more of a Trump-sided shouting match, with Clinton just staying silent (or quickly apologizing and moving on)

-----------------

On the other hand, this will only add to Clinton's image as a manipulative politician. But if Trump continues to be manipulated by Clinton like this, he is sure to lose the election.

--------------------------

Some other notes: http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz ... rom-debate

Lester Holt was under a lot of pressure to do a lot of things last night. He mostly disappeared from the debate, but directly challenged Trump on two issues: the Birther issue and the support of the Iraq War issue. I don't recall him challenging Clinton however. (He may have challenged Clinton on the email thing... but the issue was over so quickly that I basically forgot if it happened at all. I don't remember if it was Trump or Holt who brought up the emails).

This will inevitably lead to accusations of bias (and indeed, I'm seeing some Holt == Clinton bias posts online right now). But I think he did the best job he could as moderator. Some degree of fact checking was necessary as the moderator, but he mostly let Trump and Clinton bash each other for 90 minutes.

IIRC, he asked something like 5 questions total (certainly less than 10 questions the entire night). Otherwise, the most Lester Holt said on most issues was "Your time is up" or "You have 20 more seconds to finish your point". A good performance in general for a moderator. I think he could have been better if he eased up on the Birther issue a little bit, it made him seem anti-Trump. (It should have been Clinton's responsibility to remind the audience that Trump continued to be a birther in 2015, four years after the birth certificate was brought up. But really, that moment was Trump vs the Moderator, and the Trump crowd will remember it as a solidly anti-Trump moment for the rest of this election).
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10548
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby CorruptUser » Tue Sep 27, 2016 6:13 pm UTC

sardia wrote:
CorruptUser wrote:Are there really people other than big businesses who think that lowering the corporate tax rate will be super beneficial to the poor?

Yes, by default every Republican believes that lowering taxes in general will be super beneficial to the poor. Or lowering taxes any shape or form. We call it trickle down economics and it's very popular for conservatives. They either say the tax cuts will simulate growth, assuming huge multipliers on said cuts, or push for taxes that sound like they affect Americans, but don't really. (aka estate tax)

As for the corporate tax, it's possible to pull an Ireland and get a big benefit by stealing your neighbors companies. Otherwise, the argument is the taxable money is sitting overseas doing nothing. If only someone would lower the rate to zero, and let that money be spent in the US, or so the argument goes.


Except I'm a Republican and I don't think lowering taxes in general will be super beneficial to the poor.

I'm actually post-Keynesian (or was it neo-Keynesian?) when it comes to economics, and utterly despise the Austrian school.

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Sep 27, 2016 6:21 pm UTC

Everyone's still talking about Trump, is the thing. They may say Clinton won, but they then go on to talk about Trump. Clinton's policies or whatever aren't actually getting much attention.

CorruptUser wrote:Except I'm a Republican and I don't think lowering taxes in general will be super beneficial to the poor.

I'm actually post-Keynesian (or was it neo-Keynesian?) when it comes to economics, and utterly despise the Austrian school.


Super beneficial, eh. A lot depends on details. Lowering taxes *can* help, depending on what's lowered and how. Sales or fuel taxes, for instance, are obviously regressive.

Anyone touting an "all taxes good" or "all taxes bad" is obviously resorting to ludicrous simplifications.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Tue Sep 27, 2016 6:41 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Everyone's still talking about Trump, is the thing. They may say Clinton won, but they then go on to talk about Trump. Clinton's policies or whatever aren't actually getting much attention.


Clinton's strategy is to let Donald do all the talking. This worked poorly for Clinton last week, but seems to work very well for her during the debate.

Its a clear, purposeful strategy. Clinton is trying to stay away from the spotlight. Even during the debate, she never complained about Trump's interruptions or anything. She's just fine with letting Trump be Trump through this whole election.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
Liri
Healthy non-floating pooper reporting for doodie.
Posts: 1113
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2014 8:11 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Liri » Tue Sep 27, 2016 6:49 pm UTC

Is there any sort of timeline on Trump's audit? Could it realistically be finished before the election? Or, will enough start demanding it that he drops that bs defense?

At this point I'm genuinely quite interested. If he does actually plan on releasing them (unlikely), the damage will probably only get greater the closer we get to election day, with a drop-off by the final 2 or 3 days.
There's a certain amount of freedom involved in cycling: you're self-propelled and decide exactly where to go. If you see something that catches your eye to the left, you can veer off there, which isn't so easy in a car, and you can't cover as much ground walking.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6598
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Tue Sep 27, 2016 7:00 pm UTC

You are assuming that Trump is telling the truth about the audit. I don't think he is; he claimed he gets audited every year, which means he should be able to at the very least release returns from 2013 and earlier, which he isn't. He has absolutely no intention of releasing any of them.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10548
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby CorruptUser » Tue Sep 27, 2016 7:07 pm UTC

Problem is that whenever Clinton says "why won't he release his tax forms; he's probably hiding something!" Trump can turn around and say "why did she delete those emails; she's definitely hiding something!"

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Tue Sep 27, 2016 7:12 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Everyone's still talking about Trump, is the thing. They may say Clinton won, but they then go on to talk about Trump. Clinton's policies or whatever aren't actually getting much attention.

CorruptUser wrote:Except I'm a Republican and I don't think lowering taxes in general will be super beneficial to the poor.
I'm actually post-Keynesian (or was it neo-Keynesian?) when it comes to economics, and utterly despise the Austrian school.

Super beneficial, eh. A lot depends on details. Lowering taxes *can* help, depending on what's lowered and how. Sales or fuel taxes, for instance, are obviously regressive.
Anyone touting an "all taxes good" or "all taxes bad" is obviously resorting to ludicrous simplifications.

Tyndmyr, have you forgotten the tea party years? The endless budget battles over tax increases? The Republicans have taken a hard line on taxes. All taxes are bad, is their motto.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... story.html
Ever wonder why people keep donating to Trump's foundation even though Trump doesn't contribute? Turns out Trump is evading taxes by directing income that would have gone to him to go instead to his "charity". Total income evaded? $2,300,000 was not reported as income. It's very brazen and the only reason it's not a crime is that ignorance of the tax law is a valid defense. That's also why Trump isn't releasing his taxes.

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Sep 27, 2016 7:23 pm UTC

sardia wrote:Tyndmyr, have you forgotten the tea party years? The endless budget battles over tax increases? The Republicans have taken a hard line on taxes. All taxes are bad, is their motto.


The tea party is but a faction of Republicans, more extreme than most. Plenty of Republicans can understand more nuanced tax proposals, and generally do so, even though it's politically advantageous to treat the IRS as a whipping boy.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Tue Sep 27, 2016 7:27 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:Problem is that whenever Clinton says "why won't he release his tax forms; he's probably hiding something!" Trump can turn around and say "why did she delete those emails; she's definitely hiding something!"


Except Trump completely fumbled his opportunity during the debate.

We all saw Trump attempt to pull this line, but Trump needs to actually finish his thoughts on the matter for it to have any effect.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
Zohar
COMMANDER PORN
Posts: 8567
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:45 pm UTC
Location: Denver

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Zohar » Tue Sep 27, 2016 8:14 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:You are assuming that Trump is telling the truth about the audit. I don't think he is; he claimed he gets audited every year, which means he should be able to at the very least release returns from 2013 and earlier, which he isn't. He has absolutely no intention of releasing any of them.

What Thesh said.

KnightExemplar wrote:Even during the debate, she never complained about Trump's interruptions or anything. She's just fine with letting Trump be Trump through this whole election.

I mean, yes - letting Trump talk is one of the best ways to get people to realize he'll be absolutely terrible has president. But, I'm pretty sure that (as usual in this election) there's sexism involved. Having a woman interrupt a man is very very often perceived as her being bossy, bitchy, overpowering, aggressive, confrontational, etc. It's definitely in Hillary's best interest to seem patient and composed when he's not, but she also can't afford to stoop down to his level because his behavior is a lot more acceptable for men and not tolerated in society when women do it.
Mighty Jalapeno: "See, Zohar agrees, and he's nice to people."
SecondTalon: "Still better looking than Jesus."

Not how I say my name

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Tue Sep 27, 2016 8:33 pm UTC

Zohar wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:Even during the debate, she never complained about Trump's interruptions or anything. She's just fine with letting Trump be Trump through this whole election.

I mean, yes - letting Trump talk is one of the best ways to get people to realize he'll be absolutely terrible has president. But, I'm pretty sure that (as usual in this election) there's sexism involved. Having a woman interrupt a man is very very often perceived as her being bossy, bitchy, overpowering, aggressive, confrontational, etc. It's definitely in Hillary's best interest to seem patient and composed when he's not, but she also can't afford to stoop down to his level because his behavior is a lot more acceptable for men and not tolerated in society when women do it.


The sexism goes both ways however.

Throughout the Republican debates, Trump was willing to make absurd nicknames for all of his opponents: Lying Ted, Little Marco, etc. etc. Its one thing to actively insult other males (I find it immature, but there's a "macho" aspect to grating other males on stage). But Trump is going to have to work very hard to insult Clinton while sharing a stage with her.

He's got "Crooked Hillary" (why he never went for the obvious alliteration of "Crooked Clinton" kinda bothers me... but whatever), so he's certainly not "above" calling her names. But that's just not what males do to females on stage.

Maybe he's going to break the taboo next debate? He was hinting that he was holding back this debate and will "hit harder" next debate. But if he straight up goes into "Primaries" mode and starts this shit again, Hillary will only benefit from those kinds of attacks. After all, Hillary is very good at playing victim.

I don't really think Trump has the room to attack her like he did with Rubio / Cruz / Jeb through the Primaries. I expect him to try next debate however (his current strategy is clearly not working, and when things don't work... the Donald seems to always go back to insults)

I mean really, imagine if he pulls the Ted Cruz shit with Hillary. Calls her "Crooked Hillary" every two or three minutes in the debate, while insinuating that she's unfaithful with her husband (or vice versa). It just won't go over well.
Last edited by KnightExemplar on Tue Sep 27, 2016 8:40 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Tue Sep 27, 2016 8:39 pm UTC

Lol, if Trump doesn't go as dirty as he did to Cruz wife or Cruz's running mate, it'll be a testament to his aides. Also, does nobody care that Trump's foundation is just a brazen multi million dollar tax evasion scheme? It's actual criminal, not border line, or shady. Flat out a crime.
Last edited by sardia on Tue Sep 27, 2016 8:43 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Sep 27, 2016 8:43 pm UTC

sardia wrote:Lol, if Trump doesn't go as dirty as he did to Cruz wife or Cruz's running mate, it'll be a testament to his aides. Also, does nobody care that Trump's foundation is just a brazen multi million dollar tax evasion scheme?


Not really, no.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Tue Sep 27, 2016 8:44 pm UTC

sardia wrote:Also, does nobody care that Trump's foundation is just a brazen multi million dollar tax evasion scheme?


Not after Trump admitted that he was a "very smart" man who pays 0% in taxes last night. (I couldn't think of a worse way to respond to Hillary's claims...) Why go after shady organizations when the man admits to the crap on national television?

Democrats are going to love next week... when the attack ads are made using the video / audio of last night's debate. I do wonder if its too early though: October is a full month. If all of this is forgotten by November 8th, then its for naught.

Clinton's coordinated efforts to bring up Mrs. Universe 1996 lady last night (and exactly coordinated with attack ads appearing today) shows that Clinton still has lots of fresh ammo for the remainder of this election cycle. Frankly, I was worried that Clinton expended all of her political ammo by now.

EDIT: See Trump's response to this Alicia Machado / Mrs. Universe 1996 issue from this morning.

In contrast, see Hillary's attack ad.

I do wonder what else Clinton & Co. has in store for us next month...
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Izawwlgood » Wed Sep 28, 2016 2:30 am UTC

My favorite thing about Holts moderation was when he on at least two points (Birtherism and Audits-preventing-tax-statements) directly underlined Trumps lies, and just let Trump continue to lie.

Unfortunately, Trumpeteers aren't going to view it the same way.

EDIT: The thing I find most mortifying about Trump is how effective his gish gallop is. Hillary laughing at one of his rants may have made her look bad, but frankly, I think it was the most apropos response to one of the most inane political tactics.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
Liri
Healthy non-floating pooper reporting for doodie.
Posts: 1113
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2014 8:11 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Liri » Wed Sep 28, 2016 3:03 am UTC

So. Uncomfortable.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BJjUv_TD2E

Edit: should work now.
Last edited by Liri on Wed Sep 28, 2016 11:40 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.
There's a certain amount of freedom involved in cycling: you're self-propelled and decide exactly where to go. If you see something that catches your eye to the left, you can veer off there, which isn't so easy in a car, and you can't cover as much ground walking.

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Diadem » Wed Sep 28, 2016 7:08 am UTC

Liri wrote:So. Uncomfortable.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udVlh534QZk

Link doesn't work (video is private).
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

User avatar
Zohar
COMMANDER PORN
Posts: 8567
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:45 pm UTC
Location: Denver

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Zohar » Wed Sep 28, 2016 12:56 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:The sexism goes both ways however.

Throughout the Republican debates, Trump was willing to make absurd nicknames for all of his opponents: Lying Ted, Little Marco, etc. etc. Its one thing to actively insult other males (I find it immature, but there's a "macho" aspect to grating other males on stage). But Trump is going to have to work very hard to insult Clinton while sharing a stage with her.

He's got "Crooked Hillary" (why he never went for the obvious alliteration of "Crooked Clinton" kinda bothers me... but whatever), so he's certainly not "above" calling her names. But that's just not what males do to females on stage.


The sexism that states "men don't do that to women on stage" is the same one that implies or outright says that women are unfit for political positions - it doesn't really help Clinton, nor does it protect her since she does have her own (recurring, harassing) nicknames from him.

Truly though, I doubt this is about sexism - Trump isn't worried about seeming overpowering or bullyish. I think his aides realize the same tactics that won him the hardcore Republic base that votes in primaries are not the same tactics that could win him moderates and undecideds. That's why Trump tried to sound civil and composed at the beginning of the debate.
Mighty Jalapeno: "See, Zohar agrees, and he's nice to people."
SecondTalon: "Still better looking than Jesus."

Not how I say my name

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Wed Sep 28, 2016 3:14 pm UTC

Zohar wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:The sexism goes both ways however.

Throughout the Republican debates, Trump was willing to make absurd nicknames for all of his opponents: Lying Ted, Little Marco, etc. etc. Its one thing to actively insult other males (I find it immature, but there's a "macho" aspect to grating other males on stage). But Trump is going to have to work very hard to insult Clinton while sharing a stage with her.

He's got "Crooked Hillary" (why he never went for the obvious alliteration of "Crooked Clinton" kinda bothers me... but whatever), so he's certainly not "above" calling her names. But that's just not what males do to females on stage.


The sexism that states "men don't do that to women on stage" is the same one that implies or outright says that women are unfit for political positions - it doesn't really help Clinton, nor does it protect her since she does have her own (recurring, harassing) nicknames from him.


But Trump never said it on stage. I watched the entire debate. Not once did Trump ever call her a name.

"Crooked Hillary" will continue to be uttered among Trump supporters, but as soon as he starts going after Hillary through unfair bullying tactics, the moderates will shift against him.

Lets not pretend that Hillary isn't a master of taking advantage of her gender through this whole thing. She's aware of the weaknesses and strengths that come with her gender. And she's using them to gain an edge on stage. (Ex: no male would ever do the "laugh and shoulder shimmy" that was so prevalent through the last debate).

I'm aware that there continues to be a gender issue at hand, but Hillary is clearly doing what she can with it. And I'm not quite sure if Trump has figured out this game yet. I'd argue that Hillary's experience with her gender is far greater than Trump's experience with the fairer sex, and it was extremely clear through the last debate.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
Zohar
COMMANDER PORN
Posts: 8567
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:45 pm UTC
Location: Denver

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Zohar » Wed Sep 28, 2016 4:12 pm UTC

Fair, though considering how much she's targeted and criticized specifically for being a woman, I certainly don't mind if she uses that to her advantage. And, like, yes, it's definitely something she should use. Presidential candidates use whatever advantages and connections they have, and with good reason. Trump tries to present himself as a successful businessman and it's obvious to everyone that one of his primary concerns will be big business. Just as one of the areas Hillary will definitely be better at than him is women's rights, just as Obama is more aware and better at Afro-American issues. There's nothing wrong about her emphasizing she's a woman. Just as there's nothing inherently wrong with Trump advocating businessmen more. I personally disagree with that, but it makes absolute sense for all of them to act in those ways.
Mighty Jalapeno: "See, Zohar agrees, and he's nice to people."
SecondTalon: "Still better looking than Jesus."

Not how I say my name

User avatar
duckshirt
Posts: 567
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2007 1:41 am UTC
Location: Pacific Northwest

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby duckshirt » Wed Sep 28, 2016 5:16 pm UTC

Xeio wrote:Hey, it could have been worse, he could have doubled down on having a country club that didn't discriminate in response to another of his businesses descriminating!

Then again, he doesn't have much to lose with black Americans at this point, he does have a non-zero base with women.

Donald may have had a valid point there but he kinda botched his answer... All-white country clubs were pretty common in Florida, Bill Clinton was even criticized for playing in one, and maybe he did have real pressure not to allow black and Jewish people in.
lol everything matters
-Ed

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 » Wed Sep 28, 2016 5:42 pm UTC

Sick and Tired.

The US Political System is Sick.
The people are too tired to fight.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLWFocBruPs

oh, The Tax Returns:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSGxnxqAO5w
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
duckshirt
Posts: 567
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2007 1:41 am UTC
Location: Pacific Northwest

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby duckshirt » Wed Sep 28, 2016 7:20 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:You are assuming that Trump is telling the truth about the audit. I don't think he is; he claimed he gets audited every year, which means he should be able to at the very least release returns from 2013 and earlier, which he isn't. He has absolutely no intention of releasing any of them.

Right, audits are probably confidential and thus it can't be confirmed whether he's even being audited let alone a timeline
lol everything matters
-Ed

User avatar
Sableagle
Ormurinn's Alt
Posts: 2149
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 4:26 pm UTC
Location: The wrong side of the mirror
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Sableagle » Wed Sep 28, 2016 7:29 pm UTC

Liri wrote:So. Uncomfortable.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BJjUv_TD2E

Edit: should work now.

I can't tell whether that's "all the sniffs in sequence" or includes repeats. He really doesn't have a wide range of body language, does he? At least, not while sniffing, he doesn't.
Zohar wrote:You don't know what you're talking about. Please spare me your quote sniping and general obliviousness.

CorruptUser wrote:Just admit that you were wrong ... and your entire life, cyberspace and meatspace both, would be orders of magnitude more enjoyable for you and others around you.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests