Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
Sign in to follow this  
Tied

2016 Presidential Election Thread Archive

Recommended Posts

You don't think there's a significant risk of violence from right-wing groups if Hillary and the Democrats sweep the Presidency, House, and Senate, and appoint Democratic justices to the SCOTUS, and thereby take control of every facet of government for eight years and possibly deal the death blow to the Republican party and conservative movement as we know it?

I dunno, I don't really share your optimism.

 

To quote Dilbertman.

 

 

On average, Democrats use guns for shooting the innocent. We call that crime.

On average, Republicans use guns for sporting purposes and self-defense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just an observation.

 

I've been noticing Trump TV ads during the World Series broadcast while I haven't seen any Clinton ads. Trump angling for his target demographic? Or does Hillary Clinton truly hate America's pastime? 

 

Quick!

 

To the InfoWars signal1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You could not support either one, but oh well. 

 

 Apparently this dates back to the 2011 Russian elections. Clinton said they were rigged, Putin said they weren't and accused Clinton of spurring protests

You do not have to support either in all honestly. Assad will come out on top (which is honestly the more desirable situation) if the "rebels" simply are not funded and supported by the US and allies. 

 

Putin has said the goal is reinforcing Assad and then holding snap elections once the situation is cleared...honestly not a bad plan, especially w/ foreign observers. 

 

I don't think it was Clinton (State Dept.) as much as the liberal opposition itself, which was later supported (and probably earlier as well) by the US. TBH there is no opposition party in Russia, it is United Russia, their allies (Lib. Dems and arguably the Commies who are not that anti-Putin to begin with), and the West backed parties. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just an observation.

 

I've been noticing Trump TV ads during the World Series broadcast while I haven't seen any Clinton ads. Trump angling for his target demographic? Or does Hillary Clinton truly hate America's pastime? 

 

Quick!

 

To the InfoWars signal1

 

Mostly probably because Trump has like zero election infrastructure. Last I checked a few weeks ago he had like two state HQs total and was blowing through high-level campaign employees because they literally weren't paying them. Trump probably splurged on putting commercials into something that could give him more "exposure." 

 

It's kind of interesting how around the time my family got digital cable was the time I became bewildered about how people were complaining about being inundated with election ads. I just never saw the things as I was mostly just watching cable movie channels if I ever turned on a TV. Then I recently visited my parents' place and watched network TV and there were so many ads that they were repeating the same ones in the same commercial break. Then I remembered how bad it was when we were antenna-only in New Jersey. The '96 Senate race there is still infamous for just how nasty it was and I remember there was considerable backlash when the really awful ads were showing up in the breaks of kids' stuff like Nickelodeon. My folks weren't the "write a letter" types, but I was 8 and I remember asking them what a sex offender was because of one of the ads.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know how the Brits used to line up officers in front of that old Challenger tank and made them list any faults they could find? The Republicans should do the same with this picture:

 

http://i.imgur.com/MUnSCw5.jpg

 

There are so many things wrong with it, and they couldn't have not seen it coming at the time. Things I can come up with:

 

-This is either a statistician's nightmare or sick fetish dream. Most primaries are between two people and some occasional outliers, and the frontrunners push for support to beat each other and to eventually suck up the outliers' voters when they inevitably bow out. In this case, where the hell do any of the losers' votes go to? At the end of it all, Trump won majority, but only with 40% of the vote because it was so split.

-Tell me exactly how different one of these is from the other enough to make the choice anything but "I see them the most on the news so I guess I'll vote for him."

-Out of all of these, how many of them can't seem to get a sentence across without sounding like a lunatic.

-Out of all of these, how many of them seem to actually want to perform one of the most difficult public services jobs ever versus how many of them want some media exposure for personal gain?

-How many of these people don't have a video of them saying something incredibly nutty or racist?

-How many of them seem to have some kind of idea out of really juicy soundbites?

 

...to name a few

 

On the other hand, the Dems are in a bit of a split with their caucus system. It's effective in making sure some nutso candidate doesn't take the title against their will, but you also risk losing a large amount of people who wonder how much their vote means in the party.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mostly probably because Trump has like zero election infrastructure. Last I checked a few weeks ago he had like two state HQs total and was blowing through high-level campaign employees because they literally weren't paying them. Trump probably splurged on putting commercials into something that could give him more "exposure." 

 

It's kind of interesting how around the time my family got digital cable was the time I became bewildered about how people were complaining about being inundated with election ads. I just never saw the things as I was mostly just watching cable movie channels if I ever turned on a TV. Then I recently visited my parents' place and watched network TV and there were so many ads that they were repeating the same ones in the same commercial break. Then I remembered how bad it was when we were antenna-only in New Jersey. The '96 Senate race there is still infamous for just how nasty it was and I remember there was considerable backlash when the really awful ads were showing up in the breaks of kids' stuff like Nickelodeon. My folks weren't the "write a letter" types, but I was 8 and I remember asking them what a sex offender was because of one of the ads.

 

Shocking. It's almost like Trump is not only running against Clinton but also the Establishment in his own party.

 

As for cable TV ads, I keep seeing one on my cable stations for some Proposition in California when I live up here in Washington.

 

Not sure who was in charge of that ad buy. Unless they are aiming for the vote of the invasive species of Californians/Amazon drones who moved up here and are still registered down south.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know how the Brits used to line up officers in front of that old Challenger tank and made them list any faults they could find? The Republicans should do the same with this picture:

 

 

I thought they did that with the Valiant tank.  Although, the exercise would work with a 1940's Challenger as well. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought they did that with the Valiant tank.  Although, the exercise would work with a 1940's Challenger as well. 

 

You're probably right. I'm only half-remembering Fletcher's story from watching Think Tank years ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shocking. It's almost like Trump is not only running against Clinton but also the Establishment in his own party.

 

As for cable TV ads, I keep seeing one on my cable stations for some Proposition in California when I live up here in Washington.

 

Not sure who was in charge of that ad buy. Unless they are aiming for the vote of the invasive species of Californians/Amazon drones who moved up here and are still registered down south.

Which is one of the reasons I think he's gonna loose.  Lack of ground game, and his own party actively working against him.

That and pissing off a significant chunk of the female part of the electorate.  Anecdotes aren't evidence, but I'm seeing a lot of women who hang out around the right wing folks I know and they are either voting Johnson or Hillary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also the plane that Governor Pence was aboard skidded off the runway at LaGuardia Airport. 

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/28/us/plane-with-mike-pence-aboard-skids-off-la-guardia-runway.html?_r=0

 

When I told this news to Mrs. The Captain (my wife) she said "What? Did Hillary's ground crew work on the landing gear?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Podesta fell for a phising email.  Not only does 2016 seem to be the password on most of their docs, he doesn't even know how to avoid scams in the first place.  No wonder they got their emails leaked.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-phishing-email-that-hacked-the-account-of-john-podesta/

 

 

I already posted it in the general news thread, but it belongs here more I suppose.  The FBI is re-opening their investigation on the Clinton emails since "The FBI has learned of the existence of emails that appear to be pertinent to the investigation."

 

https://twitter.com/nbcnews/status/792050195043192832

pdNOV2Z.png

f3ZynCA.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a ton of misinformation going out there, and it's hard to parse. From what I can understand, photos were found on Weiner's computer pertaining to illegal activity. Huma Abedin, a former adviser to Hillary when she was SoS, and now currently a campaign adviser, was found to have used the same computer to talk in e-mails with Hillary. FBI now wants to re-open probes into Hillary's e-mails based on these e-mails. 

 

Huma is also Weiner's estranged wife.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If you don't think this election has brought the US closer to civil unrest, then watch that video and give yourself a good long time to think about it.

I do not think Adams is correct in everything he says, and I think he over-relies on his persuasion theory. I do think, though, that he's right about this. If Clinton wins, it will take a collective act of incredible virtue on the part of conservatives to not start an insurgency.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you don't think this election has brought the US closer to civil unrest, then watch that video and give yourself a good long time to think about it.

I do not think Adams is correct in everything he says, and I think he over-relies on his persuasion theory. I do think, though, that he's right about this. If Clinton wins, it will take a collective act of incredible virtue on the part of conservatives to not start an insurgency.

 

I need to amend this to say that I don't think Trump's supporters have been much better. It's the "gloves off" attitude that both sides have that spooks me. I think Clinton's campaign has been more ruthless and less scrupulous about using division to try to win, but that doesn't mean Trump's people are saints. After all, the folks at AUFC talk about how easy it is to bait Trump people; they believe that and I do too.

 

Trump people are, as colli would say, "on tilt", while Clinton people are willing to burn the barn down to win the lot. Neither of these things are good for avoiding civil violence in the US.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is why when people start saying we should simply "raise or lower taxes," I consider swallowing a plastic bag:

 

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/families-facing-tax-increases-under-trumps-tax-plan/full

 

Simply seize the means of production, what's the problem?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...