You can't really shape a media narrative over someone who shifts so quickly on everything.
You can't really shape a media narrative over someone who shifts so quickly on everything.
Our future Supreme Leader up 2 in Florida, 20% African American support / 40% Hispanic:
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/...ton-in-florida
Probably up minimum 10~ tbh but still this should shut up the delusional bitter clingers about 'battle ground state polls!!!!'
You can, in the context of the downticket races. At some point, the Republicans will cut their losses on Trump and focus on preventing a Democratic landslide in the congressional races.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shindig
He's within the margin of error of the recent PPP poll, nobody is cutting losses. Open your eyes.Quote:
Originally Posted by GS
Give it six weeks.
Clinton's going to walk this, barring "events, dear boy, events".
Farage is joining Trump's rally today in Mississippi. Maybe he will bring back the Whig party.
@Lewis This pic from a Trump rally is all for you - enjoy. I really hope there is not a Hillsborough Florida.
https://mobile.twitter.com/SopanDeb/...047104/photo/1
It's nice to think I'm the go-to Hillsborough person.
Thought it was a nice showing of cross cultural support for the big Farage unveiling.
Whelp, Farage is backing Trump. Can't wait to see how much money changed hands for that to happen.
CNN saying trump has backed off the total deportation plan. What a man.
So deporting 10 million people turned out to be slightly impractical, who'd have thunk.
Hard to tell what effect that'll have.
As long as the wall is being built then all is good.
Katrina Pierson (I can't believe they're still letting her go on TV): ""Trump hasn't changed his position on immigration, he has changed the words that he is saying."
Trump's policies don't matter. The people who want to believe he'll deport all the forrins will believe it regardless of what he says, the people who think it's all hot air will think that regardless of what he says.
His words don't matter. He's a feelpinion politician.
lol at Nigel Farage getting a) major billing off 'The Donald'; b) attacked by the actual next President. Like somebody said on the Twitter, the cleverness of her [dishonest] speech was that every idiot she referred to in it likes nothing more than to go all over the news making their respective holes every deeper, so it does its own leg work.
You have to give him credit for the sheer level of chancing he's managed to pull off.
This bloke is incredible
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CqwxHUbWgAAAjm5.jpg
That famous tunnel technology.
In fairness to him (and I say that with a heavy heart), isn't the Mexican drug situation so fucked up that an unconventional (read mental) approach might just be worth a shot?
Because American drug issues are all Mexico's fault. :rolleyes:
There's unconventional and then there's untold billions in initial costs let alone upkeep, and that's when you magically whiff away all of the about a hundred reasons why you wouldn't do it.
Who cares how much it costs? He clearly said Mexico is going to pay for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Disco
The cost probably isn't relevant anyway, given you'd create jobs through building the damn thing.
Has he ever explained how he's ever going to get Mexico to pay for it? :D
That was the best bit. :D
He basically says they do 50 bil worth of trade with Mexico and he will block that trade unless they agree to pay 15 bil or whatever he pretends it will cost. Forgetting that all that threat does is hurt American companies. It's real dumb.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mazuuurk
Hahaha that's brilliant, so essentially he'll eliminate the reason for a lot of Mexicans to even go to the US in the first place.
In case he does win - I wonder how many Americans will feel like those Brexit voters that in hindsight felt like they shouldn't have actually voted for what they did (i.e. the people who see their vote as a means of making a statement, rather than for it's actual value).
It is heartening to see the Republican leadership rush to his defense. He can get Farage on stage more easily than a Senator. A bit like his outreach tour to minorities by talking to "the blacks" at a virtually all-white crowd in Jackson, Mississippi (check the demographics.)
Cross a desert, ford a river, cross some more desert. Oh, look a ten foot wall. Fuck it, I better go back. Of course, because most illegals now come from China and India it is not like he is playing to stereotypes or anything.
"the blacks" couldn't show up because they can't leave their house without getting shot. (I'm almost directly quoting him there, what a fucking embarrassment)Quote:
Originally Posted by mikem
I wonder whether he'll learn from the Chinese mistakes...
https://gyazo.com/1cdd9cbcfcb1fd609c80aba1b93da677.png
How is that a mistake? Try riding around there with your mongolian cavalry while someone is firing arrows at you.
I'm not sure why the wall attracts so much lolling. It's not going to be invincible, but it would still be a pretty simple way to increase border protections, and how complicated and expensive is a wall to build (asking that possibly makes it seem less effective to people who want it to be invincible)?
If you live near the border you laugh because people die daily from crossing a desert. They get to the border with little or no supplies left and what are they going to do hop a wall or go back?
That is Az to Texas, may be entirely different in California.
One blast for the star spangled banner, two blasts for little brown people, three blasts for Pepe on his pizza delivery bike.
That's sort of where I am with it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewis
Presumably the wall would be of sufficient stature to stop people just hopping it.Quote:
Originally Posted by mikem
Not sure how the tunnelling would ever be stopped, so I'd agree with Phonics' lolling there.
I remember one time I dropped the ol' "the wall just got 10 feet taller" joke and they hit me with "the tunnels just got 10 feet deeper".
I was gobsmacked.
Sure, I mean nowdays :) Not sure Mexicans are traveling with that much cavalry.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mazuuurk
You could build a huge moat full of hydrochloric acid to stop the tunnelling.
What's lol about it is that immigration is not that big of an issue, aren't they only like 5% of the total workforce? Also, illegal immigration seems to be declining, even without a MASSIVE WALL to hop. And weren't they saying that about half of illegal immigrants enter the country legally anyway?
John Oliver did a piece on it. It's really quite complicated and quite expensive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewis
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vU8dCYocuyI
And they've actually been building it for years and it's shit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secure_Fence_Act_of_2006
You know what, even if they didn't they'd be pretty damn easy to spot going around in the water, considering the whole border is patrolled by thousands of people.Quote:
Originally Posted by John Arne
That said, it'll probably create the kind of miserable situation happening in Europe now, where people are trying to go on rafts out on sea and that sort of thing.
We have a longer border with Canada that is virtually undefended. We don't have an army of illegals flooding across the border. The need and market mean that if we build a wall people will find a way around it. People die on a daily basis crossing the desert - it is a wall. The wall is just symbolism.
But then again, I lol because I'm part of the 30% or so of Americans (pretty equally split across party lines) whose response to any form of immigration is "More please."
If you don't think a wall would deter at least some illegal immigrants from entering the country on the margin because it increases the 'cost' of the journey, you are stupid.
Shall I shove myself in a packed container with 50 other people for a month's journey where I may die of starvation, dehydration, or heat exhaustion? Oh, there is a wall?
Shall I get on that raft in and brave the seas to Florida where people are reported to die every year? Oh, there is a wall?
Shall I cross a desert littered with gravesites? Oh, there is a wall?
Shall I brave the penalties Isis imposes for leaving Aleppo, dodge the bombs of Iran, Russia, and the US, hide out from the rebels and cross the sea? Oh, there is a wall?
If people are ignoring the former, I don't think the wall is going to be a major deterrent. Call me crazy. Will it stop people, sure. Deterrent? Really?
It's very much the 'death penalty deters murders' argument.
Who cares if it deters a few illegal immigrants, it's such a colossal waste of money and resources just to make ourselves feel good on the inside. It's a non-issue and would never come close to happening
The wall between Israel and Palestine works, it could easily be made to work in the US. Easily.
That's different though, isn't it.
Mate, did he just compare American / Mexican relationships with the Arab-Israeli conflict?
He bloody did, mate.
Walls work. To pretend otherwise is ignorance.
They certainly do keep roofs up.
Hey mert, would you identify as "alt-right"?
Silly name but this is a pretty cool website on polling.
http://rocknpoll.graphics
<opens tab>
"Elections in PollLand"
<closes tab>
No, I think the alt-right is poison albeit useful in the short term; they are the radical social justice warriors of the Right. I would say I'm a Ben Shapiro conservative.Quote:
Originally Posted by ItalAussie
Trump within 2 in 4-way race, best showing since post convention bump:
http://hotair.com/archives/2016/08/2...-margin-error/
He's since softened his stance and says he will probably vote for Trump.
Newest purchase to troll liberals:
https://d2w04addmnh2aq.cloudfront.ne...ax&align=faces
I would honestly assume that anyone I saw wearing that shirt was wearing it ironically.
Yup, me too.Quote:
Originally Posted by ItalAussie
Top trolling.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CrEl2lTUMAAMSCR.jpg:large
Bubonic plague being more favorable than Trump. :D
Reading the WSJ this morning and it says 8% of people are voting neither according to one poll. Later on it states Green and Lib on for around 15% of the total vote (not sure how that tallies up). My colleague told me he was voting Lib yesterday because he can't vote Trump and Hilary is a crook.
I know a lot of people who say the same thing but then 4 beers deep confess to me that they can't wait till Trump is president. This includes pretty much every single white male who gets laid.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kikó
Not exactly a ringing endorsement if only the drunk will vote for him.
A sad reflection of the fascist repression and marginalization of dissenting view points by the Left more than anything.
Trump up 3:
http://graphics.latimes.com/usc-pres...oll-dashboard/
So, they're afraid to speak up? Bless.
I know right, drunk after only 4 beers, and american beers at that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mert
Facist repression is telling someone to leave the country if they don't want to stand up for the national anthem. Not being so beta you won't tell pollsters who you're voting for.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mert
If you don't stand up for the national anthem and hate the country you live in, why do you continue to live in it? Serious question. Surely if you care enough about your beliefs you would move out instead of whining like a little bitch?Quote:
Originally Posted by phonics
I'm not sure that's quite how it's supposed to work.
Remain and Reform!
1. Emigration is hard. Ask your parents.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mert
2. Your argument only works if America is some faultless, limitless land of opportunity. It is not.
3. Define hatred of a country. America was founded off the back of pissed-off Americans. The Civil rights movement was spearheaded by pissed off Americans. In general, resistance and revolution comes from pissed off people who want a better place to live.
But, y'know, if you don't like it ... there's always Turkey.
Put all of Mert's claims together, the polls being purposely biased, shy-Trump effect, and anecdotal 'evidence' that secretly everyone white wants Trump, and anything less than a forty point margin in the actual election will mean either Mert is undeniably full of complete nonsense or that Trump has underperformed.
By the way, the person who says British and Australian style gun bans won't work in America because it's different then saying that a fuck off wall will work because it works in Israel is my favourite thing.
David Cross has a bit which is quite relevant to the flag standing "controversy"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MX1evRf4uh4
http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politi...ton-foundation
Quote:
Three of these stories, in other words, found no wrongdoing whatsoever but chose to insinuate that they had found wrongdoing in order to make the stories seem more interesting. The AP even teased its story with a flagrantly inaccurate tweet, which it now concedes was inaccurate but won’t take down or correct. The final investigation into the seat assignments at least came up with something, but it’s got to be just about the most trivial piece of donor special treatment you can think of.
...
But once you “know” that a putative charity is really just a nexus of corruption, then even the failure to be swayed by contributions becomes a news story. And of course once your decision-making is put under that kind of scrutiny, your impulse is to shut down and try to keep information close to your chest. But when you “know” that a person is corrupt, her lack of transparency is further evidence of corruption. And any minor information that does slip out is defined as news, even if the information does not actually contain evidence of anything all that interesting.
Are you fucking dumb? Some analogies are valid and others are not. Your analogy doesn't work, mine does, you want me to deconstruct why that's the case I'll be happy to do so. Not to mention the 2nd Amendment is primarily about the Natural Right to self-defense and withstanding tyranny, not security on an individual level.Quote:
Originally Posted by John
Ital do you believe there were problematic aspects with how the Clinton Foundation was run? If so, what? What do you think about the allegations that donors were granted special favors by the US State Department? How do you think a Republican who had committed similar offenses would be treated by the media? How do you feel about the fact that Hillary deliberately deleted emails in a way that made them unrecoverable? How do you feel that of the many emails deleted by Hillary claimed to be simply 'personal emails', the FBI has discovered that around 30 concerned Benghazi?Quote:
Originally Posted by ItalAussie
Keep in mind, you're an emotionally detached objective academic. Let's see that unbiased rational opinion.
He has a right to protest that I am happy to defend. I have a right to criticize his protest for being idiotic, hypocritical and delusionally misguided.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shindig
Black people have more opportunities and access to a far higher standard of living on the whole than anywhere else in the world today. Are there enduring issues, of course, but on the whole White people fucking bend backwards and wall on eggshells to create an inclusive environment. They are undeserving of this criticism.
Neither works. Israel is a tiny, tiny little country, America is the third biggest country in the world. To give that some context, stretch Israel out along the Mexican border and it could only be four miles wide if it was to maintain its current square milage. Saying 'build a wall, it works in Israel' is equivalent to an Israeli at the conception of their wall saying 'build a wall, it works in my garden.'Quote:
Originally Posted by Mert
Given the current situation, allowing people to defend themselves against hypothetical tyranny from the US government would necessitate allowing private citizens to build and maintain a nuclear program and an air force. Are you in favour of that?
Size can be scaled. America has 44% of households where a gun is present, not to mention cultural difference and the fact that it is not an island. Confiscation is just not possible period. There are differences as to why your analogy simply doesn't work.
No you don't. It's about deterrence, the threat of a protracted guerrilla war is sufficient (see Chinese Civil War/ Vietnam War / etc). Also if I'm not mistaken the 2nd Amendment allows for private gun ownership for personal self-defense meaning that ordinances with indiscriminate killing power (aka mortars, nuclear bombs, etc) are not protected.
I wasn't talking to you, and don't plan to change that, so this is a one-off response. Literally the main premise of the article is a direct comparison with the way Colin Powell's charity is received. The boogeyman Clinton foundation is a series of attempts at looking for any traction that will stick. That's literally the premise of the article.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mert
The email thing has been done to absolute death, and there was nothing. Her own political enemies tried to come up with something in an inquiry they controlled, and still came up with nothing. It's reached the point of being a swift-boat style beat-up. It's like how everyone got hot and heavy over the leaked emails, and all it ended up proving when people combed through it was that Hilary Clinton is relatively boring in her workplace demeanour.
Amusingly, although not a point made in the original article, Colin Powell used a bloody AOL email address. I like Colin Powell, but at least have your own server, man.
It can be interpreted in any one of a hundred different ways, because the people who wrote it couldn't have imagined AR-15 rifles or grenade launchers. It doesn't specifically allow or ban any one weapon, all it says is that people have a right to keep 'arms'. By the way, you could probably argue reasonably effectively that a drug gang is a 'well regulated militia', with its bosses and captains and soldiers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mert
It's almost as though the constitution was written for an America which no longer exists.
Anyway, we've done guns a hundred times. I was just lolling at you for not seeing the absurd contradiction in your positions on guns and walls.
Wow. Just wow. You are far more delusional than even I imagined. Everything you just said can be easily debunked with a simple google search and even the most superficial knowledge of the issues. Do you want me to go through every inane 'argument' you just presented or will it fall on deaf ears?Quote:
Originally Posted by ItalAussie
Dude. I'm serious you need to be better than this, it scares me to think you are in any way associated with academia.
Eh phones didn't exist when the Constitution was written, does that mean I don't have 1st Amendment protections for my speech when I'm speaking on the phone? That's not how the Constitution works.Quote:
Originally Posted by John
And yes, there are many interpretations of the Constitution...but there is also established law. This is what the law says.
I have no issues with 'gangs' legally owning guns...they would have them whether they were legal or not anyways. At least this way the regular law abiding citizen can protect himself from those gangs.
No, because speaking on the phone doesn't fundamentally change the nature of speech. The internet sort of does, because it means that your words can be seen by millions upon millions of people with minimal effort, but then I'm sure the people who said anyone should be able to say whatever they want would be fine with that. Trying to contort a sentence written about weaponry by people who only had muskets and swords to fit a world in which helicopter gunships exist is just bonkers, and I'm not sure the people who used 'arms' as shorthand for the six types of muskets available would be fine with some NRA crackpot using their words to argue that he be allowed to keep an AR-15 in his boot.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mert
By the way, you should start just doing all these things you're threatening to do. Asking someone if they want you to provide substance to your argument is hilarious.
Yeah but you realize it's understood that the reason they kept the wording general was to purposefully accommodate for future technological developments, it's done so purposefully. It's supposed to apply to modern, personal weapons to be used for self-defense. What sort of purpose would the 2nd Amendment have if it didn't apply to weapons necessary for effective resistance against tyranny in a given epoch. Think about it.
I'm busy. If I'm going to spend 20 minutes meticulously debunking every single one of his arguments with citations, I want to know that it's worth my time. I've done it in the past and he just stops responding.
I think it's extraordinarily unlikely that people smart enough to write the constitution were stupid enough to think they could foresee and legislate for all future developments, which is why I find arguments based on it so utterly daft. We know more now, we are smarter, the world has changed, why are people arguing over whether this proposed change fits a document written two hundred and fifty years ago instead of whether it would make the country better now?
There's middle ground between spending twenty minutes looking up sources and just offering a bit of substance to go along with your DO BETTER DUDE bullshit.
Okay but that's literally what they did...it's in the Congressional records of the conversations which took place while they were debating the Bill of Rights. Do you really think they were so stupid to not realize that technology would advance past muskets, and that the citizenry would in turn need to have access to this new weaponry in order to fulfill the original purpose of the 2nd Amendment?Quote:
Originally Posted by John
Everything he said was wrong. I don't know how else to respond.
I'm sure you'll find a Breitbart link or something. I'm truly tired of arguing with you, as neither of us believe anything the other says or any of the references the other uses, nor do we hold the other in any kind of intellectual regard.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mert
Let's just stick with parallel discussions. Neither of us enjoy engaging the other. You won't believe anyone even marginally left of Pinochet, and I think an undergraduate liberal arts degree is almost worth the ink used to print it. It's truly not worth the energy looking for a way to reach common ground.
I was speaking more generally there, in response to you opening the conversation up to freedom of speech. I'm sure they thought they could foresee certain things and I'm sure they did, they were smart men, but do you honestly think a time travelling Jefferson would look at today's world and think that document was sufficient?
When was the constitution closed for new amendments, incidentally? It seems odd to hear people shouting YOU CANT CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION when citing the Second Amendment.
How about the NY Times editorial board:Quote:
Originally Posted by ItalAussie
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/30/op...f=opinion&_r=0
Jefferson was an oddity...he wanted the Constitution to be re-written every generation...Quote:
Originally Posted by John
It's not. It's just hard to amend, anyone who says 'you can't change the Constitution' is stupid, it's been changed a bunch of times.
See, that's exactly the kind of article it talks about. Nothing the Clintons did there is unreasonable in the context of running a charity. Colin Powell had numerous meetings with foreign dignitaries due to his charity - that's the normal way that figurehead charities run. Yet Clinton does the same and it's breathlessly reported as some kind of scandal. Then she stops because of that (largely unfair, or at least inequitable criticism) and it's reported as another kind of scandal. These stories really ought to be reported in the context of how comparable charities are run, and if you still think it's reasonable to criticise them given that context, then have at it - that's a fair stance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mert
It's actually very interesting how similar Clinton is to her predecessor, and how differently she's being received. And it's honestly kind of sad, because it's going to hamstring the good work that they've done. Look, I know you think she's using the charity as a front for running corpses full of drugs for children or something, and that's fine. I truly don't want to argue with you, because we clearly aren't going to reach common ground. Let's just not.
"Well they did it too" is not an argument to justify poor ethical decisions. The NYT is calling for her to cut her ties with the organization and to immediately stop taking donations from abroad; we're talking the most sycophant Hillary supporters essentially agreeing with Trump on this topic. It's bad.Quote:
Originally Posted by ItalAussie
There's a reasonable argument that the way charities are run should be changed. As a rule, I'm not a fan of people making their own figurehead charities. We aren't exactly short of charities, so go help out with an existing one. But that's largely how it's done in the current environment.
The evil truth about Hilary Clinton is that she's a boring typical beltway politician in every possible respect. She'll be a boring President, and will be unlikely to spearhead any particular interesting moves in any political direction. She's certainly way too dull to bring about any kind of political apocalypse. She'll pretty much just hold the tiller in place for eight years and call it a day.
I have often wondered about whether a politician could run on a platform of "things are mostly alright, and I won't make any drastic changes - maybe some tinkering around the edges, but that's it". I honestly think that would probably fly in countries with more sensible and reasoned political environments, although they'd probably get savaged from both sides in the US.
"My name is Bruce McDundee, and I'm here to maintain the status quo. Vote for me if you'd rather things stay mostly the way they are for a little bit."
"Always remember our motto: 'Change is hard. Bugger that.'"
I agree. She's not terrible, I recognize in fairness that to grease the wheels of the world you need to be willing to compromise ethically in ways the public would naively scoff at, and if this was 8 years ago when moderate Democrats existed (you know the ones who believed in the neoliberal consensus accepted by literally every economist, fiscal responsibility, and moderate compromise on social issues), I would be seriously seriously tempted to vote for her. I just can't live with a very far left SCOTUS nominee. I can't.Quote:
Originally Posted by ItalAussie
If Hillary came out tomorrow and said, "I'll nominate a moderate SCOTUS candidate, lower the deficit to a sustainable level and complete free trade agreements exhaustively shown to bring about greater economic growth" I would literally campaign for her.
She'll nominate Sri Srinivasan, who so well-regarded that his nomination would be impossible to block. Slightly center-left (by US standards), but basically the middle of the court. Clearly smart, and respected by sensible moderates from both sides of politics. As non-controversial a pick as it's possible to produce.
He's basically destined to end up on the Supreme Court. The question is when, rather than if. The fact that Clinton has such an obvious consensus nomination first-up means that you don't even have to worry about that - it's going to happen eventually, so why not now. It's the most boring possible pick for the most boring possible President. :nodd:
If I could get a guarantee I could live with it. Honestly.Quote:
Originally Posted by ItalAussie
But I can't have her throwing around outrageous proposals like granting citizenship to millions of illegals, free public university, regulating coal production out of business, and single-payer to pander to Bernie Sanders supporters. I think it's just necessary lies, but who knows.
Pretty much I just want Bill Clinton again.
The real Supreme Court question is whether, when Trump loses the election, the Republicans hurriedly try to confirm Garland, who is basically the ideal "Republican-mollification-by-a-Democrat" pick, and was clearly bait to see if they'd jump.
EDIT: I reckon that they'll withdraw the nomination, claiming that it's for Clinton to decide now. But it'll be a safe consensus Supreme Court pick, so status quo basically maintained.
I've got good news for you. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Mert
I think they would withdraw him.Quote:
Originally Posted by ItalAussie
From an outside perspective that's probably a point in favour of Trump. It'll be infinitely more entertaining when he nominates Kid Rock.Quote:
Originally Posted by ItalAussie
"If you don't like it, you can leave" is an argument expats here a lot here in Vietnam when we have the temerity to criticise something in our adopted country. Fortunately, there are more than enough smart Viets who then tell them to shut the fuck up.
It's such a strangely absolutist statement, implying that everything about a country is so perfect that there is no legitimate grounds for attempting to create change.
It's weird because most of the people criticising Kaepernick would, I suspect, have no problem with people protesting America's immigration policy.
If Trump doesn't like America not having a wall, maybe he needs to move to country that has one.
I think there is a range of criticisms which are okay, but there are others which touch on principles so sacrosanct and nonnegotiable that questioning them are simply unacceptable and warrant the 'if you don't like this aspect of our country, which we find to be fundamental to its core identity, you shouldn't be here' response.Quote:
Originally Posted by elth
Is police officers being allowed to kill black people without consequences really that fundamental to the American identity? Fair enough if you're protesting the abolition of slavery or whatever but regardless of how you feel about the accuracy of the perception that black people are unreasonably persecuted, I find it remarkable that it's something that anyone would feel it legitimate to try to quash debate about.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/12/up...shootings.htmlQuote:
Originally Posted by elth
Police officers shoot black men less than white men. Study done by a black Harvard economist. Facts matter.
How is this defensible, what other work related emails were deleted?:
http://thehill.com/policy/national-s...enghazi-attack
So it's ok to shoot black people as long as they shoot more white people? The issue isn't the race, rather the incidents happening at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mert
Setting certain things as "off the table" and not even allowable for discussion is completely pointless, almost fascist, you could say.
Uh no. It's the fact that when shootings are occurring there is not a racist element involved (which is what Elth ignorantly suggested). We can all agree that less shootings should be occurring as a whole.Quote:
Originally Posted by John Arne
If you say "I should be allowed to have 5 wives and rape whichever women I see and I'm oppressed if I am not allowed to", I will respond with, "no you can't, not in this country and you should leave if that's what you want to do."
You've gone from questioning the constitution to people wanting to rape women. And for that, I'm out.
So why not talk about that instead of demanding that Kaepernick leave America?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mert
I already said that I don't care about your position on the substance of Kaepernick's complaint. I care about whether you agree that Trump is correct to demand that people who feel their communities are unreasonably persecuted by police should leave the country, rather than be engaged in discussion and debate.
I just showed you they're not unreasonably persecuted by police. It's a false narrative.Quote:
Originally Posted by elth
The old adage about not arguing with idiots because they bring you down to their level and beat you with experience comes to mind.
In that way, he's set for a life approaching the bench.
Trump and the Mexican president met and they seemed cordial. Mexico says they ain't paying for no wall.
There are few men that can out-idiot Trump, and Peńa Nieto is one of them.
That may be, but I think it's fair to believe him when he says that Mexico won't be paying for the wall.
Well, of course. Does anyone actually believe that would ever happen?
Some of Trump's nutter supporters must do.
Probably. I've lost all faith in this country's intelligence tbh.
There's clearly been some sort of collective shitting of the bed, but it's been building for years. Some of this is quite interesting:
http://mediamatters.org/video/2016/0...y-trump/212422
So did I when they failed the populace. That happened before Trump.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepe
Putting aside the issues of wall logistics and politics.... why on earth does Trump STILL think that Mexico would pay for it? Does he really think that he can bribe/blackmail them with trade deals?
The only way Mexico pays for it is if they get some land out of it.
As if this election couldn't get any better, here's old Rudy 'No Islamic Terror Attacks Before Obama' Giuliani wearing a 'Make Mexico Great Again Also' hat.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CrOwyLlXYAIZ-Xx.jpg:large
So go back and fix your own, dickhead.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepe
So go back and fix your own, dickhead.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mert
I most likely will once I finish my PhD.Quote:
Originally Posted by bruhnaldo
Good luck. People are literally dying to get out of that shithole. Amazing with so many apparent brilliant minds at the helm.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepe
I'm sorry for being a dick but I've watched you bitch about my country for years. It's fucking tiresome.
Obviously America isn't amazing but neither is anywhere else on the planet for anyone who isn't rich and well off.
I'm tired of the world slating my country at every opportunity as if it makes their own country any less shitty.
lol at the inferiority complex on show here.
America is about 100x better to live in than anywhere else in the world. If you disagree you've never lived in America (and no DC and NY are shitholes and don't count).
Which bits do count?
REAL America.
That' what we do: moan. Don't worry, I also criticize my country a lot, just not here since we don't have discussions about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by bruhnaldo
Is this like when black people don't count toward crime stats?
Europe isn't inherently safer than the US due to its brilliant public policy decisions, it's just demographically different.Quote:
Originally Posted by John Arne
http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/...48/334/71c.png
America's dope. A product of its geography, but very unique among nations for its global reach *and* the moral principles held by its people. We've had some complete fucks at the helm of our government, but the spirit of the population is forever optimistic and lovely.
I'm with you Bruhnacho. Western Europe is probably overall a better place to live, but if it wasn't for our alignment (and Theodore Roosevelt), those nice little secular democracies would be long gone
200+ years of forward planning.
https://web.archive.org/web/20110709...ilies/cool.gif
Nothing is 'very unique' you spaz.
Chill out, maybe read a bitQuote:
Originally Posted by Disco
lol at the pseudo-psychoanalysis. i've had to listen to this America is terrible shit on here for what probably constitutes a literal decade at this point.Quote:
Originally Posted by phonics
Maybe come up with some new material and people won't get annoyed by it.
America is one of the most insular western countries in the world (probably because of said global reach), I reckon. Even the yanks who do get out seem completely oblivious to the majority of world events. Not all of them, of course, but more so than Aussies, Brits, Scandi's etc.
That feel when people lecture me about America in English where if it wasn't for America they would be speaking German.
Well, that's not true is it.
I love America, but not for any historical or political reasons, just because it's my home. The geographical and cultural diversity is pretty amazing, too; if I were forced to live in one country for the rest of my life it would be hard not to choose America, you could live in quite a few places so different that they might as well be different countries.
Russian's worse, it's got twice as many cases as GermanQuote:
Originally Posted by GS
The Americans owed us one for letting the French win their independence for them.
I could go 3.5 hours north of DC and I'm in Cosmopolitan Socialist New York and I can go 3.5 hours south and I'm in Confederate flag bumper stickers next to gun racks country. It's pretty wild.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spoonsky
Trump's Arizona speech was like something out of V for Vendetta.
He really seems cut from the same cloth as Benito Mussolini, politically. It's interesting to see how people like that can ride populist disaffection towards power.
I'm telling you guys, he doesn't want to win.
He's going to go full nuclear during the debates if he's still within 10% points in the polls.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oR5KFxUIMH8
"And part of what makes America an exceptional nation, is that we are also an indispensable nation.
In fact, we are the indispensable nation." :uhoh:
American exceptionalism is a lol-worthy doctrine to buy into, but whatever.
Nice caveat, because you knew I was going to disagree with you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mert
Best country in the world!
*Shotguns Bud Light and passes out
I wonder if any of the places I've lived in count.Quote:
Originally Posted by 7om
Idk. I'd imagine I'm obviously one of the more " 'Murica!!!" type Americans we have here.
But even then, my dreams are to own a small shop and a little villa on the coast of Spain, Italy.. or somewhere in South America. Just have a very simple life with a wife and family.
I don't really feel like you can do that in America. There's too much hustle, bustle, expectation to do all of these extra things. People want the frivolities that money can bring.
People are generally rude as fuck, at least in major cities. The smaller towns most people are way too entirely set in their ways and don't care to meet new people or learn new ideas.
I just want to fuck off with a beautiful but simple woman. Just sell small goods. Newspapers. Maybe some fruits and things like that. Just live in love.
In America everything is so commercialized. Nothing is natural, everything is a caricature of something someone saw on television or an idea they came up with from the internet.
It's honestly not really that great. But I still love my country. I realize that there are plenty of opportunities to be afforded here that I wouldn't have had elsewhere. I realize that our standard of living is of luxury compared to 99% of the world.
It's crazy to me that we live in a country that basically uses more fresh water to flush our shit down a pipe within any 1 minute span than many people in the world even get in an entire year. But there's nothing you can do about stuff like that.
And I wouldn't trade it for the world. I wish I was that big of a person to say I'd rather suffer than someone else, but I wouldn't man.
I don't know. I think most of the modern world is shit. We're over-developed as a society. We have access to too much misinformation that people then consider gospel.
Anyways let me shut up I'm just rambling nonsense.
tl;dr: Ya, the United States are certainly better off than most countries, but the things we value in this country, the way we treat other people, are all honestly disgusting, materialistic, and not truly worthwhile.
Everything is a bandage to placate the masses to the real problems we have and completely ignore.
For example, I'm in class last night. Mind you, everyone in my class is a bit younger than me (I'm 27, they're basically 18-21) as I've finally gotten back into college just recently.
Point is, the assignment was to interview another person and class and then introduce them to everyone else (it's a public speaking elective). The one girl said her dream life goal was to own a pair of Christian Louboutin heels.
Could you infer that, if she were to own such expensive shoes, she was to already be successful in other areas? Sure.
But it just kind've threw me back that her goal was just to own the shoes, not to be successful in general.
Maybe I'm overthinking it a bit.
@Pepe I apologize for this. I was still waking up to the day and, as I mentioned before, was already annoyed by the anti-USA rhetoric.Quote:
Originally Posted by bruhnaldo
But that was a dickhead comment and I apologize.
That's the sort of vapid twat who ends up on Big Brother because their goal is to be famous, rather than to do something well and have fame as a byproduct.
The United States of America is exceptional as far as the original concept went, but then the imperialists started using it to bolster their poorly-planned, universalist shit ('Empire of Liberty' roflmao), and now it doesn't mean what it actually means.
It's all good. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by bruhnaldo
Freedom.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewis
It is entirely embarrassing that the country was basically (i realize it's not this simple) founded on freedoms such as... dare I say... freedom of religion....... yet we're probably the most intolerant (as far as Western civilization goes) of anyone who isn't Christian/Catholic or Jewish lol.
That is most definitely not true.Quote:
Originally Posted by bruhnaldo
American exceptionalism is definitely real, by the way. There's no other country anywhere near our size that upholds rule of law. Japan is the closest, but they're a shithole for other reasons
India. Not that that is relevant.
India's getting there, that's true
And of course it's relevant
The most lol part of the US is the love for 'the troops.'
Playing the anthemn before Mamma Mia? Fuck off.
Upholding the rule of law doesn't make the United States exceptional, and it isn't even compatible with the bullshit modern definitions of 'exceptionalism', most of which seem to factor in a healthy disregard for international law.
Upholding the rule of law :lol:
Unless it's someone else's or you know, vaguely inconvenient.
I don't see why 'support the troops' is something deserving of contempt.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepe
Their political leaders who send them off to wars? Yes, fine.
But not the lads actually tasked with doing it.
I don't hold contempt for the soldiers. I hold contempt for the concept of thanking them for our freedomz.
You can lol me off the board if you want, but it just shows your ignorance of the subject. At least Lewis can make claims based in historical accuracy even if his views are different. Even then we mustn't forget that Lewis cums to the thought of Enoch Powell grandstanding.Quote:
Originally Posted by Disco
You take any other country anywhere near our size - yes, this includes India and Japan - and put them in our shoes, and the world is a monumentally less secure place. Obviously we've done some stupid shit; Rostow, Kissinger, Nixon were all incredibly poor decision makers, McCarthy made Americans afraid to exist, and Bush destroyed the Middle East. But the United Nations is a pretty incredible achievement, so are the altogether humane military strategies we pursue (yes, this is the case. Until about 2012 soldiers were legally obligated to value civilian lives over their own. Where else are you going to see that?), the free and open immigration policies we have; you might see this in modern Germany, or France, or the UK, but they only have the security and stability to do these things because of our military and diplomatic strength.
If you're as huge as the United States, any actions you take will have grave consequence, so it's not surprising that we've fucked up a lot. But shit, do some fucking reading, learn something, before slagging off the US. Don't be an ignorant tool.
Why's that?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepe
Because bombing Iraq and freedom in the US have fuck all to do. if they were defending their country from invasions from every corner then fair enough. Also, it's a job and they choose to do it. No one thanks you for cracking a couple of spreadsheets.
It's a job with a huge amount of personal risk, whether they choose to do it or not. I'm comfortable not comparing building a financial model with disarming a roadside bomb. Ultimately if some people didn't choose to do it, they'd be conscripting people like you or I and fuck that.
Whether you think they're "fighting for freedom" or not is irrelevant. The armed forces, in the civilised world anyway, do what they're told to do by their political leaders. I may not agree with the aims (did Bush have aims? fuck knows) of the political leaders taking the decision, but you should have full respect for the lads who're sent over there to implement them.
I have respect. I am not thankful.
I see.
Where do you stand on humanitarian military intervention, investment in defence and the nuclear deterrent? I'm curious about this in an American context, certainly from the Democratic side.
Would love to go on but I need to go to my amateur bicycle race, where the anthem will be played before the start. Do they play the anthem in sunday league matches over there?
EDIT: Those will have to wait.
The Gaelic Games play Amhrán na bhFiann before their matches, but that's only because it's the last acceptable platform for republicanism in the north.
I'm a British patriot through and through, and I reckon I've sung God Save the Queen, in a public setting, fewer than twenty times in my life. Maybe even fewer than ten.
That's the great thing about patriotism. It can, and perhaps should, be silent.
Conveniently posted today:
https://www.thenation.com/article/co...-the-military/
Quote:
This country—despite its awful treatment of soldiers when they return home—worships the cult of the military. And professional sports—especially the NFL—have played a central role. In addition to the military flyovers, the generals flipping coins at the start of the Super Bowl and the staged “reunions” at NFL games, the US Department of Defense paid $5.4 million from 2011 to 2014 to 14 NFL teams to stage “Salute the Troops” events. These involved product placement, advertising, and “casual” (also known as “subliminal”) mentions.
And now we have arrived at a frightening point where an act of dissent that has nothing to do with the military is labeled disrespectful to men and women in uniform. The message is that Kaepernick has this “freedom” to protest only because of the protections accorded us by our military. This is such a disturbing—and a very post-9/11—concept.
The military doesn’t “give” us the right to protest. The Constitution does that. Two hundred years of struggle for civil liberties does that.
If we accept the notion that we are allowed to raise our voices, or take a knee in dissent, only by the good graces of the military, then we are also implicitly saying that the military has the right to take that ability away.
The defense budget thing is tricky, because it's one of those things that, once you begin to raise it, there's really no going back. There was a year towards the beginning of the Eisenhower administration, after the NSC 68 was published, where defense spending tripled within a year. That's insanity! But you're never going to be able to pull that back down, because a) you'll always have prominent hawks who will eat you alive for ostensibly endangering the country, and b) once endowed with power, the military establishment, behaving like any other interest group, will have the resources for continued lobbying. And the military is the one actor within society who will always favor interventionism, because, at the end of the day, what other purpose do they serve? If you're the head of the US Armed Forces advising the president, and you've got his ear, you're always going to be on the side of action, in a very basic sense because you want to be *doing* something.Quote:
Originally Posted by GS
Basically, this is all a relic of the Cold War past that will be very, very difficult to pull back on. We could make do spending half as much as we're spending now, and use all of the extra money for healthcare, education, etc. but I don't see it ever happening.
Nuclear policy is really cool but it's such a complicated subject that I don't know too much about.
The British Empire (which effectively invented the rule of law) did that as top nation, and continued to do so in much of the world long enough to help devise and establish the apparently wholly-American United Nations. The notion of 'exceptionalism' is nothing if not rooted in historical precedent, so you're just conflating it with supremacy like every other wank.Quote:
Originally Posted by mokbull
Humanitarian intervention is usually pretty pointless. That's where free market / technology / media disseminating across the world will probably do more good in the long run.
I'm not saying that our ideas are unique, I'm saying we've been in a unique geopolitical and historical position to implement them on a global scale. You weren't, because you weren't big enough or isolated enough. And we're probably on the decline now, so the next couple centuries are going to be dominated by the 'exceptional' ChineseQuote:
Originally Posted by Lewis
You can call it supremacy but if the Russians had cultural supremacy the suicide rate would quintuple
They play it before England games at Twickenham but I don't think I've ever been at my seat in time for it (we have the walk from the Winning Post timed to perfection) and I'm struggling to think of anything else I go to where it would be played.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmy Floyd
The Chinese won't be 'exceptional' either (although they will think they are, with their Sinocentrist shite). The original concept is a good one as far as 'Murican pride is concerned, so I don't know why they have to ruin it for themselves.
@Lewis Because Mokbull, like Pepe, GS, and pretty much everyone in the US, have no clue what de Tocqueville's concept of Anerican exceptionalism was. It has long since been co-opted by everyone (including the American Communist Party who brought the term back into vogue) to the point of meaninglessness. It is now just rah rah home team cheerleading nonsense everyone does but only the US is accused of. You can argue about degrees but the entire world partaken. No different than the fate of the Confederate flag. Who cares what the original intent was; it was co-opted and reinstated into public life and public spaces by segregationists.
What i said was pretty much exactly what de Tocqueville said, so i don't know what happened there. It's also still valid to this day, though less so ever since we got involved in world affairs
It has admittedly been decades so my memory may be faulty but I remember an emphasis on "why" as opposed to "result."
To me the results that you are referring to are far more likely explained by Olson's Power and Prosperity than de Tocqueville.
Because they're stupid and don't read books.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewis
I thought mokbull was some from somewhere in Europe? Czech Republic or something, no? What's all this 'we' shit?
I framed the results in terms of the uniqueness of American history, as well as geographical setting. Pretty much everything in the evolution of human civilization can be explained with geography, the growth of the US especiallyQuote:
Originally Posted by mikem
Mom's side is Czech, dad's side is AmericanQuote:
Originally Posted by Boydy
Never understood this repeated TTH argument. Why must he be either / or? Why not both / and?Quote:
Originally Posted by Boydy
@mokbull Then my apologies, did not see that part of your argument, but most American exceptionalism arguments are so devoid of their original context as to be meaningless.
Look, I'm just trying to belittle him for fun. Take your serious points about identity elsewhere.
Fair enough, I'll leave them to the high minded, logical, model of probity that was the national Brexit debate.
I'm not claiming 'we're' any better.
Brexceptionalism. :cool:
Speak for yourself.Quote:
Originally Posted by mikem
You had Ricardo arguing comparative advantage at one point in time. Peak democracy.
In other news, Bill Clinton paid for Hillary's private email server with taxpayer money. This election could have been so easy...
When MokBull first turned up here it was under the guise of a fully Czech future tennis professional, and he posted a load of pictures of some other guy on a bus trip pretending it was him. He then signed up with his current persona but using the name 'Koba', and for a while he'd carry on arguments with himself using the two accounts. Presumably that's clouded the issue in Boydy's mind.Quote:
Originally Posted by mikem
It's only really Mert who that argument comes up with anyway, and there it's just to lol at him. When he's Turkish he'll defend stabbings all day long but when he's American he wants them wiped from the crime stats because those nasty black gang members just can't be controlled.
To be fair i did get my first kiss under a moonlight sky at a tennis tournament in Croatia
Donald paid for his wife with tax payers' money.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spoonsky
Executive summary: Cable news needs a horserace. It’s the only way cable news knows how to fill all the time in the 24 hour cycle, and keep its advertisers happy.
https://medium.com/@wilw/that-clinto...990#.ra8ic5jvh
Image (spoiler for size):
Toggle Spoiler
Mike Schur posted a load of tweets in that format last week after Trump was a twat when Dwayne Wade's cousin copped it.
I enjoyed that.
Where's the part where he's an elected official engaging in corruption? His whole platform is 'I engaged in this corruption, I was a special interest, this is why I need to be put in charge because I know how to fix it.'Quote:
Originally Posted by ItalAussie
Surely you understanding the distinction?
CNN Poll w/Trump leading 45-43:
http://www.dailywire.com/news/8913/h...st-ben-shapiro
That is a very odd idea in general.
"I used to be an axe-murderer (I did all the best axe murders), so if you give me an axe, I promise I can stop all the axe murders."
EDIT: "Also, don't vote for my opponent. She used to be an axe-murderer."
It takes an astonishing amount of credulity to convince yourself that only someone proven to act corruptly can stop corruption.
Mental. There's basically some kind of mass Stockholm Syndrome now.
No. Who else would know how the corruption works? If you haven't been on both sides of the equation, you have no understanding of the means in which it can be stopped. It is 100% rational.Quote:
Originally Posted by ItalAussie
Trump hasn't been on both sides of the equation so that's that one laid to rest.
It's also utter shit, and if true would make him a terrible candidate for president.
The Dallas Morning News supporting Clinton - the first time they've supported a Democrat since FDR at the height of WWII - is good fun. Not that it'll swap many, if any, voters - but it shows not everybody in Texas is a mental.
But if he was President he would be...Quote:
Originally Posted by John
Hillary Clinton destroyed her phones with a hammer after they were used so that the emails on them could not be retrieved and then claimed that she, as the Secretary of State, did not know that (c) referred to classified material.Quote:
Originally Posted by GS
And yes, not voting for her is mental.
As they note in their editorial, her misjudgements pale in comparison to Trump's complete ill-preparedness for the job.
You might want to read it, assuming you don't only focus on the propaganda coming from Trump Tower.
Yeah but Trump will have advisers who do most of the heavy lifting who are conservative and probably overall pretty reasonable. Clinton is a guarantee to just further entrench corruption and incompetence with absolutely no alternative outcome.
Considering he keeps firing his advisers and getting even more mental ones by the week. Nah.
But guys, they probably might be overall pretty reasonable.
Better than guaranteed treasonous and corrupt.Quote:
Originally Posted by bruhnaldo
It's America, mate. It's all corrupt. Even you.
Treasonous you could argue but him being corrupt was the centrepiece of your argument not half a page ago.
This is a patently ludicrous justification for voting Trump. When you're having to cite that he's effectively a prop, or mouthpiece, for unelected 'advisers' to circumvent justified charges that he is himself ill-prepared, you're into seriously choppy waters.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mert
The logical next step, of course, is whether Trump would have the necessary understanding, or indeed willingness, to challenge the view of these invisible, supposedly reasonable advisers in the way that he should. The answer, based on all available evidence thus far, is no. He doesn't do detail, or sensible thought-out policy. He's had over a year in the public eye as part of this process, and that's a more than reasonable timeframe in which to judge that it represents a huge weakness.
You know this, of course. Clinton is an appalling candidate, and a sensible, safe Democratic pick would be sweeping the board. Her misjudgements rightly give people pause, but given the clear alternative here it seems entirely reasonable to support her irrespective of those failings.
Still, Donald Trump. We shouldn't worry about voting for him because a number of invisible, unnamed, shadowy and unelected special advisers will actually do all the heavy lifting and he'll just articulate what they tell him to. Great. It'll be like when the Nazis set up Petain at Vichy and told him what his country's policies were going to be from now on.
1. Vote for Trump, because of his history of unrepentant corruption and bribery.
2. Vote for Trump, because he's not actually going to make decisions (except when he wants to).
The state of that.
Yeah but those advisors are principled patriots known to the Republican base with extensive track records, the sort of people that won't just sell 20% of US uranium reserves in return for a few million dollars in speaking fees. I'll take my chances.Quote:
Originally Posted by GS
So you're prepared to allow unelected advisors to run the country without any participation, check or challenge by the elected politician, with said elected politician acting solely as a conduit for their decisions to be implemented.
The fucking state of you.
That will be the result regardless.
Recent polls are actually pretty worrying. Most of the battleground states still seem to be in Clinton's favor, but that can still change. Debates are going to be really intense
Perhaps, but one assumes that the holder of elected office should have the competence to challenge advice, actually proffer a different idea, have some developed policies in mind etc. It's not like you're voting for Mayor of Wasilla, you're voting for the fucking President. Not only that, but ultimately if President Trump decides to do something stupid then it's not as if his advisers can stop him, even if they are 'patriots'.
If you accept that Trump is too ill-prepared to do any of that and he's just going to wave everything through, then we might as well impose a technocratic government and be done with it. A Mario Monti for the new American century.
He's not going to win. I wouldn't worry.Quote:
Originally Posted by mokbull
Today's political news in a nutshell:
Quote:
Trump calls Clinton a warmonger while pitching military expansion
Just a reminder that the Republicans aren't victims here, but really, truly have the leader they deserve.
It's like a party populated by six-year olds. And not "reading at or above grade level" six-year olds, either.Quote:
A bill to fund efforts against the Zika virus collapses, after the GOP tries to include provisions defunding Planned Parenthood, and overturning a ban on the Confederate flag at veterans' cemeteries.
...the President is always largely a figurehead, it's his broad platform that receives a mandate from the people.Quote:
Originally Posted by GS
What planet do you live on where democracy doesn't work exactly how I just described it anyways?
He's 100% going to win, as I've been saying for months now. You don't know America.Quote:
Originally Posted by GS
You realize both parties do that all the time right? It's called democracy, when you have more of your allies in Congress, you get to pass legislation that your constituents want to see implemented.Quote:
Originally Posted by ItalAussie
He's down 4 in New Jersey (Obama won by 18) and down 3 in Rhode Island (Obama won by 27) and is winning one of the Congressional districts in Maine (Obama won by 15; no Republican has won a delegate since the 80s).Quote:
Originally Posted by mokbull
https://www.peoplespunditdaily.com/p...ngland-states/
Recent battleground state polls in the critical states all have Trump either winning or within the margin of error. Effective performances in the debate and Hillary is done, the media has shot itself in the foot, any halfway decent performance will be perceived as an incredible triumph by a public who has been told incessantly that Trump is a cartoon character monster.
I would have assumed that they'd recognise the importance of a public health bill to counter a serious (and already global) health risk, and let it through without infecting it with political hack stuff. Like real grownup politicians manage to do in real functional democracies every day.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mert
It shouldn't bother you really though. I think we both agree with the thesis statement - the Republicans have the leader they deserve. Why we feel that way might be slightly different, of course. :D
Current odds have Hilary 2/5 with Trumpo at 7/4.
Ted Cruz at 500/1....
Democrats do the exact same shit. Welcome to politics. Why can't Democrats put aside their political differences and take the loss for the greater good? It goes both ways as difficult as that is to comprehend for someone consumed by their own dazzling lack of perspective and awareness.Quote:
Originally Posted by ItalAussie
If the Republicans wanted to put forward the Zika, Abortion and Celebrating Slavery bill, they should have done so. Or, like proper grownups in other countries, you don't try and wedge irrelevant shit into actually important necessary bills.
They sunk a vital public health measure by making it unviable. They did that. And not that I think it to be deeply relevant (the Democratic Party can be childish, but nowhere near "sink a critical public health bill to get slave flags flying in military cemeteries" childish), but as far as stopped clocks go:
Quote:
Originally Posted by mert, like six pages ago
I'm not defending what the Republicans did, I'm exposing you for the ignorant hypocrite you are. Democrats could save lives, but they'd rather not 'cave' politically. There is just as much blood on their hands as there is on the Republicans.
Of course you don't see this because you have a pathological inability (you have serious psychological issues, probably stemming from your entire self worth being derived from your high conception of your own intelligence, which makes you incapable of accepting alternative points of views) to find Democrats at fault for anything.
I think you might need to just calm down a little.
So Seb... I mean, Mert is having breakdown.
Aww, is the little rich boy having a meltdown?
Eat a Snickers Mert, or ten as that about seems to be your level.
:DQuote:
Originally Posted by Mert
I love the disconnect between these two sentences. The Democrats are the bigger shits for not passing a bill to fight a disease which affects unborn babies in horrible ways after the Republicans attached a rider which would effectively increase the number of unborn babies at risk in the meantime, and Ital is the one with a lack of perspective. Top stuff, Mert. Really.
The reverse here is that if he doesn't win, you don't know America. I'll take that trade.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mert
So Gary Johnson just tanked his campaign:
https://twitter.com/Morning_Joe/stat...51435477762048
They are equally shitty, with the only difference being that the Republicans actually have a mandate to govern because they control the House and Senate.Quote:
Originally Posted by John
Lol pussy, I just insulted your entire self worth and that's the best you could come up with? Truth hurts I guess.Quote:
Originally Posted by ItalAussie
Mert you are the reason for the collapse of western civilization
They're not equally shitty. If I want to give you some cake but the bakery man will only sell me the cake if I give him my eyes and legs, so you get no cake, who's the bigger arsehole? Me for not 'taking the hit' so you can have cake, or the bakery man who's attached irrelevant and unreasonable demands to what should be a universally agreeable and nice thing?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mert
If your child is starving and the baker will only give you bread if in return you have to pay a somewhat inflated but still very much affordable price for the bread, and then you refuse to pay it out of principle, you're just as much of an asshole as the baker who is using his justified leverage in the situation to make a larger profit.Quote:
Originally Posted by John
See I can make metaphors too.
Yep because holding people accountable for their actions and telling the Truth is the issue in the West :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Mazuuurk
Ital has been exposed many times in this thread for being absolutely ignorant on the issues and yet still persists in his delusional tone of haughty authority and faux impartiality. He deserves to be called out every time he spews his nonsensical partisan bile.
:D
What a baby.
Saw an interesting graphic on the news the other day, and it was polling results of Caucasian university students in swing states. They were also comparing the polls to what Romney did in 2012 and Trump is getting crushed apparently.
I've heard so many people say that they'll vote Trump because Hilary is just god awful and that's in a strong democrat state.
Can't wait for election night, personally. So many people are riled up so the fallout either way should be great viewing.
I know you're incapable of engaging in substantive discussion due to your severely limited intelligence, that must be tough, I'm sorry.Quote:
Originally Posted by phonics
Ital v Mert. Loser leaves the board.
I've always found the scuppering of the lifesaving treatment for babies act by tacking on riders like free stuff for nonces to be a fascinating feature of the American political system. I don't really understand the mechanics of how it happens, but does it really happen anywhere else? I assume there must be some kind of threshold to be able to do it, or you'd just have some lone crank ruining every piece of legislation ever brought in front of Congress.
It's party politics. I'm surprised it doesn't happen more often elsewhere, trying to shoehorn the entire opposition party platform into any old bill. Who would stop them?
If the only way you can get your shit enacted into law is to tack it onto something so important it just has to pass that doesn't say much about the quality of your legislation. Doubly so if you have a majority.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics...-cybersecurity
:lol:Quote:
When asked about the threat of cyberterrorism, Trump responded with such excellent insights as “the cyber is so big”. Gulp.
“Well that’s it, and, you know cyber is becoming so big today. It’s becoming something that a number of years ago, a short number of years ago, wasn’t even a word. And now the cyber is so big. And, you know, you look at what they’re doing with the internet, how they’re taking recruiting people through the internet. And part of it is the psychology because so many people think they’re winning. And, you know, there’s a whole big thing. Even today’s psychology, where CNN came out with a big poll, their big poll came out today that Trump is winning. It’s good psychology.”
He always looks/sounds away with the fairies, but his answer was better than what you usually hear (plus the bloke did pronounce it 'a leppo').Quote:
Originally Posted by Bernanke
He just fucking rambles. It's great fun.Quote:
Originally Posted by Boydy
How do you pronounce it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewis
You really can't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mert
Right, well if that's the case then why do your mob hate Obama so much? He's just a figurehead, after all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mert
Neither do you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mert
Don't blanket all people under mert. Ask mert questions about mert's opinions. mert does not speak for me.Quote:
Originally Posted by GS
By the way if the Republicans want to defund 'Planned Parenthood' and control both the House and the Senate, why don't they just introduce a bill to do so?
I would say 'Ah-leppo', like how we (correctly) say 'Ah-dolf' instead of A-dolf', but I've no idea what it should be.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spoonsky
Your metaphor doesn't work.Quote:
Originally Posted by John
See I can just make pointless statements too.
It would be vetoed by Obama.Quote:
Originally Posted by John
Because Obama appoints his advisors.Quote:
Originally Posted by GS
How common are Presidential vetoes?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mert
Has Trump made any changes to that economic advisory panel he put together with no economists on it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mert
Trump must be to Putin what Gorbachev was to us, except unwittingly so. Not that I think there is destined to be some eternal struggle with the Ruskies that defines the global order, but it would be nice to keep politicking and not jizz all over their establishment.
Beyond parody.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mert
Election Night shall be henceforth known as Mert Watch.
It has always been prevalent. In the Senate the threshold has nearly always been individual but it was primarily used to get things for your district by burying it in an appropriations bill. When Gingrich flipped running for parliamentary reelection by what have you done for party instead of district the process became weaponized. Really, this election shows the strains of the 20 odd years of Clinton / Gingrich taking over their respective parties. It has been a long cycle and hopefully the parties have to evolve.Quote:
Originally Posted by niko_cee
You did a perfectly good job of making yourself look ragged without me piling on. Your statement said nothing about me, but a great deal about you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mert
I didn't feel the need to add anything, because you shot yourself so perfectly in the foot; that you don't seem to have noticed is largely immaterial.
Have I just heard this correctly? Obama has deported more illegal immigrants than any other president in US history, and also immigration has pretty much dropped year-on-year since he got in power? I had a quick Google, however, it seems to be a semantic clusterfuck.
Yeah that's not true
I can't actually find decent/hard figures. I have found this;
This article suggests that it is simply down to classification terms https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...on-statistics/, and can be spun either way.Quote:
According to current figures from Immigration and Customs Enforcement -- the federal agency responsible for deportations -- Obama has removed 1.4 million people during his 42 months in office so far. Technically, that's fewer than under George W. Bush, whose cumulative total was 2 million. But Bush’s number covers eight full years, which doesn’t allow an apples-to-apples comparison.
If you instead compare the two presidents’ monthly averages, it works out to 32,886 for Obama and 20,964 for Bush, putting Obama clearly in the lead. Bill Clinton is far behind with 869,676 total and 9,059 per month. All previous occupants of the White House going back to 1892 fell well short of the level of the three most recent presidents.
Mert man up, why are you being such a pussy? Why are you letting your bitch control you, maggot?
If only Taz was here :drool:
lol at #Parkinsons trending. The state of this election.
It's grim, isn't it.
The bigger shame is how obsessed everyone here is with it (especially our political types, who should be looking at Europe). Let the yanks yank.
There are serious articles suggesting she might have to drop out.
Sound the conspiracy theory klaxon.
You can't really base your campaign on temperament if you're liable to piss yourself if a meeting goes over two hours. Plus the mere notion of concealing major health issues hardly does their reputation for absolute dishonesty any favours. Either way, they need to address it.
Play it up for the sympathy vote.
They've said she was diagnosed with pneumonia on Friday.
Presumably that explanation will be rejected by various armchair medical experts in the coming days.
Bernie's comeback. :drool:
It'd be Kaine or Biden. Bernie wouldn't get near it.
Still, Clinton is never, ever stepping down so it's all moot.
It's 100% some kind of Trump/Putin viral weapon. Or she's got a cold.
President Tim Kaine. :drool:
Hinckley's back out. Get me Jodie Foster.
I'm a bit late on this - but it reminded me of something I had earlier read.Quote:
Originally Posted by John
Although some bills later return to be signed into law, as a general overview, Obama has the least Vetoes since Harding in the 1920's.
https://gyazo.com/ebec30e7de5af00018764ec58a364e82.png
http://www.senate.gov/reference/Legi...vetoCounts.htm
edit: Is their a way to resize an image from Gyazo?
Agreed, it truly mystifies me. I try my hardest to ignore it and you all are loving it. I guess it's more distressing when it's your own country (I was loving Brexit on the night as well).Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmy Floyd
Clinton's now taken to her website to declare that Pepe the frog is a white supremacist meme.
The fact that it's on her website. :roflol:
Jesus, that article.
:face:
I also like the fact that her website has that 'we can't risk a Trump presidency' pop-up, with only the option to agree. 'X' that one.
What about Hillary's piss bag?
https://70news.wordpress.com/2016/08...sing-catheter/
Her website is a disgrace. 112 reasons (and counting!) Hillary Clinton should be our next president. I've not made that up either. She's running for President and her website is Buzzfeed.
Got to get those millennials voting somehow! Nobody understands them!
Whilst I find the whole American political scene contemptible, I've no doubt that there are some very clever people involved in her campaign who know what they're doing. They've presumably deduced that the people they need to reach are younger, more liberal and thus far more likely to be appealed to by Buzzfeed-style clickbait than reasoned debate.
Nope. Bernie, a 73 year old white man, won the yoof 85-15, and that's partly because Hillary's attempts to pander to them with Buzzfeed-style articles come off as fucking condescending and pathetic (because they are). In fact it's exactly that deduction (the people they need to reach are younger, more liberal and thus far more likely to be appealed to by Buzzfeed-style clickbait than reasoned debate) which fucks people like me right off.
Of the people I know, the ones over 50 are approximately ten times as positive about her as people my age.
Yes, but you're someone who is reasonably engaged in politics and will vote anyway. Most youth aren't. I can't speak for America, but youth turnout in the UK is routinely shit. Engaging them will be a key component of the Democratic campaign, largely because they should be a reliable voting bloc.
I'd note also that you shouldn't really compare the Democratic selectorate with the wider national electorate. Bernie did well with a sub-section of enthused Democratic voters, but you're not winning if they're the only people who bother.
Everything is BuzzFeed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spoonsky
Every generation and political demographic is the same. Remember Bernie not doing well with minority voters because he refused to reach out to them on their terms. Oh goodness, how come they all vote against their self interest! Why don't they understand what's best for them.
Politicians lose because they forget that rule 1 of big tent politics is get everyone in the fucking tent.
It's to the point I think I'm literally going to just write in Kanye West and be done with it when I go to the poll.
Trump +4 Ohio; +2 Nevada; +2 Colorado; +4 Florida; +5 LATimes.
Trump is winning right now. You mad liberals?
I don't like to be a sore winner but I'm afraid I'll have to be a massive gloating dick to you in your darkest hour if Clinton wins.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mert
Anyways, polls aren't a problem but Hillary pissing herself might be.
Donald Trump on his black outreach tour
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cs5lKIfXgAAm_On.jpg:large
:facepalm:
This is good, and basically what I think about them both.
I can agree on the Democrat side, but he (and you I guess) must be havin' a lol on the Trump side.
Quote:
And yet it is his independence, his willingness to name facts however unpleasant
Seriously?Quote:
Flawed as he may be, Trump is telling more of the truth than politician of our day.
Well, yeah; but the war stuff is about right.
Even the war stuff, all we really know is that Trump likes Putin or something. He is happy to criticize China all day long, so I'm not sure where the peace with China thing comes from. Then there's the whole killing terrorists' family etc., which I'm sure bodes well for world peace. Fuck the current war-loving democratic lot, that I can agree with.
'Trump, Trump, Trump!'
The west in general has long been far too bent on intervention in shit countries because a) they can and b) it makes them look important. I'm fully on board leaving these countries to achieve regional-led solutions.
I don't know why Trump doesn't push foreign policy more (or maybe he does, I'm just trying to block it all out). Sure, she knows about a thousand times as much as he does, but he can lol any comparisons off by pointing out what a disaster she was as secretary of state, and anti-interventionism will appeal to a lot of borderline liberals and libertarians.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewis
Trump doesn't get to claim any high ground on interventionism when he plans to "massively expand the military".
The day a candidate comes up and says they're going to contract the military because they won't be using it overseas, then they can be considered credible. Otherwise it's just pandering to a base who still want big guns/war-penises, but don't like the fact that some of the latest misadventures didn't go so good, because it hits them right in the patriotism.
Having a strong national defence isn't the same as sending it across the globe to bomb people because you've espied an opportunity to impose liberal democracy on other people.
You could hold a series of rallies on blowing the Moon up for a laugh and still claim the high-ground on interventionism against anybody involved with the last five years of American foreign policy.
America's military isn't just "strong". It spends as much on defence as the next seven countries combined, and has for a long enough time to build up massive reserves. Unless the whole world attacks America tomorrow, they have plenty enough for self-defence.Quote:
Originally Posted by GS
The whole point of non-intervention is to discourage wasteful spending on the military, surely. Claiming to be non-interventionist (and that's giving Trump way more credit than he deserves for consistency in political positions) and then also claiming a dramatic military expansion is defeating the entire purpose. It's trying to play two mutually-inconsistent sides of the Republican base (angry and confused because Iraq/Afghanistan weren't the slam dunk wins their nationalism demanded, while also sporting a raging erection for the military, guns, soldiers, and apple pie). It's not consistent political philosophy - it's pandering.
At some point its not self-defence, is it? Its about the corporate interest.
America spends the money it does because a) it's been acting as the world's policeman since about 1941 b) its military power gives strong credibility to its foreign policy decisions and thus needs to be maintained c) it's basically propping up the entire NATO defence structure in Europe and d) it's actively engaged in other theatres e.g. Korea.
It's not a case of national self-defence for the Americans. They're effectively maintaining a global deterrence, particularly in south-east Asia (engagement in South Korea and Japan), eastern Europe (NATO) and the Middle East (although probably using Israel as a conduit). You can question whether that's worth their time or not, but American withdrawal from these theatres would immediately embolden some right wankers. Armies are needed, and armies cost a lot of money.
This is the most petty, pedantic point ever, but Korea and Japan are nowhere near South-East Asia.
I agree that the US has a number of military roles which it really needs to keep up, for the sake of all our stability. You list Korea/Japan, Eastern Europe, and the Middle East. Trump has, of course, explicitly stated that he wants to withdraw from all three of those roles.
It's possible to have a coherent non-interventionist policy, and perhaps even one that won't reduce the need for military spending. Trump doesn't, because his positions are incoherent, reactionary, and largely philosophically unrelated.
You don't have to be a non-interventionist (like Ron Paul) to correctly position yourself against the on-going Syrian idiocy.
It wouldn't be like you to be petty - let's call them east Asia instead lest you seethe yourself senseless. Not that it alters the fundamental point, which is that the Americans have to spend a shit load of money and if they're spending as much as the next seven countries combined then fucking good.Quote:
Originally Posted by ItalAussie
You won't find me agreeing with Trump's views on NATO and the like, but we need to move away from the idea that a strong military and a high defence spend is somehow code for nationalist dick-waving.
Wait, what?
That article is so bemusing. When did the Kennedys stop being the architects of Vietnam? Or when did we start believing the isolationists who have no clue what is happening in the world? They always stay non-interventionist.
Easy there, tiger. It was light-hearted.Quote:
Originally Posted by GS
If you're expanding for expansion's sake, rather than having an actual reason for doing it, it's dick-waving. Given that Trump is essentially talking about reducing US military activities, he clearly doesn't have a plan that desperately needs more troops. It's dick-waving.Quote:
You won't find me agreeing with Trump's views on NATO and the like, but we need to move away from the idea that a strong military and a high defence spend is somehow code for nationalist dick-waving.
Korea is on the same latitude as Tunisia, and yet it goes down to minus 30 in winter. Not many people know that. But I do.
I don't really think that's true. Americans at large don't really take issue with the amount we spend on the military. What they do take issue with is the utter clusterfuck we've made of the Middle East in recent times - and, particularly, the extremism which has been produced thereof. ISIS was more or less created in an American prison. It doesn't really matter whatever else Trump says, about expanding the military or withdrawing from China, because he's never had and never will have a cohesive political philosophy; what matters is that, on the point of foreign policy in the Middle East, he's better than Clinton.Quote:
Originally Posted by ItalAussie
I'm always surprised at how far north Europe is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmy Floyd
TIL.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmy Floyd
I've always liked that the UK is as far north as Alaska and Siberia.
I'm talking about the concept generally - more investment in the military and ensuring a strong national defence doesn't mean you have to have a penchant for sending them all over the world, nor that you're appealing to some sort of primitive patriotism tied up in military strength.Quote:
Originally Posted by ItalAussie
Trump is clearly not a serious thinker on these issues, so I won't bother considering his scattergun 'policies'.
Isn't this just the equivalent of massive infrastructure investment, but instead of roads and railways, it's aircraft carriers and big missiles.
It's genius really, economic stimulus, reduced foreign policy impact and making the punters feel more secure behind their walls all wrapped up in one line of the stump speech.
'Hillary' speaking to trade unionists via video link like a senile grandmother is pretty lol.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4bmJmeNux4&feature=youtu.be
*airhorn*
These Vic Berger-vids are the best thing about the election.
Ted Cruz has BOTTLED IT. Does that make 'Jeb' the principled one?
So 'The Face of VR' Palmer Luckey chucked some money towards some right-wing meme site and then allegedly went all 1% on reddit. At one time he was listed as their vice president.
I miss the days when bullying was something you physically had to do. And now I know where mert gets his material from.
Sky are using their penalty camera angle, presumably to get the best view of 'Hillary' when she collapses.
He isn't even complete crap. Unbelievable, George.
Trump rolls out with "No wonder you've been fighting ISIS your whole adult life" and she responds to go to her website.
:face:
If he keeps this up for another hour then he deserves to win.
He's basically talking to himself. This is ace.
She still doesn't get that she can't let it be a referendum about Trump. Everyone who will be put off by Trump already has been; she's got to offer something to the people (probably the majority) who think they're both terrible.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/...79923295600640
The leader of the free world will soon be... the Saint.
I reckon he has won this quite easily so far. There has obviously been a bit of bollocks, but he hasn't shown himself up, and all of her scripted lines have been shit.
Which I say as he ballses up his birth certificate answer.
Clinton's been better this past half, but I think the media consensus will be that Trump's won. Luckily, the media consensus seems to mean absolutely fuck all this election so who knows what it means.
Turned around there, I thought, Trump sort of reverted to his mean. I'd call it a score draw with penalties to Clinton but, again, I really have no idea how it will have gone down with the AMERICAN PEOPLE so who the fuck knows.
And the media will give it to Clinton.
Twitter dragged this one up.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfmKpA30Xeo
Stone-cold killer. :drool: Term limits are for cucks.
Early debate results are a swing to Clinton in the election odds.
The biggest single hit to either candidate on the night was Trump's rambling, unfocused response to the nuclear weapon question. Clinton's (obviously prepared, but well-delivered) response really hammered it home. There's a good chance that either that or the "temperament" laughter are going to be the big takeaways from the debate.
538 noticed that Clinton managed to pick up and correct several Trump falsehoods without using the phrase "lie" or "liar". That doubles as helping her seem more likeable. It's an awful double-standard that she needs to do it, but she did, and it was clearly pre-mediated. They also reckon she should have gone in harder on the birth certificate stuff, but I'm not sure I agree with that. You don't need to do anything to make that sound sillier than it was, and nobody's forgotten that it happened.
Clinton needs to follow up with something more concrete, but it's a decent part one of three. I mean, we all essentially know that her policy is "more of the same please and thank you", but she at least needs to sound a little bit proactive. That said, both candidates must have noticed that whoever gets the most media in a given week loses ground in the polls. It must be a weird situation to manage.
EDIT: 538 on the outcome
Quote:
As the debate winds down, I’d like to go back to the question from earlier — who’s the audience for this debate?
Given the unfavorable ratings for both candidates, it seems like one important audience is the type of voter who would like to vote for a major-party candidate but who doesn’t like Trump or Clinton. My sense is that this probably matters more for Trump than for Clinton. She’s a more conventional candidate, and we all know that there are a bunch of ways in which Trump is not — support from some party leaders has been hesitant (or nonexistent), and his policy positions, his history and his path to nomination have all been unusual.
By this measure, Trump did pretty well. He interrupted a lot and made lots of statements that his opponents won’t like, but he didn’t do anything outrageous or different from what he’s done in the past. His statements were fluid. There was no steak salesmanship. It’s probably too early to say, but for a voter who doesn’t want to stay home or vote for a party they don’t normally support, this seems like the kind of performance that would allow you to pull the “R” lever.
Can't really argue with either of those conclusions. Sad that the bar for Trump is so low, mind.Quote:
My editor tells me that readers want my subjective impressions of the debate, knowing full well that they’re subjective. And my impressions are that Clinton became a more plausible president tonight and Trump became a less plausible one.
The peso strengthened over the course of the debate. :D
EDIT: Trump sounding off about Bill's affair in the spin room. Classy stuff.
EDIT II: Or more precisely, not sounding off. The good old "I could talk about [DETAILS ABOUT THE THING I WANT TO TALK ABOUT], but I won't". A Trump special.
Trump's theme is "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it" so you'd have to say this debate was perfectly on message today.
Not going to remotely bother any of his support.
'The cyber' has to be my favourite Trump meme of the election so far. I thought it was good the other day but claiming his 10 year old was on his way to being Anonymous with his 1337 skills was top, top stuff.
Although pretty much inferring that he hasn't paid federal tax the last few years has to be high up there.
P.S.
http://i.giphy.com/11ziErSEWbAlXi.gif
That was spectacularly boring. I was at least expecting some lulz but even those failed to arrive.
I feel that way reading most of Phonics posts tbh.
That hurt.
God... you sound just like your mum.Quote:
Originally Posted by phonics
It was quite boring, I was expecting a bit more energy from Trump. Clinton did what she had to do, it's hard to watch her call out anyone on honesty given her record though. It's also hard to watch him deciding which of the ridiculous statements he's made in the past he wants to stick to and which he wants to backtrack on.
She's such an unconvincing speaker and so unfunny too. Reptilian tier for sure.
Then deal me in!
:sick:
Trump was underwhelming and missed a lot of opportunities, but overall he was what his supporters wanted him to be: Trump. Clinton I thought did well and was as boringly poised, full of platitudes and focus group tested double speak as always.
Hillary probably edged it, but I don't think undecideds are looking for debate skills so maybe on the whole neutral to slightly in favor of Trump in the grand scheme of the election.
Of course the establishment media will fall over themselves declaring Hillary the winner, but nobody listens to them anyways.
Just seen some polls and Trump owned it according to MURICANS.
He's going to fucking walk it, isn't he.
Did they happen to be online polls?Quote:
Originally Posted by Magic
I haven't watched the debate yet, but there was an air of West Wing 'if the thing is that he can't tie his shoes and it turns out he can, that's the ball game' in the build up to it so presumably by not saying 'nigger' or throwing his glass of water at Hillary, Trump will have won in the eyes of many.
Yeah why?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bernanke
Lol at the concept of 'winning the debate.'
From what I've seen so far, who 'won' depends on the editorial slant of the source you're reading
Americans are generally even more stupid than us (see BREXIT) and their number one reaction to difficult questions (ala Brian Cox paradox theory this morning) is to completely regress and look to some fucking stupid shouty cunt that offers simple answers that to the enlightened will make everything worse. Humankind is doomed.
I'm sure whoever supports Trump will still support Trump, same for 'Hillary.' Those who haven't decided yet don't watch debates.
From initially thinking he was the worst candidate ever (which he is), I now really strongly want Trump to win. It doesn't matter to me what happens in America, so I'll go for the most entertaining option.
Trump sacked after two months to be replaced by Gareth Southgate.
Exactly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmy Floyd
That sounds like your marriage.Quote:
Originally Posted by Magic
Stunning insight.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepe
What if he starts WW3 and this time next year we're all conscripts digging in for a hellish winter in the Russian hinterlands?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmy Floyd
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CtY4NPxUkAA1vj1.jpg:large
:facepalm:
http://imgur.com/FDegQvc.png
:facepalm: :facepalm:
http://imgur.com/eT7lOHs.png
:facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm:
So who won? What are the polls saying?Quote:
Originally Posted by Spoonsky
Only half decent poll so far post debate has Clinton ahead by 3 points in a 4 way race, vs. Trump being ahead by 1 pre-debate.
You're suggesting that the debate is pointless and won't change anything. It was the most-watched debate ever, and 38% of voters say that the debate will influence their decision, so -- you're wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepe
Not exactly what I said but I will say it now: That debate was pointless and won't change anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spoonsky
When you have a clown as one of the protagonists, people will come to watch the show.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spoonsky
'Influence their decision.' Not sure we could get much more vague than that. There is fuck all chance that 38% of the people who will show up to vote are still undecided. You know it, I know it, everybody knows it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spoonsky
Now, I am not saying that debates are pointless, but that one most certainly was.
But, but... you said...Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepe
Anyways.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepe
According to the article, "about 11% of voters are considered "debate persuadables" -- that is, they think the debates are important and are either third-party voters or only loosely committed to either major-party candidate." It won't decide the election but it will certainly have an impact.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepe
Well, if the article says so...
In a world where the candidates are covered 24 hours a day for a full year before the election, it is unlikely that a debate will add any information which has not yet been discussed to death by the media beforehand. It could be done but that would require actual moderators and not someone just asking generic questions and then letting the candidates recite their identikit speech over and over, without ever questioning them even if they are blatantly lying/BSing/not even answering the question.
'I'll make the rich pay their fair share' she says.
How could anyone ever disagree with such a statement? Completely empty, meaningless. Yet that's what passes for 'actual policy' in these so called debates.
It's not according to the article, it's according to a recent poll. Unless you think that polls are equally pointless. Everything's pointless.
Polls are not pointless. They are ruining the democratic process.
lol at this.
Would make more sense the other way, given the debate. :cab:
Im surprised how many extreme right plebs are going hard for Trump in Australia.
Trump and Tony Abbott have both done a particular thing which I find creepy and a touch bizarre.
If you're against taking refugees into your country, fine. It's not something I agree with, but whatever. But they've both criticised other countries for taking in refugees. Trump took a bit of a swing at Merkel on the topic today, and Abbott went on a speaking tour where he went around telling countries they shouldn't be taking in refugees at all.
At that point, it's no longer about perceived national interest or anything like that, surely? It seems like it's just an honest-to-goodness hatred of refugees on general principle.
That Abbot tour was so dumb because he had a bloody ocean to work with and got to pay off 3rd world countires. The guy feeds off hate and fear.
Surely his time should be used in the outback being a champion of the indigenous people he so dearly cares for?
Trump losing $800m in a single year might explain why he's not releasing his tax returns.
Abbott's fundamentally broken. His idea of a win is pissing off people he disagrees with, rather than finding consensus, or even pleasing his ideological fellow travellers. This is why he functioned well in opposition, but dropped the ball so badly when he found himself in charge.Quote:
Originally Posted by Queenslander
It's like the knight/dame thing. A profoundly unpopular decision that even his own allies thought was stupid. But it really irked the people he didn't like, and he sees that as a win for him. I'm pretty sure that the refugee thing for him was deciding that refugees were in the "enemies" basket, and therefore anything they disagree with is a solid win.
Politicians (on either side) who see making their opposition unhappy for its own sake are the worst kind of political backbiters.
Having a go at Merkel, assuming it's sensible language, is reasonable enough. It involved a unilateral suspension of the Dublin regulation and massively exacerbated the crisis. Given you had hundreds of thousands of migrants marching through Europe, it was a big problem for other countries. Her reasons are her own, but it seems generally accepted in Germany that it was a mistake and some of the recent elections, including the rise of this Neo-Nazi party reflect that.Quote:
Originally Posted by ItalAussie
It was a national decision with profound international implications and she didn't have a clear plan for any of it.
Criticism of that is fine, but extending that to more 'traditional' scenarios, eg. Granting asylum when they're already in the country or taking them from the refugee camps themselves, is clearly a non starter.
It is not like Merkel had a well crafted plan that included all possible contingencies, a direct plan to action, and a waterfall series of checklists to mark and grade progress.
You know, a proper plan, like Brexit.
Also, let's not pretend that Trump even had unreasonable objections beyond "foreign refugee muslims raaaaarggh". He can't hold a train of thought for two minutes, so I doubt he cares deeply about German foreign policy.
See also: Tony Abbott.
Comparing our decision to leave a customs union with the decision to invite well over a million migrants into Europe is one way to demonstrate having lost all sense of perspective.
Indeed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewis
The point is that for a lot of government work there is no clear plan. As soon as you start acting things change and you are left dealing with contingencies. There is no good result for a humanitarian crisis. Complain about the response not being quick enough but a clear plan?
It is just adding unrealistic bars to acting.
You can't just decide to open the borders in response to something like that without thinking it through. Turning up for selfies with foreigners and saying "Wir schaffen das" isn't sufficient, as they're now realising to their considerable cost.
No plan survives contact with the enemy (or whatever it is). I get that. But all but the most craven wannabe Belgians would be able to find some positives in Brexit, even if they still think that the negatives out-weigh them. It's harder to know where to start with the German response to the migrant business, in which case planning should probably not have advanced beyond 'Don't do it, mate'.
Any choice in a bad situation involves negative consequences. Judge them on their lack of response management. Business works off iteration all the time and government is seldom allowed to. It is why government led outcomes are often so poor because we demand a clear plan.
I'm not actually worried about the specifics of the case.
Those negative consequences did not necessarily have to be felt by Germany (and the rest of Europe) though.
Sure, they would have been felt by refugees. It is how you frame the question. But we should allow that to be the question of public governance.
Are you willing to suffer to reduce the suffering of others is a question that should be put to people. We'd have better governance. Or at least governance that reflected our will better.
Instead we insist on being lied to. It is how we got Trump.
It didn't reduce the suffering of others. Thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, will have died because they were encouraged to get on rafts with holes in them. It gave succour to people smuggling operations the world over and it's not as if the people who most need the west's help (children, the elderly, the infirm, the disabled) were the ones who got it. They're still in the camps in Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan et al - it was almost entirely young men who reached Germany, because it was they who were fit enough to walk hundreds of miles through Europe whilst every country between Greece and Germany waved them straight through.
Still, I suppose it continues to suit someone's narrative that it be presented as a 'humane' gesture, rather than the travesty it was.
Ah yes, everyone fled due to the encouragement of the west. That's clearly what the prime motivating factor was.
My point is that a clear plan is often not a possibility for national events and that you use it selectively rule out actions you don't like. Scots are foolish about independence because they have no clear plan; dealing with a wave of refugees is wrong because there was not an exhaustive study done on events in realtime, but Brexit?
You'll note that numbers are considerably lower this year owing to the EU-Turkey deal which basically returns everyone who arrives in Europe on a boat back to Turkey. It's removed the incentive to chance it.
Merkel's pronouncement meant a) 'guaranteed' asylum made hazarding the boat journey and trek through Europe a worthwhile risk b) that people smugglers could wave this about as a valid 'inducement' to hazard the trip and give them all of your savings to do so and c) it meant the Greek / Balkan / central European states absolved themselves of any blame and just waved people through, exacerbating the crisis. It was a disastrous policy decision, which the Germans are now dealing with. It didn't require a 'clear plan' on Germany's part - "I wouldn't be doing that, Angela" would have been sufficient.
On the subject of Brexit, I'm fully behind the balls out option of just repealing the 1972 European Communities Act, telling the Europeans we're going to trade with them on existing terms (i.e. no tariffs) and daring them to unilaterally impose them. If they do, you'll have the much-cited German car manufacturers go absolutely apeshit and we can enjoy the fallout from our position with WTO rules.
Or the initial wave and rush that overwhelmed the situation is over?
There are still millions of people in refugee camps in Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan and more coming every day. I suspect not.
And the camps are more stable and the authorities have learned better how to deal with bottlenecks.
But really, you are right. I'm sure most refugees conversations are:
"Abdullah, have you read paragraph C subsection B on the latest rules for refugees.
Ah yes, let's exploit the Merkel rule. Have you downloaded the latest version of the Refugee finder app? It checks your GPS coordinates to determine if you are an economic or political refugee."
Merkel could turn up on GS' doorstep with cake and he'd find a way to see it as emblematic as everything that's wrong with Europe.
Clinton seems to have firmed strongly after the first debate, but I'm worried about the second and third debates. If someone can coach Trump enough to at least hold a thought in his head for two minutes, he'll be seen as a massive success because the bar is now so insanely low. And if it's immigration or healthcare (which didn't feature in the first debate), then he just has to spit incoherent rage for two minutes straight and it'll appeal to the base.
EDIT: Also, someone needs to take Twitter away from him at night. :D
EDIT II: But if he follows his baser instincts and targets Bill's infidelities, he'll lose the election there and then. And he'll have been told that, so it'll be fascinating to see if he can stop himself.
Merkel is grand, just you wait until the German social democrats get in and start airdropping boxes of pumpernickel into Athens.
It amazes me that either his advisors are letting Trump do any of this or that he's hired advisors he has no intention of listening to. What does anyone get out of that aside from some of Donald's cash?
You've hired advisors you either don't need or a bunch of yes men whose career are dead as soon as they mention on their resume "2015-2016: Worked on Trump campaign."
While I hate to defer to television on these things, in Veep one of the characters takes on a candidate with similar personal failings to Trump, after someone tells him that "if you win, you're a genius, and if you lose, nobody will blame you". Could be that some of the senior campaign staff are thinking the same way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shindig
They can also get some immense book deals out of it.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-37533263
Suddenly that $800m loss reported by Forbes is SUSPICIOUS AS FUCK!
Someone is going to publish the definitive book on this campaign and make more money than Trump finagled away in 1995.Quote:
Originally Posted by Raoul Duke
Yes, by making it clear that there's no point risking the journey and by putting the money into the camps instead. It's not hard.Quote:
Originally Posted by mikem
Mate.Quote:
Originally Posted by ItalAussie
Seems like a waste of public funding. Unless its to offer him an option out of London.Quote:
Originally Posted by ItalAussie
Trump's response to his tax fiddling is such an open goal for Hilary. Just work out an approximation of how much he's dodged, quantify it with some examples (schools it could fund, policemen it could train) and just lay waste to him. He'll say it's brilliant whilst Hilary can just say its dishonest and ironic that a man going for the purse strings won't pay tax of his own. Finish off with the $800m loss of this year to say how he'll continue. Even his own supporters weren't thrilled with his response. There was a really, really mild cheer amid the stunned silence. :D
'I've dodged tax for twenty years so that makes me S-M-R-T!'
Tell you what Mert, you've always gone on about how the media is biased and we don't know America and how Trump will win. How about some money on it? $50 says Clinton will win the election.
Latest odds have changed a wee bit since the last debate.Quote:
Originally Posted by John Arne
Clinton in to 4/11, Trump out to 11/4.
Interestingly Paul Ryan in to about 100/1 with some bookies.
What odds are you giving me? Happy to take your money especially after the cucking Pence gave Cain tonight.Quote:
Originally Posted by Byron
Ah, the penultimate stage of grief: 'Pretend you're voting for the VP'.
Clinton's 3-4 points up on the poll aggregates. VP debate historically meaningless in the absence of a shocking gaffe.
Trump needs to get out of the headlines and get Clinton back in them.
Simple, I will bet you $50 that Clinton will win the election at whatever exchange rate we end up at on the night.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mert
Senator, you're no Mert Arkan.
The VP debate? You're relying on Mike Pence to drag you over the line? The man that Trump didn't even want to pick? God.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mert
VP debates have about as much impact on elections as the phases of the moon. Short of one of the candidates shooting themselves in the face, the seventeen people who watch it will have forgotten it by the next day. The next time Trump opens his mouth and grabs back the news cycle, that'll be it for that.
The disadvantage Trump has is that he can't avoid being in the news now. Every week that Clinton dominates the news cycle, Trump's numbers improve. Every week he gets the headlines, his numbers drop.
His ideal election run-in would be absolutely no news headlines whatsoever. But with two debates to go, that's a big ask.
Cope harder cuck.Quote:
Originally Posted by ItalAussie
Naw it'll be closer towards the election. Give me odds.Quote:
Originally Posted by Byron
Bottle job.
Give you odds? I'm not a fucking bookmaker.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mert
Considering you've been harping on about Trump winning four months, I'd have thought you'd have taken this up easily, it's $50, nothing more or less.
Unless you're not confident that you 'know' America and in fact you think Trump will lose.
I want you to pay the maximum amount possible for your desperate delusions. Give me odds pussy.
His odds are 1/1.
As Kiko says, 1/1.
It's quite hilarious you calling me a pussy when you won't accept a simple $50 bet. It's almost like you're worried Trump won't win.
Besides, don't you have a job worth $180k guaranteed? This sort of bet should mean nothing to you.
Trump's slid in polls taken since yesterday. :sorry:Quote:
Originally Posted by Mert
We both know VP debates are a diversion. If Trump's going to beat Clinton, he's going to have to do it himself.
Pathetic from mert here.
If he won't take Byron's 1/1 odds, at least post some proof of taking the bookies 7/4.
How does 12 years of Democrats in the White House make you feel, mert? Because it's going to happen.
Not to pile in, Mert, but if I was you I'd be putting my eggs in the Pence 2020 basket.
I mean, the silver lining of a potential Trump victory is how short-lived it will be when the IRS bum-rush him. Leaving Pence to be sworn in.
A somewhat effective attack ad, I would suggest.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/...m_source=atltw
This is quite good. The only two times they've previously endorsed a candidate were Lincoln in 1860 and LBJ in 1964.
Kaine: 'Trump said Putin was a better leader'Quote:
Originally Posted by GS
What Trump actually said: 'Putin is a STRONGER leader'
Kaine: 'Trump didn't know that Russia had invaded Ukraine'
What Trump actually said: '[Putin] will not go into Ukraine' in reference to the remaining area that makes up Ukraine
Kaine: 'Donald Trump is going to have a deportation force which goes door to door'
What Trump actually said: We are going to have a deportation force'- nothing about going door to door and such a force already already exists under Obama, it's called ICE.
Etc...
I'm legitimately curious, do these distinctions make a difference to you? Or do you not view the characterizations made in that video as deliberately misleading? I feel like there are plenty of reasons to dislike Trump without being dishonest about what he's said / meant.
Lol why would I bet 1/1 when you could literally take those odds, put it $25 on Trump and Hillary, and make money both ways?Quote:
Originally Posted by Byron
How will it feel when the entire Establishment and globalist status quo is upended by a true outsider?Quote:
Originally Posted by 7om
As much as it would be immature to make chicken noises it is properly lol that for the months of bluster about Trump winning, you are backing out of a simple bet.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mert
Basically, I'm lolling at the bottle job from you (or in your words, beta behaviour)
Either take the bet or don't, I'm not desperate for the money but the lolling and multi quoting on election night will be superb. Considering you've said the media is wrong and Trump's supporters don't pay attention to the media, you've backed yourself into a corner you'll only get out if Trump wins, which is looking increasingly unlikely.
The trend in this election that's got me curious is that at some point, North Carolina slipped to being bluer than Ohio. Given that before 2008, the Democratic Party hadn't won it since 1976, it's an interesting trend worth keeping an eye on in future elections.
The issue for Trump is that, even in his best scenarios, he has to win one of Colorado, New Hampshire, or Pennsylvania. While they're not dead certs, he's got a lot of catching up to do in all three states. It's interesting trying to figure out what his best "path to victory" is likely to be.
On numbers alone, his best option is probably running through:
Iowa (51.6%)
Ohio (46.9%)
North Carolina (40.8%)
Florida (36.5%)
Nevada (36.5%)
Colorado (21.6%)
If he fails to get Colorado but flips New Hampshire (23.2%, but I reckon that's it's actually more likely than Colorado, given NH's more contrarian tendencies), he'll want to be absolutely certain of getting one of the Maine or all of the Nebraska special districts (60.3% and 55% respectively, but I'd guess that there's more statistical noise there because it's a one-district sample), otherwise it's an electoral college tie.
Why would I just choose to give you free money you idiot.Quote:
Originally Posted by Byron
But it's not free money is it? Taking your posts over the last few months then this bet represents free money for you right? Because Trump is definitely and absolutely going to win.
Unless.....
He knows, man. He knows. 4chan can't save him.
Serious collapse from Mert. It's almost as if he doesn't believe his own bluster.
Good job Mert isn't a professional gambler.
Oh I know, but I want to see him admit it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shindig
On the Veterans PTSD thing, Biden killed it.
"I don't think he was trying to be mean, he's just so thoroughly, completely uninformed."
which could sum up a huge amount of this campaign.
Mert collapsing like a hot air balloon hit by a flamethrower.
Trump's going to get a polling rebound after the second debate, where to improve his standing all he has to do is not urinate himself publicly.
I reckon he's going to flip out in the final debate though. Could play either way of course, but he'll do and say anything that pops into his head.
Are you guys actually retarded or do you not understand how math works?
Read the entire quote. Just another non-gaffe invented by the media that nobody is offended by, even McCain had Trumps back on this one.Quote:
Originally Posted by phonics
Poor ol' Lyin' Ted. I'd feel sorry for him if he wasn't such an almighty thundercunt :drool:
I imagined Mert to be more of the take the bet and then 'lol I wasn't serious I won't pay' kind rather than the shit his pants kind. Odd.
Current odds for Trump is +250. If I bet Byron $50 that Trump wins at 1:1, and Byron keeps $25 and bets $25 on Trump winning that means that...Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepe
Trump wins: Byron makes $12.50 / Mert makes $50 (where he could have made $125)
Hillary wins: Byron makes $75 / Mert loses $50
Why would any sane individual take that bet? I am happy to lay down however much money you want, but you need to give me real odds.
It's a 'friendly' bet you unbalanced wank.
But he's on €180k p/a.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepe
It's almost as if he doesn't want to admit that his bluster over the last few months is absolute bollocks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewis
:D This kidQuote:
Originally Posted by Mert
Do both then you big fanny.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mert
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mert
The fact you don't understand how bets between mates work doesn't surprise me. Bottle job this.
Isn't gambling illegal in murica?
They play for matchsticks in Vegas I've heard.
Mert, do you have any friends? Proper friends, not frat bros.
Indian burial ground.Quote:
Originally Posted by Disco
I'm sure you're a fun person with lots of friends too. Can't imagine the kind of good times you enjoy having!Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepe
Pepe's part of a Mexican rapist biker gang. They do misty flips over The Wall and high five each other while the Spanish translation of Top Gun plays in the background.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCfZq4F2a_IQuote:
Originally Posted by phonics
That actually exists.
What is wrong with you?Quote:
Originally Posted by mokbull
What he said.Quote:
Originally Posted by phonics
Frat bros are sensitive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepe
The best part is, 5)343's nothing wrong with me, I'm optimized in most ways. You, you shit on everything because you can't handle it. Be a man
How old are you?
Take a guess, hit me with a confidence interval
Mokbull donning proceedings :cool:
I don't really care, just wondering how much to lol at 'be a man'
As much as comes naturally, I guess.
Mokky is as far away from the definition of 'man' as Baz is.
Time to suck your wife's bitch dick magic om nom nom there it goesss
Mok continues to cane it
http://www.reactiongifs.us/wp-conten...e_simpsons.gif
Apologies for going off-topic, but I've only just discovered that Pence doesn't believe in evolution.
Potential VP of the US.....
The Vice President doesn't have to evolve things. Or indeed do things, so far as I can tell after 8 series of The West Wing. Besides, The Donald is the healthiest man ever to run for President, so there's no chance of him needing to step up.
"World class health".
The US has officially accused Russia of the recent DNC hacks, and trying to generally interfere with the election : https://www.theguardian.com/technolo...ntial-election
This is basically The Cold War 2.0 now, with them taking pot shots at each other.
After that (pretty gross) tape leak, Trump's starting pulling the Bill Clinton card.
Someone must have told him that dragging Bill into the discourse is going to sink him, right? That's straightforward politics.
Not a single ticket for the debate has been assigned to students yet. I guess those 7 million it apparently cost to put the thing together are really worth it.
Which part of Trump's bizarre ascent has followed conventional wisdom?Quote:
Originally Posted by ItalAussie
I would really like Russia's youth to get it's shit together.
The timing of this new audiotape is great.
https://fat.gfycat.com/NeatEnchanted...arrierhawk.gif
Yeah, he's done alright. There's no way his reputation as an intellectual and political heavyweight survives him talking shit once.
Absolutely nobody would have thought that was Trump's attitude to women before these comments. What a shock.
Makes you wonder how all of this crap stayed buried throughout the Republican primary campaign.
Jeb Bush managed to spend 150 million dollars and not find this. Republican opposition research is weak.Quote:
Originally Posted by elth
Meanwhile,
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CuMQ-InUAAABeE6.jpg:large
God I love that photo. I think I might get it framed and hang it on the wall.
What an absolute tit he is BOTTLING IT. He could have ridden that smug conference face to Heaven. But no. He shat the bed.
The reason they didn't go after him early is that they didn't want to legitimise him as a serious candidate. They figured that as long as he came across as a joke candidate, they didn't have to worry too much. And then by the time they realised he was serious, they didn't have time left to scramble.Quote:
Originally Posted by phonics
So incompetence, really.
The Nevada thing is like something out of fiction.
And I mean that. There's an episode of Veep called Nev-AH-da. It's literally a sitcom plot.
So in preparation for Election Night...
Toggle Spoiler
Ah shit, a mod know how to spoiler all of that?
Either way, just so Mert knows that he's either in for the mother of all e-victories or fails. Want some odds on the chances of that?
Stuck it under a spoiler as requested.
We've been wrong countless times before, but I really think the leak tonight crossed a line. The fallout has been different. I can't see how this doesn't lose him voters.
It's not even about losing voters, it's the fact that he was in desperate need of gaining some sort of momentum and this just destroys any chance of that. Suburban women are gone, and that was his demographic way to victory. There are no groups left to carry him.
If Trump does win, we should really hand the keys over to Mert.
Any support that Trump had left at this stage is going to have its head so firmly lodged in the 'it's a conspiracy against Trump' sand that nothing he says or does matters.
:cool:
https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/co...m_2005/d8ihxbt
Advent calendar of fuckery. :drool:
I've now gone back over to not wanting Trump to win, just so we can have a bit of fucking peace and quiet.
I don't think those numbers are likely to be enough to get him over the line. He has to win back at least one decent-sized demographic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spikey M
I agree with Bernanke's comment on momentum, but I think he'll manufacture some after Debate #2 (town halls are more his style, I think). Or at least I thought that before today, but this story is really gaining traction, so now I'm not so sure.
I mean you just have to stand back and applaud that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewis
The biggest winner in this election cycle has to be Pence. Nobody's going to blame him if this all goes up in a tyre fire, and he'd never previously been considered anywhere near a top-tier Presidential candidate. He was arguably only picked as VP after all the strong options disqualified themselves. But now he'll be a near-certainty to stand next time around if Trump loses.
He'll lose on the name alone. 'President Pence' is definitely a brand of chocolate coins they dish out to toddlers at the White House.Quote:
Originally Posted by ItalAussie
50 Cent, President Pence, Creflo Dollar. I just can't take America seriously anymore.
They were walking those big Budweiser horses on campus this morning. Cool beasts.
Are you saying Trump is a hypocrite?
He was an immature 65 year-old then. Now he's a much better person.
This does seem to have crossed the line. Clinton landslide, please.
On top of that this has come out in the week that Clinton's Wall Street speeches were released by Wikileaks. Trump supporters have been hoping for a while now that this would be the 'October Surprise' needed to bury Clinton (especially since she resisted releasing these when Sanders was a threat) and had this Trump tape come out a week earlier, I don't think the impact would have been as big but this has ensured Clinton keeps the momentum she needed.
Case in point, Nate Silver has organised every state by importance, judging on their likelihood of casting the winning votes. Clinton is now predicted to take the first 12 of these states, Trump has a narrow lead in the 13th state, Arizona.
Now there are reports that Pence is considering quitting.
Considering he's actually evil rather than crass when it comes to women, thats a bit of a laugh.
It must be said it's a bit rich of Clinton to be playing the 'sexist woman hater' card when she's been enabling her husband for at least 3 decades now.
:DQuote:
Originally Posted by GS
Even his wife has condemned him :drool:
His wife the prostitute.
What?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepe
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/1...r-trump-229363
Ooof. Pence has apparently told him he's on his own for the next 48 hours, whilst there has been a MASSIVE leaking of support from the party.
The Republicans could have won the White House, secured Congress and nailed the Supreme Court - instead they've managed to piss it all away with Trump, setting back the GOP cause by about ten years. Well done, everyone.
Have they all just used this as an excuse to ditch him? He's insulted women! Yeah, and Mexicans. And Muslims. And... How is this worse?
"I will build a wall to keep these out." is a little less severe than, "I will finger this cunt against her will."
I suspect they wouldn't be ditching him if he was three points ahead in the polls, but given the downward spiral his campaign is in it gives them and excuse to disassociate themselves from him and try to save themselves from being associated with it.
I think this is clearly 'worse' than the previous shite because it's not just misogynistic - he's basically advocating sexual assault.
Even the Mormons want him to give up - http://www.deseretnews.com/article/8...candidacy.html
I agree that it's in the same ballpark as a number of other terrible things he's said, although unrepentant sexual assault is probably pushing it out slightly to a new low. But Republicans expect their candidates to say terrible things about Muslims, while taking the high road on things like "traditional morality".Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewis
Apparently there are two more oppo-research stories coming, one equal to this one and one that's worse. Wanna take bets? I'm torn between it being him on tape either using the n-word or admitting to statutory rape.
Bush Snr, Clinton 1, Bush Jnr, accidental race related hiatus (the German World Cup), Clinton 2 unopposed.
I guess that's what they fought the war of independence for.
How much outrage that video has caused. That people would care more about something he said twenty years ago as opposed to whether he would make a good president. If that does not deserve a :D, then I don't know what does.Quote:
Originally Posted by GS
Christian values or something.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewis
I don't dispute that, but I can see why this video has provoked the outrage that he is. He's basically advocating sexual assault.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepe
He wasn't fit for the presidency anyway, but videos like this make it very difficult for anybody on the Republican side to continue pretending that his election is a means to an end.
They could easily shrug it away like they've done every other thing. As you pointed out, it is a sinking ship and this is just a pretend outrage to claim they are somehow above him.
I don't think it's pretend outrage - it's definitely on another level.
That said, it's certainly being used 'conveniently' to give some of them an excuse to get in a life raft. Which is fine, really, you can't blame them.
Even my missus thought it was not a big of a deal, and she labels herself a feminist.
If you'd already accepted he was a sexist shitbag of course it's not a big deal, but it'll be a line in the sand for plenty of people who'd previously been on his side. You could spin all the previous public sexism as him protecting a brand or playing a character for exposure, but a completely candid moment in which he essentially admits to and encourages sexual assault cannot be spun.
Everybody sucked it up and got on board because they 1) allowed themselves to think that he might just win; and/or 2) hate 'Hillary' that much. Now the pressure is on, it is falling apart, and they need an out before the entire brand gets pulled down the bog with him. Do you really think John McCain has sat through him shitting on prisoners of war and immigrants (famously wanted to give illegals citizenship, and he has an adopted Bangladeshi daughter), only to suddenly remember what public service is all about when, to the surprise of absolutely nobody, it turns out that 'The Donald' lols about fannies?
Mike Pence is 50-1 to win the Presidency, and I'm not convinced that doesn't represent good value.
EDIT: Also:Ew :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Trump
He's not just lolled at women, he's basically admitted to sexual assault. Is it that hard to see to see the difference? The fact that it was candid and not a 'performance' just makes it worse.
But is that truly worse than cynical moralising? The really important thing is to take a pop at anyone who thinks they have any kind of moral high ground.
Merts gone quiet?
I wonder why.....
Did he ever take that bet? Lol
We know what mert will say. Locker room braggadocio. You'd have to be a cuck not to talk like that. Something something alpha something. Masculinity. Bill Clinton. Baseball baseball baseball.
What Trump said is gross, but that's not news. What Trump and his defenders don't seem to get is that it's what he did that is appalling people beyond than his standard baseline of odiousness.
This is going to be so Corbyn. I genuinely think if this goes how I think it will he'll make the ballot for 2020.
http://www.theatlantic.com/education...debate/503327/
But fuck paying adjuncts more than poverty wages.
Good that none of us was invited.Quote:
According to Steve Givens, the man in charge of debate preparations at Washington University, “it’s an addition to [students’] educational experience here that is almost priceless.”
This will turn into a Jerry Springer episode, won't it?
They were supposed to talk policy with voters tonight.
DRAMA is more important.
Bringing the women Billy C has raped is pretty lol.
He's like a cornered animal at this point. The fact that the GOP by large is still tethered to him is amazing.
Genuinely looking forward to this. It could be a complete car crash and I can't wait.
The size of that bald lad in the audience.
Is he pissed?
The fuck is Trump on about? He's a waffling mess.
How is 'Latinos' not a racist term?
Name dropping old man Bill :drool:
Here we go. Rape! *sniff* RAPE!
Fuck me, this is descending into Jeremy Kyle territory.
He's blowing his load way too early.
He has her on this, but nobody cares.
He has been crushing this since ten minutes in, but those ten minutes set the NARRATIVE, so it comes across as a giant seethe rather than an aggressive performance.
Imagine if he won and this was the turning point. :drool:
That Syrian no-fly zone is madder than anything 'The Donald' has proposed. It is utterly deranged.
I truly have no idea how you read politics.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewis
He's been taking wild swings. Some have definitely hit, some definitely haven't, but he's just not following up on the ones that connect. This will steady the ship, but it won't win him any undecideds.
And he's already ensured that the headlines are going to be about Bill Clinton, which is a deeply losing issue for him. It keeps the whole last week front and centre in everyone's mind.
EDIT: Although him repeatedly bringing up Sanders may be the smartest thing he's done all campaign. Trying to shed voters from the left isn't likely to win, but it's a decent strategy if you're losing the middle.
I can just see the narrative that will spun after this and it don't look good for Trump. I reckon he's done.
Right, but this was meant to be a slow motion car crash of him falling apart over those tapes. With that in mind, how is this anything other than a win for him?Quote:
Originally Posted by ItalAussie
Rand got that one spot on. Rand. :cool:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewis
I do think Donald is 'winning" so far.
I'm kind of alright with him steadying the ship. If he tanked massively, there would start to be pressure on him to resign. This campaign has been incredibly grubby, and both candidates have gotten dirty. Pence could come in and be seen as above it all. He gets all the benefits of months and months of anti-Clinton campaigning, with very little dirt on his own hands.Quote:
Originally Posted by 7om
Frankly, that would be a genius strategy if the Republicans had the chutzpah to attempt it.
Nobody seriously expected the debate to be an hour of Trump pontificating about women. And Clinton probably (and rightly) feels that the damage is done and she can't home in on it too much, or else she'll seem opportunistic. Double standards and all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewis
That fat, bald bloke looks like he's on the verge of a heart attack.
"Bullying is up". What the fuck does that even mean?
Clinton has such shitty answers on all of the "shady but it's how politics works" stuff that it's ridiculous. She's actually really lucky to be up against a non-potty trained chihuahua.
Then again a more traditional Republican would have the same "balls deep in politics sausage making" flaws so maybe it evens out.
:DQuote:
Originally Posted by 7om
Pretty much this. It's not like McCain, Romney (especially Romney), or even Obama could have pulled those levers too hard.Quote:
Originally Posted by elth
This election does make me wonder what would happen if a party ran a complete outsider with no political background, but who wasn't a raging asshole.
Whatever happened over the hour, this was meant to be the end. He won't win the thing, but, as you said, he has steadied the ship. That is nothing short of a miracle.Quote:
Originally Posted by ItalAussie
"When they go low we go high."
'Did I tell you about when the Donald...'
Is it though? They were never going to spend an hour asking him if he's a rapist.
He was at 4-1, now he's at 7-2: That's a move from 20% to 22%.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewis
I know you want him to be donning proceedings, but this debate is basically the status quo. Nobody seriously expected him to go in and implode. Town Hall meetings suit him, and after the week he's had, he would have been coached to death. And he'd probably even be convinced to listen.
"Mr Trump, tell us all about grabbing her by the pussy."
Fivethirtyeight, as usual, have the most insightful coverage from a relatively neutral stance: http://fivethirtyeight.com/live-blog...election-2016/
The Guardian are fact-checking aggressively, which is fun, but they're also unabashedly biased in their editorializing (although their fact-checking is pretty much on the level).
Multiple sources are confirming that Pence has asked to be removed from the ticket. :lol:
Again, the status quo. Where he was fifty hours ago is a definite improvement on where he was ten hours ago.
Lol at that last question.
If he just says 'No' I'll mark out.
The Supreme Court is a good issue for Trump, in that it'll bring back some of his leaking voters.
When it comes down to it, at least half the Republican base are single-issue abortion voters, and these are exactly the deeply moralistic voters who will have been made very uncomfortable over the last week. But in the end Trump could molest someone in the street, on camera, and they'd still vote for him if he promised them Supreme Court justices. He'll do well to remind them of that fact.
At least it's not 'what would god ask you to do first.'Quote:
Originally Posted by 7om
Trump is right about his daughter, though. She's incredible.
"Donald, here's a list of key swing states."Quote:
Trump named Ohio and Pennsylvania as among the places where the EPA is putting energy companies out of business by being overly restrictive. There’s a 1-in-5 chance that one of those states will provide the decisive vote in the Electoral College, according to our polls-only forecast.
"Which state do you think would..."
"OHIO. PENNSYLVANIA. FLORIDA. COLORADO. OHIO. NEV(AH)DA. NEW HAMPSHIRE. OHIO AGAIN."
"Thank you, Mr Trump."
Well that was shit ( shocker)
Please God let Trump have his phone so he can spend the evening attacking the GOP that deserted him.
Nigel Farage says he 'dominated her like a silverback gorilla'. Cheers, Nige.
I've just listened to some of the foreign policy questions; when the moderator asked a question such as "what would you do about this...,", Trump just starting rambling about how bad Clinton was - to the point where the moderator bluntly asked him "what would you do", he just couldn't answer the question.
She did a lot of that too, just so we're clear
Fair enough - I switched off pretty quick - it was somewhat vomit inducing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepe
Isn't that how it works now? I don't remember any actual policies from the last election, but I do recall that Ed Miliband is Scottish and that David Cameron wanted to close the welfare state.
Smart choice.Quote:
Originally Posted by John Arne
Interesting how different men and women viewed the debate. Like Lewis and Pepe I would have said he won. In the two polls, CNN and YouGov he won men and lost the debate because he lost women in massive numbers. In the CNN poll, he won men by almost ten and lost the debate 57-34 because he lost women by over thirty. YouGov is smaller but same story. And white college educated women are his path to victory.
He won that debate despite what the laughably stacked mainstream media polls might tell you. He improved in the betting markets by about 10%, and I think by his standards he was good. All things considered it was an impressive fight with his back against the wall. Clinton seemed particularly uninspiring last night.
FiveThirtyEight is not neutral, Nate Silver has openly admitted his bias against Trump.Quote:
Originally Posted by ItalAussie
That's not particularly difficult to do. The debate was never going to be 90 minutes of accusing Trump of molestation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewis
Last night was all about Ken Bone. Even Bill recognised that.
Source?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mert
I came into work lolling about Trump's line that he'll put her in prison and one lad said if he does that to Hilary then he'd also have to imprison Condoleezza Rice, George Dubya and a few others that used private emails while in office.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mert
I also made a bet with one guy at work that Hilary will win by 5%, 46-41.
I did lol at "because you'd be in jail", to be fair.
Nate Silver may be anti-Trump himself but anyone can see that it would be against his interests to fuck his numbers about based on who he wants to win.
Conspiracy theory nutters (UKIP, Corbynistas, Scottish nationalists) always fail to realise this about pollsters/statisticians and it's the reason they are fucking morons.
Me too. It was a proper donning. Of course boring dickheads analyzing it later don't get it.Quote:
Originally Posted by GS
You are allowed to use private emails. You aren't allowed to send classified information over that private server and then delete said server containing all of your emails when asked to provide them by an FBI investigation (which you are required to do by law).Quote:
Originally Posted by 7om
Your friend is an idiot.
They used to say the same thing about journalistic integrity and yet that doesn't stop the mainstream media from unapologetically promoting a particular center-left narrative in the face of declining credibility and ratings.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmy Floyd
Here he admits he was biased against Trump:Quote:
Originally Posted by Byron
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/...-donald-trump/
Yep. He can't sling her in over the things she's pulled as a lawyer because .... that was her job. Holding that against her would effectively set a mandate to all lawyers that you can't win cases if your client proper, almost certainly done it. Hell, a former Secretary of State with that in her arsenal is kinda good.Quote:
Originally Posted by 7om
But I guess if Donald calls her Sexsextary of Rape then he might win a couple of points back. And Bill Clinton is not a rapist, Donald. He's a sexual harrasser like you. I'm interested to see the turnout, mind. I'd expect a low one if Americans weren't so pissy about non-voters.
You can refuse to try the case. Or, you can just not laugh and brag about getting a pedophile off, you knew to be guilty, on a technicality. It's monstrous.
Cab-rank rule baby.
Can we not just greenlight an inconsequential Netflix series?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mert
The debate coverage is a number of commentators. Not just Silver.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mert
Even if you don't trust him (despite his accurate record - his numbers are his life, so it doesn't make sense for him to chop his career off at the knees), his talking heads are a decent slice of the spectrum and give very measured analysis.
EDIT: At any rate, the live debate coverage is over now. Kind of an odd point to drill down on, given its temporal nature.
Every person, no matter how heinous, has the right to competent counsel. That's a cornerstone of the legal system. :cab:Quote:
Originally Posted by Mert
Someone has to defend every monster, and only an idiot would hold the lawyers accountable for doing so to the best of their abilities. If they didn't, the system would break at its most fundamental level. The whole argument is desperate emotive bullshit.
She was not a court appointed lawyer. She took the case pro-bono, voluntarily and could have EASILY refused to represent the man. She chose to do it. She then laughed about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by ItalAussie
She is a monster and you are an immoral apologist.
Mert's having a 'mare :henn0rz:
I liked her 'thirty years of public service' line. Is it still 'service' once you make more money from your association with a particular position than you do in the actual position?
When he said all the others need to be indicted I asked him if they had all sent classified or top secret emails using their personal account and he said they had. I then said that whether they did or not it's irrelevant as Hilary definitely has and then had the audacity to delete them as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mert
All this was going on while we were doing a fire drill and it just so happened that after my last line we were allowed back in so I didn't get a response.
That's stupid, and I know that you know it's stupid. I don't believe for a minute that you believe what you just typed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mert
People accused of horrible crimes should only ever get public defenders, who are often working dozens of cases at once? And I know you know the role of criminal lawyers, the necessity that even those who are accused of heinous crimes should get a fair trial with a competent defence, and their lack of complicity by those who defend them in court.
It's a sign of how desperate you've gotten that you're willing to push what you absolutely know to one side and dive into cognitive dissonance, just to try and right the ship.
EDIT: It is worth mentioning how broken the US public defender situation is. Public defenders are desperately overworked, and in many districts are unable to put more than an hour per case in preparation. It winds up casting the whole fairness of the criminal justice system into doubt, as it becomes impossible for poor criminals to get a well-prepared counsel. It's really a problem that needs to be addressed, but there's never any resources or funding forthcoming, because politicians have to look "tough on crime".
Criminal lawyers are often scumbags with no moral compass. Clinton made a choice.Quote:
Originally Posted by ItalAussie
:D Amazing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mert
Is this being judged as opposed to the paragons of altruistic selflessness that are corporate lawyers? What's the baseline here?
If the roles were reversed you would be excoriating the act as a reflection of Trump's sociopath morally defective nature. At least corporate lawyers don't defend pedophiles.Quote:
Originally Posted by ItalAussie
And yes the public defender's system is pretty broken.
I wish we could forward these posts to whichever state Bar Mert ends up applying to.
Believe it or voicing support for the nominee of one of the two major parties in a liberal democracy isn't an offense worthy of disbarring.
You freedom hating fascist.
No, but failing to understand the duty of a public defender to the court is.
I truly would not, and you can save that quote for as long as you want to. I believe that lawyers defending criminals (even criminals accused of utterly reprehensible crimes) is a key element of the criminal justice system, and I support lawyers in playing their role in this system.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mert
Without competent criminal defenders doing their best work for all of their clients, effectiveness of the system as a test of guilt erodes. That is a dangerous path to go down.
Melania: Why haven't you done the washing up, Donald?
Donald: Bill Clinton did bad stuff too.
Melania: No but
Donald: Bill
Melania: I'll do it
I'm saving these quotes for when mert ventures into criminal law. "Guys, my client O.J. definitely didn't do this. He alpha. ALPHA. Ron's just a cuck."
Surely he didn't do it because he's a cuck?
I love this :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Mert
If you're going down, go down swinging.
I want to see Trump utter a sentence which contains the word "locker room", but does not contain the word "ISIS".Quote:
Originally Posted by John Arne
It's clear that someone on his team said that he should try and divert any discussions about the video to a different topic - specifically ISIS - and he has decided to do it in the most immediate, abrupt and unsubtle way possible. And I can't even imagine that it plays that well for him, since it seemed from his references to Assad that the entirety of his knowledge on the topic is "ISIS = BAD".
All of those athletes Twiterring that they have never spoken like that in the 'locker room' was embarrassing. Presumably next time one of their colleagues is up for sexual assault or wife beating they will make him get changed on the concourse.
We get it. You hate anyone who takes any kind of moralistic stance.
Nobody's spotless if you draw that bow long enough. Doesn't mean you can't call a spade an asshole.
It's not about being whiter-than-white. But people just make themselves look stupid falling over themselves to signal how virtuous they are, seemingly without taking a breath to consider what they are saying. So you've never heard another athlete talk about a woman like she was shit? Really, mate? Never? I would love to hear how footballers rate the prostitutes they recommend to each other without doing so.
'Wayne, was her degree in Women's Studies or Gender Studies?'
Then nobody gets to say that what Trump said makes him an asshole? Except it does, and it should be said, no matter what (assumed) history is in play.
You denounce any moralistic stance in any situation as virtue-signalling. It's like tiresome clockwork.
They can say it all they want. To claim they've never heard such speech before is just pathetic and a downright lie.Quote:
Originally Posted by ItalAussie
This man has just endorsed Hilary Clinton, I don't even know what's going on anymore
http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/s...chalkboard.jpg
The angle of that photo makes it look like someone on the bottom right has the most impressive longbald ever.
These days it doesn't matter if it's a lie or not, as long as you look moral.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepe
Yeah. That.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepe
Boogles my mind you can't see the difference between men being generally misogynistic and saying "I grab them by the pussy and they like it."Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewis
I'm sure every professional locker room draws the line at mocking women drivers.
I can't say I've ever heard anyone advocate sexual assualt as a pickup technique, perhaps I'm in the wrong 'locker rooms'. Either that or I must be lying.
No, he didn't. He's voting for the Constiution Party.Quote:
Originally Posted by phonics
To be fair, there is a particularly unnecessary slant of people coming out to virtue signal.Quote:
Originally Posted by ItalAussie
It's just the way it is these days.
It should really just be enough to call him a dickhead (which he is) without having to maintain this narrative that he represents the end of civilisation (something which has partly emerged because it is easier than actually selling 'Hillary' on her own merits), because people only end up falling over themselves doing so.
I reckon you're lying. Liar.Quote:
Originally Posted by Disco
He's going HAM on twitter. Kellyanne has given him the phone back. He's quoting online polls and telling Paul Ryan that he will grab him by the pussy. These next six weeks are going to be some top, top stuff.
http://img.pandawhale.com/mp6dJz-key...ud-gi-sqbo.gif
I've been well and truly caught out here chaps.Quote:
Originally Posted by 7om
Of course I could still be lying...
You play rugby don't you? Sexual assault is basically the day job.Quote:
Originally Posted by Disco
I've never heard anything about grabbing pussy in a 'locker room', but I've heard a lot of absolutely horrendous references to women from otherwise quite reasonable people.
Has anyone on here grabbed a woman by the pussy? (when not fornicating)
I once heard a man in his sixties say of a woman who'd walked past 'I'd use her shit as toothpaste and her pish for a gargle.' Not quite a threat of sexual assault, but it's comfortably the most disgusting thing I've ever heard.
Only on the pitch.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmy Floyd
You have to say, fair play to Trump on his scorched earth policy. He's clearly decided that if he's going to lose, it's everybody else's fault and he'll take down as many of them as he can.
It's like last days of the Reich.
The next tape has leaked.
https://media0.giphy.com/media/GBPr9wvLfTM8U/giphy.gif
The boys and girls at the LA Times tracking poll are either going to be incredibly smug or very, very embarrassed in a month.
Trump is unloading at the GOP.
We'll never see another election quite like this, however it pans out from here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Arne
Ouch. Trump is tumbling (or should it be the opposite) in the odds.Quote:
Originally Posted by John Arne
Out from 11/4 to a hefty 4/1.
Clinton in from 4/11 to 1/5.
Mike Pense in at 60/1
I saw the 1/5 figure, and this is the first time in the election cycle that I'm starting to believe the numbers. I think Trump needs an October-surprise style story to break in order for him to get over the line. Every day that doesn't happen is a problem for him. This is why even a drawn debate (and I don't think the last one was even that - I think he was shaded in the final wash) doesn't really help him.
He needs something big to happen, and while it's not impossible that it might, he needs it soon.
He's helped by the fact the media has largely ignored the Wikileaks stuff thus far.
That's because the truth is there's nothing actually incriminating in there. :sorry:
Maybe if Trump gave them a couple of empty news cycles, they'd pick through the "not incriminating but unwise" stuff, but there's never time because that's a more subtle story, and then Trump just hands them a headline by saying he wants to throw kittens at hurricanes or something.
Yeah we heard you the first time mate.
I really liked the WaPo-article about the Podesta-leaks.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...=.8af5c38781b9
tl;dr THERE'S NOTHING THERE, VEEP IS A DOCUMENTARYQuote:
Though the words “Clinton emails” are sure to cause quickening pulses, the latest emails to come to light — these ones hacked from Clinton campaign chair John Podesta’s account — contain nothing scandalous, no doubt to the chagrin of most Republicans.
They do, however, provide a valuable reminder of something important about Washington. It’s this: conspiracies are seldom true, and even the savviest operatives often aren’t sure what they’re doing....
Some of the interest in these emails will be just gossipy — Chelsea Clinton and a guy from the Clinton Foundation were backstabbing each other! — but what do they actually reveal? Well, there’s a lot of back-and-forth between Clinton’s political advisers on how different issues should be handled. For instance, when she decided to come out against the Keystone XL pipeline, how should it be done? Should she write an op-ed? Just leak it to one reporter? Something else? Everyone has an opinion but nobody knows for sure.
It takes a mighty effort to turn this into something sinister. But some are trying, though....
What’s most revealing is how their indecision and uncertainty about matters like these shows that when it comes to politics, even supposedly shrewd professionals are often just casting about in the dark. These are some of the most experienced operatives in American politics, and they don’t seem to know more than anybody else....
But most of the time, everybody’s improvising, and even the smartest and most experienced operatives screw up. The best email in this batch is one from an experienced admaker, who goes on a stream-of-consciousness riff suggesting themes for Clinton’s upcoming campaign (all typos in original):
Have you ever looked at your hand — I mean really looked at your hand?Quote:
Neither change nor continuity.but The different way. The new way. HRC declares the old way of building partisanships flying the special interest flags. Is the root cause of America becoming the Status Quo. Nation where we as a nation are weak and a victim of change. No when we are our best. We are a nation of doers and dreamers. Builders and architects of the future we do not predict or fall victim of the future. We create the future. She champions with clear vision and grit. We will build not the partisans ships. But rather the Ship of State flying the American Dream flag
The irony is that if there’s anything that sort of resembles a conspiracy at work at the moment — and we don’t know if there is or not — it’s not from Clinton’s side, and it’s a bumbling one. Russia (possibly) hacks the emails, passes them on to Wikileaks, who publishes them to Republicans’ glee, but when nothing really damaging is there, Donald Trump is left to spend time at rallies quoting from altered versions of one email, falsely attributing lines from a Newsweek article to the sinister Sidney Blumenthal — a misconception he apparently got from either a Russian propaganda site called Sputnik News, or perhaps some alt-right chatroom denizen. Very few Americans know or care who Sidney Blumenthal is, but Trump’s ardent supporters do, and know to boo and hiss at the mention of his name as though he were Haman in the Purim story. This will not, I can boldly predict, transform the presidential race. And again, we don’t know whether this is happening, and even if it is, it seems more haphazard than conspiratorial.
Just to be clear, I’m not arguing that Podesta’s emails aren’t newsworthy. It’s always interesting to know what people are saying behind the scenes. The same is true of what we learned from Podesta’s emails about Clinton’s speeches to Wall Street firms — which, again, were somewhat interesting though not nearly as scandalous as Republicans, and even some on the left, had hoped. But whenever someone tells you that there’s a complex and wide-reaching conspiracy at work, one with multiple moving parts synchronizing to manipulate events while keeping itself hidden from public view, you should be very skeptical.
The only thing the Clinton emails reveal is that she's boringly competent and thoroughly managed. If either of those things are news to you...
Fixed it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Byron
Buddy. You are delusional.Quote:
Originally Posted by ItalAussie
Do you have enough self-awareness to get that? When Clinton says that she has two policy positions, one public one private, that is damaging. When Clinton says that Wall Street only needs to be held accountable for political reasons, that is damaging. When Clinton says she is in favor of open markets and open borders (after claiming she was against TPP), that is damaging. When Clinton is said to hate the average American, that is damaging. When there is shown to be wide-spread collusion between Clinton and the mainstream media, that is damaging.
Should I continue?
Nope.
A lawyer should probably know what 'incriminating' means.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mert
I'm 20 with one summer's work experience and Republicans could dredge up far more damaging emails on me already. Facebook too. That shit's dangerous.
Saying that someone hates the phrase 'everyday American' = saying she hates everyday Americans.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mert
These are the straws you feel the need to clutch at. As a liberal, Clintons a bad choice for multiple reasons, y'all just made an even dumber one on your side and so she'll win. Tough titties. Where is your God Emperor now?
The fact that these revelations, which in the past would have evoked wide spread outrage, condemnation and resulted in significant damage to a candidates reputation, are just brushed off as irrelevant or meaningless just underlines the open hypocrisy, irrationality and tribalism of the Left.
Oh a candidate says she lies to the public about her preferred policies in private to special interest groups (who are funding her campaign) and then follows up this statement by openly providing examples of those lies? No big deal she has a D next to her name so who cares.
Learn to read dickhead.
This is going to be fantastic to watch. Sebo on speed.
I'm on the right and would be a natural 'old school Republican' voter. This isn't 'open hypocrisy etc. etc.' from the left - it's just a bit of a non-story. Perhaps if she was running against someone like Eisenhower or Reagan, it would be a story - largely because the opposition candidate is competent, well-respected and has a strong track record - this would make it 'damaging' for her chances of overcoming them, but only in the context of a race where she was probably going to lose anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mert
But in the context of 'the Donald' having a public meltdown, it's really quite irrelevant.
Next time choose a half-decent candidate and it'll matter. Even little Marco would probably have managed to beat her on the back of this stuff or at least made it a fight. Instead you chose a tax dodging, racist, misogynist who's never held public office and has absolutely zero idea how to run a campaign, only hiring absolute yes men/women and a guy who runs a racist conspiracy news network. Tough. Titties.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mert
As I mentioned before, the Republicans had an open goal here. Clinton is the worst Democratic candidate since Mondale in 1984. If the Republicans had run a competent conservative against her, they'd be about six points ahead simply because of Clinton's unfavorables. They'd have secured the Supreme Court (and thus the potential to overturn Roe v Wade) and helped significantly in the downward races with a united party machine and gerrymandered boundaries in house races.
Instead the base have pissed it all away with this self-indulgent vanity exercise, and they're only going to have themselves to blame. The ideal scenario now is a Clinton win, the Democrats taking the Senate and the lol-worthy blocking exercise by the Republican leadership bursting into flames as Clinton nominates and the Democratic senate majority confirms someone infinitely more liberal than Garland - some pro-choice, anti-second amendment, pro-equality, atheist, pro-immigration, pro-gay rights, anti-business, pro-tax lesbian with Mexican heritage.
I was going to say Mondale but then I remembered John Kerry. What a boring, boring man.
edit: I couldn't remember who Kerry ran against and christ was it a poor field.
I'll never forget that story of John Edwards getting lost on a hill only to be secretly banging his mistress.Quote:
In the 2004 Democratic presidential primaries, John Kerry defeated several Democratic rivals, including Sen. John Edwards (D-North Carolina.), former Vermont Governor Howard Dean and retired Army General Wesley Clark.
They could have picked anyone other than Cruz and Trump and they would have won. Kasich and Rubio would have probably been double digit wins (Hell I'd have voted for Kasich)
Kasich would have wiped the floor with Hillary, but I reckon she'll do him when he inevitably gets the nomination in 2020, because she'll have four years of presumably fairly steady leadership behind her. It's looking increasingly like nominating Trump might end up being the worst thing that's ever happened to that party.
It might be the worst thing ever to happen to Mert as well, actually. If Trump loses, Mert either tops himself or can never speak with authority on this board ever again. If Trump wins, Mert is put on several watchlists and ends up in Gitmo when The Donald finds out about that Muslim Society he was in charge of at Duke.
She'll have died of serious ill health by then and (checks who her running mate is) Kasey Keller will be President.
As I said on the previous page, it feels very Corbyn with how the party has split from the base. They'll be electing nutters or having a strong third party opposition splitting the vote for years.Quote:
Originally Posted by John
They will just choose a protectionist, wall-building sort who isn't a complete gobshite.
Kasich was dogshit, only made to look slightly better by the buffoons around him. I reckon Hillary, shit as she is, would have defeated any of them with ease.
This was the sum of his attack on Hilary's climate change plan that she did a thing for yesterday (day before?)
http://imgur.com/VHNsvXa.png
He then goes on to talk about Nuclear weapons, his microphone (still) and some other nonsense about how everything is rigged. That's the entire thing. He literally hasn't said anything. The mans a moron. Just really now.
It just reads like the rambling nutter on the bus who you don't want to sit next to you. He's a gigantic spastic.
"I also announce Brad Friedel as my Secretary of Immense."Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmy Floyd
You didn't read the post that carefully before replying.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mert
There's a vast body of evidence at this point to demonstrate that he is ill-informed and doesn't care that that's the case. You could presumably manage this if he was prepared to be 'handled' or had an attention span exceeding about five minutes, but no.Quote:
Originally Posted by phonics
Well, the last few pages or so were certainly entertaining. :D
You just know mert's going to adopt the "rigged" narrative after the election that Trump already has. Trump's supporters are as I type circulating the slogan "repeal the 19th" - I wonder about his stance on that!
Clinton is such an establishment peon, but I'd vote for her in a coma before I'd vote for Trump. As usual, the calculation has got to be that you vote Democrat in a swing state, and for someone better in other states.
Strong delusion in this thread thinking that the rigged polls right now won't significantly tighten as we get closer to November 8th.
You don't get to claim any kind of prescience by saying the polls will tighten, given plenty of other people (including me) have been posting that for months.
Presumably the real story is that Trump isn't having any success putting his vast dealmaking ability to work in unrigging the polls. I mean, sure, it's a cabal of colluding (apparent) competitors engaging in behaviour that will inevitably destroy the credibility of their entire business model in a month or so, but Trump is meant to be some sort of uber-negotiator. Get it done, man.Quote:
Originally Posted by ItalAussie
Mainstream media is gleefully destroying what's remaining of their credibility to shill for Hillary. That argument doesn't work anymore.Quote:
Originally Posted by ItalAussie
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cum9ayBWgAMrn9m.jpg
Last 24 hours.
So "Trump tried to hook up with some girls in the last 40 years and they rejected him?" Lol. I guess trying to hook up with girls now is automatic sexual assault?
Meanwhile Bill Clinton was regularly fucking 12-13 year olds with Bill Epstein and raping married women while Hillary covered for him.
Oh god, he's trolling us and we all fell for it. To be fair, well played Mert.
Does Mert think it's 1996?
Do you reckon that Hilary Clinton smells of sulphur, mert?
My new first rule of politics is that anyone who uses the phrase 'Mainstream media' can safely be dismissed as wrong.
That is a good rule.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmy Floyd
Not all of us.Quote:
Originally Posted by John Arne
Mert has been a parody for years, compare this bollocks with the stuff he posted during the coup in Turkey, worlds apart.
TIME have updated their cover from a couple weeks back
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CupefhaXEAAqVZi.jpg
What sort of shit in-house style guide doesn't correct that to 'MELTDOWN'? No wonder the mainstream media is running scared.
That said, if somebody like 'Hillary' was running for Prime Minister our papers would hound them into suicide in a matter of days.
Not over yet cucks, Trump up 2 in new national poll:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...se_watch_oct13
Still on Rasmussen, are you?. Might as well just post some of those internet polls that Trump does.
It's a 9 point swing in 4 days. Cope harder.Quote:
Originally Posted by Henry
Donald Trump's sexual assault victim plagiarized another sexual assault story lol:
https://twitter.com/laissez_claire/s...325801985?s=09
Right, it's impossible for two people to independently come up with the octopus analogy for a handsy twat. They must both have plagiarised The Thick Of It.
http://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump...g-509417?rx=us
A literal ethnic cleansing apologist.
Christopher Hitchens basically blamed her for prolonging the Bosnian War (and then obviously lying about her record). God(!), could you imagine the money he (and Johnnie Walker) would have made over the past year hammering both of the candidates?
"We could have taken action other than bombing and killing hundreds of innocent civilians" apparently means Trump is an ethnic cleansing apologist now?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bernanke
The absurd hypocrisy of the Left knows no bounds.
A Mormon named Evan McMullin is in a statistical tie with the Big Two in Utah. Wouldn't that be neat.
From Veep: "Was your mom plagiarizing the Bible when she said, 'Oh God, oh God'?" :DQuote:
Originally Posted by John
The letter that the NY Times have sent to Trump's lawyers is a bit good.
England born Tony Abbott has had go on Uncle Rupert's news channel defending the deplorable.
Lol
538 again:
Quote:
Proposition No. 5: This probably won’t cost him the election — because Trump was already losing. It’s important to remember that Trump has been running behind Clinton for almost the whole campaign, and he had fallen into roughly a 5-percentage-point deficit after his poor performance in the first presidential debate — and before the latest round of scandals. That deficit is fairly hard to come back from even under the best of circumstances. To make it to the Oval Office now, Trump would have to make one of the greatest comebacks in political history while navigating a minefield of scandals and leaks, making his task even harder. But as far as FiveThirtyEight’s forecasts are concerned, the first debate still looks like the turning point in the race.
Yup, absolutely mental. Time to volunteer I guess.Quote:
Originally Posted by mokbull
Could technically be the next President, too, if he can win Utah. Would need a tied electoral college and a House Republican split, but it's possible.Quote:
Originally Posted by mokbull
I was playing around with the numbers the other day, and it's actually not that hard to produce an electoral college tie. I think I posted on here.Quote:
Originally Posted by elth
http://www.270towin.com/presidential...maps/by4Pz.png
http://www.270towin.com/maps/by4Pz
Not totally implausible. Requires a big swing towards Trump, but a relatively uniform one geographically.
What would happen then? The House makes the call?
Yeah, I believe it goes to a vote in Congress, meaning that the Republicans would have an edge.Quote:
Originally Posted by Henry
But it'd be fascinating to see how that panned out, given we might have seen the start of Trump's one-man war against his own party.
The House voting him in and then down-voting him at every opportunity would be interesting. I'm still waiting for his daughters to come forward as abuse victims, too.
Trump has been having another meltdown on Twitter today over E-MAILS, alongside having a cracking go at both the media and Paul Ryan.
It's fascinating to watch.
He's gone full retard, hasn't he.
Many many years ago.
His attacks on Paul Ryan seem so random. Like, why now?
Wounded animals do a lot of crazy things I guess.
He's started taking cracks at SNL.
That said, a candidate claiming that the actual democratic process is rigged is a very dangerous precedent to set. That doesn't lead anywhere positive.
EDIT: Pence is looking increasingly like a hostage every day. If Trump just lost because he was an idiot, Pence would come out looking fine. But with Trump lashing out at everyone, as well as stomping all over Pence regularly, Pence might find himself in a tough position with his own party.
Is it that crazy? Hillary certainly had no qualms about subverting the democratic process during the primaries.Quote:
Originally Posted by ItalAussie
http://www.snopes.com/stanford-study...discrepancies/
Why would you post an article that methodically discredits the 'study' you're trying to cite?
It doesn't discredit, it qualifies. I thought it would be more honest that just posting the study.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spoonsky
"their claims and research methodology had not been subject to any form of peer review or academic scrutiny."
Well that's me convinced.
I do like the idea that it's all the dishonest biased media as if Trump Campaigns CEO isn't the owner of Breitbart (they've still got that 'Black Crime' tab but they're not racists, no) and Roger Ailes is in the room at all times. I guess they'd know a thing or two about being dishonest.
One of the 538 team made an interesting point on their most recent podcast - there's essentially a 35-38% portion of the electorate that are so partisan to the Republicans that there's nothing a candidate can do to lose them. And Trump has currently lost everyone else. Pretty remarkable.
If Clinton wasn't so flawed she could consistently be 15 points up, but I guess a win is a win.
If anything, this election will prove that the gerrymandering of House Congressional seats has fundamentally broken US Politics. So that's nice.
Got my ballot today. Democracy :cool:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3O01EfM5fU
This is amazing.
Doesn't work in the UK :(
It's from last night's show, which I think is on Sky Atlantic in half an hour's time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Raoul Duke
Despite being left leaning myself, I think the only people who come out of this election looking good are the republican Never Trumpers. Our politics are so polarized that it is difficult for a presidential candidate to get less than 45%. It is a myth that Trump is popular with Republicans - he only polls in the 60's with them in terms of favorability and most are voting for him due to lack of choice. I get it. I thought Gore was worthless and voted for him. I think Bernie is even more worthless and would have voted for him too. I'm sure there are millions who justifiably feel the same about Clinton. It really takes some utterly shit grievance monger like Trump or Al Sharpton to get people to vote for the other side.
This is a pretty good summary of the end of the race by one of Jeb's! people.
https://theringer.com/donald-trump-i...af4#.mnytgiayl
He was hilarious on Keepin' It 1600.Quote:
Originally Posted by mikem
Lots of the Republican Never Trump campaign managers on Twitter are great. Mike Murphy, Stuart Stevens, and John Weaver are all fairly funny. I added Murphy's podcast to my running playlist.
This election
Putting volume control on its videos is the best thing Twitter has ever done.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CvDWLI0WcAAQJqS.jpg:large
Do these things really need to last 18 months?
But 60% of voters said that the debate was important to them!
There have been some good political ads this season, but this may just be my new favorite.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qLzBkDieMS4
Nope. The six-week British version is far better.Quote:
Originally Posted by phonics
Get rid of the primaries and it wouldn't be too bad.
This has been somewhat ruined by the Lib Dems' constitutional bastardisation of the Fixed Term Parliament Act, whereby everybody fucking knows when the next election is going to be and thus acts accordingly. When the PM could call a snap election, it was much better because you had quick turnarounds. The EU referendum campaign was four and a bit months and was a fucking nightmare.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spoonsky
Have to agree with GS. Not sure how you get the parties to not cheat on times when the election schedules are known. And candidates like Bernie or even Obama would never get a sniff without primaries. It takes time to overcome gaps in name recognition and funding.
The difference here is campaign regulation, our candidates have a budget of about Ł65 and a packet of biscuits with which to conduct their campaigns. Trump and Clinton have each raised hundreds of millions of dollars and allowed to pump the TV full of absolutely whatever they choose.
The state vs federal dynamics are different as well, and change the scale. There are 53 elections in the primaries and 51 in the general. I'm not sure how even a Reagan wins that as a non-Beltway politician without some function of time.
It would be interesting to see what happened here without the current regulations. I think the newspapers would be too ready with a monstering for the lol corruption that runs through their system to be too obvious, but the attack adverts would be quite something.
'I'm Tim Farron, me, and I approve this message.'
To give Tromp his due, term limiting members of Congress isn't necessarily a bad idea.
Trump is bringing Obamas half-brother as well as the mother of Ben Ghazi as guests to the next debate. :face:
Hilary should invite a Mexican rapist.
Can't argue with that.Quote:
Originally Posted by elth
I heard some 11 year olds talking about this on the train this morning. What is going on? You don't hear them talking about Brexit, just fantasy football and Pokemon Go.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bernanke
'Statto is a paedo fam.'
Just finished arranging a babysitter for tonight so we can watch the presidential debate with friends because Trump has made them something you can't watch with young kids. And some pundits, and others, will think he wins the debate. But that is why he likely loses the debate in the polls no matter what is said.
Lol at getting together to watch a debate. Will you wear your democrats jersey and one of those giant blue hands with one finger pointing up?
Hil-ary! Hil-ary! Hil-ary!
Rock solid GOP states are in play at the minute, which is laughable. The main race is surely over - the real question is whether he drags down the rest of the ticket.
Ev-an! Ev-an! Ev-an!
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CvJAoDAUsAArpOo.jpg
"Family values".
Hopefully we can retire the term altogether now. The right has totally ceded their feigned moral high ground in this election cycle, which could lead to some very interesting developments down the track. At the very least, "Donald Trump" will become a standard response every time they try to moralize elections in the future.
They don't care providing they can direct the Supreme Court through a pro-life President. Everything else seems to be secondary to these people.
Lol at how much of a pawn you are in the eyes of the establishment and media elites:Quote:
Originally Posted by GS
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/...ton-nationally
Trump up 1 nationally. Pollster rated A- by Nate Silver.
Is 788 people considered a worthwhile sample size?
Clinton has prepped for this debate like a maniac. She and her advisors have clearly workshopped every question that could come out them, because she is covering them with a degree of concision that can only come with planning. She's had several quotes to hand, and has rapidly explained the context of her quotes that have come up in questions.
She's not going too much on the offensive; it's been pretty restrained so far. The puppet line is the best sound-byte to come out, and it seemed like it landed where it needed to. She got him on nukes as well, but that's a bad topic for him, so it's not a surprise.
Trump is getting a great chance to win back his base though. Supreme Court and abortion are always going to drag back any evangelicals he's lost. I'm not convinced that he hasn't gone too hard on abortion though, because the middle largely want it "rare but legal", so you have to be careful about demonizing it too much.
Wait. Trump claimed to be a fan of NATO? That's a total pivot. Interesting tack.
Clinton is right to defend economic decisions made under Obama, but it's not going to win her any votes either. Even though Trump's tax plan is ludicrous, it's made for sound-bytes and pays lip service to Americans who are struggling financially (who it will screw, of course, but lip service wins votes).
We're going to hear the Celebrity Apprentice/Bin Laden comparison in the aftermath of this, I suspect. It landed well and hits Trump in a couple of different ways.
Trump has not come off too terribly so far but he has seemed lightweight, even compared to himself the last debate, let alone Clinton. The fact that she's clearly prepared meticulously hasn't helped him in this regard.
Ooof. The audience actually laughed and had to be quietened by the moderator when Trump said he respects women. That's got to hurt.
Trump and his team have clearly settled upon using the emails as a distractor if a question comes up he doesn't want to answer. It's a smart strategy, given that it's one of the few points that has given him much traction of late. But he's doing it so obviously that it is coming across as blatantly dodging the question. He needs to be slicker about it, but I don't know that he has that level of rhetorical subtlety at his disposal.
Trump shaking his head and mumbling "no, no, I didn't happen. That's a lie" when everybody saw him mock a disabled reported, and saw him say that he wouldn't assault a women because she wasn't hot enough. How stupid does he thinks the viewers are?
Yeah. In particular, the one about not assaulting a woman because she's not attractive enough has been in the news so much and so recently that every single person watching immediately knew it was a blatant 100% lie.
The Trump camp are playing a dangerous game by repeatedly bringing up that Clinton was a senator. Trump has to fight the impression that he's unprepared for the job, and reminding people that Clinton has much more experience than him - while it certainly plays well to the anti-establishment core of his support - doesn't go well to counter that idea. I'm not sure whether he can afford to sacrifice wavering voters to appeal to his base at this stage.
To his credit, Trump interjecting specifically to note that the Emmys being rigged was a decent piece of levity. :D
However, the whole issue of rigged election is one that hurts him badly, because it makes him look like he's expecting to lose and that he's sore about it. Even though it might be satisfying, it positions him pre-emptively as a loser. You can't bank on that.
Five Thirty-Eight picked up something that I missed:
Even if it's a lie, Trump should have denied the claim. Nobody can ever prove him wrong, but by not arguing, he's tacitly introduced new information that wasn't previously available. If he was thinking on his feet, he could have pointed out that the claim was beyond anything that had been proven so far (and should have, irrespective of whether it's true or not). But he didn't, and that could cause him some problems.Quote:
There was an interesting tidbit in that exchange over Trump’s taxes. Clinton said Trump hasn’t “paid a penny” in federal income taxes. That goes beyond the evidence that’s been publicly uncovered; tax documents obtained by The New York Times suggested Trump might have been able to avoid paying federal income taxes for up to 18 years. But Trump didn’t deny Clinton’s claim. Is it possible Trump isn’t paying taxes even now?
God, Trump is openly trying to shout her down on Middle Eastern stuff. He needs to collect himself. It's not presenting him well.
Trump: "Bernie Sanders said you have bad judgment. I agree with both.”
Clinton: “You should ask Bernie Sanders who he’s supporting for president... he has said you’re the most dangerous person in the modern history to have run for president. I think he’s right.”
That landed hard. She was clearly waiting for him to bring up Sanders (as he was going to, to try and erode her support from the left - probably a sensible tactic), to shoot out that exact line.
Yeah, his foreign policy stuff is just mumbling of a madman. There is coherent plan going forward from him. This is embarrassing.
The Middle East stuff is nasty, but nobody's winning any votes with it either. Both sides appealing to their base. Trump praising Assad, which is just a basket of insanity, but his support won't care. He will have confirmed the opinion of people who don't think he really understands the region or has any coherent plan to deal with it, but they weren't going to vote for him in the first place.
At any rate, I think we've heard the big takeaway quote from the debate, and it's from Trump: “I’ll keep you in suspense.”
Quote:
When asked whether he would accept a Clinton victory in November, Trump’s ultimate response was, “I’ll keep you in suspense.” I don’t mean to editorialize here, but this is perhaps the most alarming thing I’ve heard a presidential candidate say on a debate stage. In some ways, this is almost as bad — or maybe worse — than Trump coming out and saying he wouldn’t accept a loss. There are two principles at stake beyond accepting the legitimacy of the election system. The first is being honest about one’s plans and stances. The American presidency is not the latest Tana French novel — leaders can’t keep the people in suspense. The second is that presidential candidates cannot cast themselves in the role of investigating elections. Trump can’t do this, Clinton can’t do this. The only answer is that evaluating the fairness of the election is up to the commissions that are appointed to do this, not to the candidates themselves. Regardless of your policy beliefs, this is not how democracy works.
This debate has been pretty repetitive of the last one. The first one was the best, and made me like Clinton more, but this one is just making me depressed all around.
National debt is an easy topic to finish. No obvious attacks to be landed. We've probably seen the best of what's to be said.
I'd expect the big topics to come out of the debate will be Middle Eastern politics (on a simple level: preparedness and lack thereof) and allegations of rigged elections. The latter will be the main one though, you'd have to think. Even Republicans are taking Trump to task over it:
The news cycle loves intra-party conflict, and Trump has left himself wide open on that flank. We won't have heard the last of that.Quote:
Some prominent Republicans, including Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted, have fought back against Trump’s claims — repeated tonight — that the election may be rigged. Husted, who said he would vote for Trump, also said: “I can reassure Donald Trump — I am in charge of elections in Ohio, and they’re not going to be rigged,” adding that the election process “is bipartisan, it’s transparent, and there’s just no justification for concern about widespread voter fraud.”
Trump: “I did disagree very strongly with Ronald Reagan.”
That could be an very smart or very stupid comment. It positions him as anti-establishment in a way that his base will like, but RR is basically a demigod to the right. I think it'll play overall positive to his supporters, but it's a pretty brave statement to make.
I'm trying to watch this non-biased as possible, and on what each person is saying - but my god, it's difficult. To be fair, even Hilary was a little weak on Syria there - but she said more substantially things than Trump.
I don't get why the moderator isn't asking "what would you do to fix this...", "what is your policy on this". Rather, he's letting both candidates talk shit and just divert back to an older point that they are trying to make.
Overall debate impression: Trump was largely controlled (aside from losing it a bit in the Middle East), but came across as weaker on policy and details than Clinton. I think Clinton "won" the debate, but through more detailed policy understanding rather than goading out his ill-temperament. She wasn't perfect, but she was super-prepped, and Trump seemed far more lightweight on policy than he should be at this point.
The debate won't move the polls in either direction, which works for Clinton, because we're getting to the point where Trump needs to land some hammer blows. It makes sense that he was more concerned with landing a big hit than getting stuck into policy, because that's what he really has to do between now and the election. But for that to work, he really, really needs to have something connect, and it seemed like she anticipated most of the big swings and had planned out responses. Nothing happened that caught her off-guard.
Executive summary: Clinton took the points, but on policy rather than temperament.
http://imgur.com/hGm3q2Q.jpg
If only all of our predictions could come true so quickly, Ital.
:D
Next week, I'll give out the lottery numbers.
I watched the debate having no real background to either.
Trump just comes across as a moron. He didn't actually answer any of the questions, never mind finish a sentence.
Clinton clearly has some "iffy" background but I'm not entirely sure that's out of the norm of any politician.
If trump wins this the American people (who allowed it to happen) can only blame themselves when the rest of the world turn against them.
Good lord. How has he made it this far?
Another thoroughly depressing debate.
My final prediction is Hilary by seven points but what an absolutely shite state of affairs that is.
Some of these hashtags are brilliant as well;
#DrainTheSwamp
#BigLeagueTruth
The best one however is easily #TrumpBookReport
#TrumpTheCunt
Clinton: "That's because Donald would prefer to see a puppet in charge"
Trump: "No...you're the puppet! No.... you're the puppet... you're the puppet"
Is this what American politics has come to? School ground name calling?
So is your mom mate. YOUR MOM.
I thought that one was the best debate although that's not saying much considering the rock-bottom level we're coming from. Not that it will change a single person's mind.
Ital, you're such a fucking nerd. :D
I mean, around 40% of them are planning to vote for him so...Quote:
Originally Posted by John Arne
Hmm, hard not to like McMullin. First time I've heard this so explicitly from the right:
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/ev...rticle/2604432
A TENTH woman, Karena Virginia, has now come out and claimed that Trump groped her.
How many sexual assault accusation was it that Obama had against him in the run up to his election, I can't remember...
That's Barack "Hussein The Kenyan" Obama to you
How a vaguely civilised country can have allowed such an abominable person to get the last two is beyond me.
Jean-Marie Le Pen did once get to the last two in Fr... as you were.
Good old Trump-ese there. Leave no indication to what a questionable result is so he can still bitch and cry for a revolution when he doesn't win.Quote:
Originally Posted by BBC
Does she also work for the Clinton campaign? Did she also cordially reach out to Trump about business opportunities as recently as last year? Lol at you buying any of this, no sexual assault claims for 30 years while in the public eye while constantly surrounded by beautiful women, 3 weeks before a presidential election (where were they during the Primaries?) they all come out of the wood work.Quote:
Originally Posted by John Arne
You are an actual idiot if you give them any credibility. I guess Bill Clinton's past mattered too eh, but that didn't stop Democrats from celebrating and electing a serial rapist. Hypocrisy from the Left as per usual.
We going to pretend like Clinton isn't a corrupt criminal who openly rigged the Democrat primary in her favor and aside from unprecedented incompetence in the office, abused her position as Secretary of State to enrich her own family at the expense of American national security? Lol.Quote:
Originally Posted by Disco
That $50 bet is still out there if you're that confident.
Mert will only take it if he wins.
Let's say we accept your assessment of Clinton, now consider that Trump is still so very obviously the shitty end of the stick. If I were American I would be ashamed to have him represent me, the man is a disgraceful example of humanity and a fucking terrible politician.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mert
Now do another pantomime post and the media and/or cucks.
You get the feeling this is what happens when a guy who's been told he's great all his life, is finally being put in his place. He can't grasp it. I mean, it would've been enough for a man who's never held office to finish runner-up and take some kudos and raise his pricetag a bit. The way he's fighting, it's like every facet of his being is under fire.
I really, really hope Clinton mobilises the FBI to have a look at him and his family's books.
Bet you $50 Barcelona wins their next home game in the league 1:1 odds. That's how retarded you sound.Quote:
Originally Posted by Byron
Mert still acting like a wager between "mates" is like a betting exchange or something. SAD!
Boy who brags about how rich he is haggling over what you'd earn working a shift at McDonalds. Low energy! SAD!
Mert not understanding the concept of an internet forum bet. When will he learn? Dull and boring. SAD!
This is ridiculous, what a freak :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Mert
I suspect we'll see that video of him playing basketball long before he makes a bet he knows he won't win, so why bother. Still, if Trump loses then - by his own logic - he doesn't understand America and will therefore have no credibility whatsoever. Not that he has any at the minute, but we'll just secure our e-wins with "but Trump, mate".
I like that in Mert's football analogy Clinton is Barcelona and Trump is Granada.
One being demonstrably better than the other, in all respects, in the field in question. Apt.
Granada of course being controlled by foreign corporate interests, as well as being the scene of the most successful Muslim foray into the western world.
http://i.imgur.com/2XkntS9.gif
Trump after the debate. :D
I was at work with the debate showing in a corner of my screen. Had to share my thoughts with someone, and you guys got the short straw. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Pepe
It's not that I believe every claim as such... it's more that the claims exist, that Trump has a history of sexual discrimination and inappropriate behaviour, and that his defence has been "she is too ugly to have assaulted".Quote:
Originally Posted by Mert
I agree that I would have preferred these woman to come out at the time - however, as with many high profile cases, once 2 or 3 come to light, then generally gives other victims the confidence to also come forward. Donald Trump only has one person to blame for all of this, and it isn't Clinton. And no, it appears that Karena Virginia does not work for Clinton.
Regarding Bill - The fact that the Democats previously put forward a rapist (they didn't), doesn't excuse it happening again - what point are you making here. And even if I could, I was a little too young to condemn him at the time.
Regarding the Trump accepting the results of the election - if he doesn't, I guess the media could just turn around and say "ok, enough is enough, ignore the oaf". It won't happen, of course. But if they likes of Fox really believe in AMERCIA!!!!!!, then they could just move on.
Two-Faced Mert knew how to make a casual bet when he bet me that Trump would win the nomination, and now I have to rush a frat at McGill. McGill doesn't have any frats! Sad!
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hilla...ry?id=42947939
Jesus, the guy was even jeered at the Al Smith dinner :D His delivery really is terrible.
Just watched some of it, Hilary was pretty funny, Trump was just largely unfunny and quite boring. The Melania/Michelle line was funny, though.
Giuliani's reaction :D
Toggle Spoiler
'Hillary' pretending to laugh at his jokes makes her teeth look like they're held in with plaque.
It's been a boring couple of days in terms of this election so let's share this.
A right wing 'news' site is claiming that Hilary Clinton has a personal 'sex-fixer' who gets her her hook-ups and they've identified that man.
Toggle Spoiler
Left wing media bias again mate.
That's amazing :D
What the fuck? :D
He looks like a third Milliband.
It is him isn't it?
A quick google says it is Ed. Outstanding.
The get out the vote effort is really different when your state becomes a battleground state. Normally, we just get a snarky mailed pamphlet blaming us for not voting. If you just voted .... whine, whine, whine.
This year we get texts alerting us that mail in ballots should be arriving in a week. Daily mail ads, including information on finding all the down ballot candidates as we have non-party sections for all local races. A text telling us we should have gotten any early voting ballots and a call the following day. And some people are now getting texts asking for voting registration drive volunteers for the weekend and if they reply yes are getting same day follow up calls to organize.
In one Australian federal election, the electorate I lived in ended up being the most marginal seat in the country at the end of the count.
The next election cycle was utter torture. We disconnected our phone. :D
EDIT: Also, that's 100% Ed Milliband, right? Like, I could see him doing the job if it came to it, but I have to think his prospects are still not quite that grim.
How many of those texts came from Russia?
"Dearest vote, please regonise Director General Donald." And Ital, it is definitely Ed. Bill's chatting to Nick Clegg.
I would be pissed if I was getting texts.
Can your shitty phone even do texting?
I've been on a smartphone for about a year now mate.
(My mom got it for me and still pays for it.)
I'd love to know why a lad I know from school is so up in arms about Hillary threatening the second amendment. An amendment he can't exercise because he lives in Washington, Tyne and Wear.
You sold out, mate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepe
I did. :(
Next stop: an iPad.
Are you on a Nokia still?
Obama doing the rounds on a load of talk shows to pave the way for a move into television presenting is indescribably lol, but his response to Trump saying he was shit on that 'Mean Tweets' thing was good.
Obama has the most positive approval ratings of anyone in politics at this point in time, and is going to finish his term with one of the highest Presidential approval ratings in memory. He doesn't need a TV job. It's a calculated move.
Obama's always done the rounds of talk-shows. He'll write some books when he retires, or maybe teach law school.
Inb4 Obama teaches at Georgetown Law
Wouldn't surprise me. He wants to stay in DC while his kids are at school, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mert
Seems the obvious way to go. It's hard to imagine him going hard at the speaking circuit.
Meanwhile, Trump would make more out of a failed candidacy than a failed presidency.
I know he's doing it to be affable and funny in supporting Hillary and getting a few whacks in at Trump, but I flashed on the idea of him presenting some 'Capital Beat' style DC insider program and it made me laugh.Quote:
Originally Posted by ItalAussie
:sick:Quote:
Originally Posted by Mert
I honestly believe Trump is going to win now. I don't have any cool anecdotes to back this up, just my general feeling.
Even some of the girls at my job who are latina and were slamming Trump and all of his "build a wall" shit are starting to come around to the idea of... maybe not voting FOR Trump but rather not voting FOR Hillary.
Anyways.
I do think he'd be rather good at it. He has an easy charisma which a lot of politicians lack.Quote:
Originally Posted by John
He should move to the UK and run for PM.
Americans really are dumb. Even Pepe the engineer is a bit retarded.Quote:
Originally Posted by bruhnaldo
Yep, he can ruin the foreign policy of a second country.
Because we were obviously doing a sterling job previously.
Cameron indulged in a bit of useless interventionism as well - we've been doing it since Blair, and it's a waste of everybody's time.
You fucking what?Quote:
Originally Posted by Magic
Also I am not American so joke's on you.
Yeah and How is Polish. :harold:
Shit. :(
:happycry:Quote:
Originally Posted by GS
Unbelievable
Barry will just busy himself laying the groundwork for his wife to be the president in a few years. Not that much needs doing. They'd probably vote her in now as a third party candidate, such is their insatiable desire for dynastic rule.
They interviewed some trump supporters about trumps policy.
The majority of them assume trump is being symbolic when he talks about building a wall.... Nope. He wants to build a physical wall.
If trump wins its a disaster for everyone and he'll either be assassinated or there will be a military coup. There's no way the rest of America will let him butcher the relationships they've rebuilt.
BHO's main legacy will be to inspire a range of wistful nostaglic retrospectives when the next Republican President, Jerry A. Wankenhauser III reverts to type and flattens various countries in a few years.
Massive move for Trump on betfair in the last few hours. Because of this perhaps?
3.9 in from 6.5 a couple of days ago
What is happening with the 11 women who have claimed to have been sexually assaulted by Trump? Have any of them actually pressed charges?
FBI investigation into HRC's emails re-opened. Robby Mook has also just deleted his entire Twitter timeline. :D
God wants Western Civilization to survive, Trump will win and Hillary will be in jail 18 months from now
Having somebody called 'Robby Mook' at the top of your campaign/movement ought to completely discredit it.
You have to laugh at reopening the investigation a full week and a half before the election.
Because they (we) don't want to vote for Hillary Clinton?Quote:
Originally Posted by Magic
Allah. Trump isn't winning so there's no need to hide your faith.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mert
Lol at that Chaffetz wanker's Twitter being 'jasoninthehouse'. I bet his email address was 'Jason_Is@Hotmail.com'.
In fairness - there was no way the Tories were getting a majority and there was no way Brexit was going to happen according to the polls. Who knows.
50% of Americans don't even vote. That's taken as standard. I expect a lower turnout unless there's some genuine fear factor around Trump. It's terrifying. I mean, these are your options:
1) A businessman tax dodger who is a complete dick to women. He also also never held any form of office and has spent the latter half of the campaign going on about Clinton's emails and how everything in America is fixed. He also has ties to Russia which may actually result in genuine electoral fraud.
2) A career politician who has held the second highest office in the country. She also has some shady instances of loose talk on an insecure email server, some question marks about where her campaign funding came from and her political links come courtesy of an unfaithful husband. She has also done some questionable things as a lawyer.
I could see how endorsing either is a no-go for some.
Allah (God in Turkish) = God (Allah in English)Quote:
Originally Posted by John
In case you are actually this ignorant.
Even if Trump wins it's not a fucking autocracy. Every lunatic policy he has will be rejected.
I've been saying since the Trump tape that it would take a bombshell about Clinton for him to have a chance.
:uhoh:
I told you wikileaks would destroy us all.
Fresh reminder during the week that plenty of Australian boomer blokes think Trump is the voice of reason.
The email thing is a mountain out of a mole hill, the only one in trouble is Weiner. The FBI had to tell Congress that Comey's evidence was potentially no longer final, that's all.
Good news day for Republicans who get to bloviate, and good for the media who get to hope the race tightens, but there's no substance in this.
A Trump supporter was so terrified of Clintons rigged election that she voted for Trump twice, annulling both votes :D
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.15434c9edb91
How did she vote? Is this not on the 8th?
Early voting. Voted by mail and then at a polling station.
Yeah, the postal voting's been open the last week or so.
'The polls are rigged'Quote:
Originally Posted by phonics
You just tried to rig them you dumb cunt.
No substance to the FBI reopening a criminal investigation against a presidential candidate. You what?Quote:
Originally Posted by elth
Hey Mert - genuine question... do Americans realise that they are the laughing stock of pretty much the rest of the world?
The rest of the world is the laughing stock of Americans.
:DQuote:
Originally Posted by Spoonsky
You guys have been saying this ever since I was born and we have yet to care.Quote:
Originally Posted by John Arne
Mind you...
Canada is too busy up it's own ass to bother the rest of the world. Mexico, while apparently booming with industry, is raft with crime and corruption at every level entangled with the assorted cartels. Most all of South America is in a dire state of debt or being destroyed inside out by socialism (shout out to those protesting in Caracas Venezuela this very second). Colombia is in the midst of a 52 year civil conflict that has taken the lives of 220,000 people. Brazil impeached their president. Scotland tried to leave the UK. The UK is going to leave the EU (apparently) on accident (i.e. "I didn't know my vote actually was going to matter!", "I never thought we'd actually leave!"). Russia has submarines chillin' in the Irish Sea trying to piss people off. Spain is dead broke. Germany and Sweden are in the midst of a migrant crisis. France is too busy banning burkas to combat terrorism to care about us. Eastern Europe in general has plenty of it's own problems, nonetheless Russia strategizing to put a bunch of rockets on the doorsteps of it's every border (or figure out what part of Georgia they want to annex). The Middle East is absolutely fucked, without saying. Africa is absolutely fucked (Boko Haram in Nigeria, destabilization in Mali, etc.) Australia ceases to exist to the rest of the world on any day except New Year's Eve, when they get to shoot the fireworks first (or whenever you lot decide to play cricket with them). The Philippines is cleansing its population through the murder of whomever they consider to be unscrupulous individuals. Civil war in Myanmar. The king of Thaliand passed a couple weeks back amidst a political tug-of-war that's been going on for decades. Japan and South Korea are basically on "I wonder if the Norks are going to launch nuclear war today" watch constantly. China wants to help kickstart the third World War by fighting over some islands.
But hahaaaa lol @ the USA, bruh.
Bruh writing that post
http://i.giphy.com/26ufjTGA4TdOyFk9G.gif
That wasn't worth the effort you put into it, mate.
I didn't even get through the first couple of sentences before going off in search of crying gifs.
Would have worked so much better as bullet points.
We're the dons of the entire world at the minute.
And the donnage is only just beginning.
'Raft' I could overlook but 'on accident' was too much.
That was excellent, Bruh.
We should all move to Iceland.
For some reason, I had this guy in my head whilst reading it.Quote:
Originally Posted by phonics
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6pRbwu4Pf0
This new email "revelation" of 650,000 emails belonging to Abedin.... presuming it covers the period that Clinton was Sec of State, that's 3,500 a week.... the fuck?
Admittedly I kinda just started going and going and going and kinda lost my mind here.
What word am I looking for there..
"Raft with..,"
clearly that's not right.
I just meant the huge fervor to do another referendum because all of those people basically said they ballsed it up and didn't even mean to vote Leave.Quote:
Originally Posted by Disco
I believe 'rife' is the word you were after.
Fuck, that's it.
I meant to vote Leave, and it's bloody glorious. Nearly wobbled on it as well.
I'm still revelling in it, too. The fallout has been spectacular to witness.
Saved me over €450 for this Christmas, so top work.
Bruh :happycry:
Stop apologizing for your opinions.
I watched Adam Curtis' new film Hypernormalisation last night and I'm now pretty convinced Trump is going to win. Who's got the best odds?
Mert.
Bruhn :cool:Quote:
Originally Posted by bruhnaldo
Literally lol at every other country that isn't the US, the reason we don't care about the world is because we don't need to.
http://i.imgur.com/1klsG9V.png
u mad libs? Ital on suicide watch as we speak.
Doesn't care about the world.
Allots 80% of their primary debates time to foreign policy.
I'd note that I'm an unashamed right winger and consider Trump to be outright dangerous, so it's not just "libs" who would consider his election a travesty.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mert
That's because you are only exposed to incredibly biased coverage on his candidacy.Quote:
Originally Posted by GS
Hillary is lol levels of corrupt, incompetent, unethical, antidemocratic, etc, only reason you would vote for her is because you wish to see the promotion of Leftist positions at all costs.
So is Trump, but he's also a sex fiend, has shit candy floss hair and has Putin balls deep in him
His main problem is that he's thick as shit.
FiveThirtyEight has Hilary's chances coming in a little (down from 88% on 17-Oct to 75% today), but she was so far ahead, it doesn't seem to matter much.
https://gyazo.com/8be699463897743eb846f917d17f4cc5.png
Not my problem. I still don't think he'll come close to winning, but Australia's (much higher) quality of life won't take a hit unless he nukes us out of his own idiocy. So, like, a 20% chance at worst.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mert
EDIT: Which one of Colorado, Pennsylvania, Viriginia or New Hampshire do you think Trump will crack? He needs to get at least one of them to win, even if he sweeps Nevada, Florida and North Carolina.
Even if he wins, he won't just be able to stroll around doing what he wants anyway. Then you'll all be very glad of the 'blockages' that have stopped Obama turning it into a liberal nirvana over the last 8 years.
If he wins, he'll have a Republican House and Senate so I'm not sure how that applies.
Yeah but half of them will hate him and in any case, the other day I saw something saying the Senate could go Democrat (no idea if true, American politics is utterly tedious to me). Then there'll be the Supreme Court, the Joint Chiefs etc all counterbalancing the executive in other areas. He won't just be able to nuke Vancouver.
Trump winning the Presidential vote and not the Senate makes little to no sense. The only reason the Democrats have a chance is because of NeverTrumpers. The Supreme Court is currently 3-3 with whoever wins the nomination picking their preferred justice to make it 4-3 and there's a remote possibility that they'll get to pick two.
Don't forget New Mexico, Wisconsin, and Michigan.Quote:
Originally Posted by ItalAussie
You are sooo shook right now it's hilarious. Denying reality despite it being right in front of your face. You were wrong and I was right, how embarrassing is that? Aren't you supposed to be smart and objective and the voice of reason??? But I guess you're just as irrational and blind as the rest of the Leftist cucks currently experiencing a meltdown associated with having their perception of reality upended.
Also being rich in Australia is roughly equivalent to lower-middle class in America. Cope harder.
It's 4-4 with one open vacancy to make 9 justices, but yes you are correct.Quote:
Originally Posted by phonics
You sound twelve. I know you're not stupid, but you're coming across as barely literate. Wind back the bombast a little.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mert
Have spent enough time in both to know that's rubbish. And I put my money where my mouth is - I could have taken a job in the US, and didn't. It was a quality-of-life decision, and I've never looked back.Quote:
Also being rich in Australia is roughly equivalent to lower-middle class in America. Cope harder.
Look, I don't want Trump to win. But I have been saying on here for months that the polls would narrow as the election got close, so I don't know what I'm supposed to have been wrong about. From where I'm sitting, it looks like I was on the money at this point.
This triggers me so much for some reason.Quote:
Originally Posted by ItalAussie
"Yo dawg, I heard you live in a country that spans 3.8 million square miles, but all of it is shit compared to the 2.97 million square miles we have here in Australia"
It's a big world, man. Your home city vs. Potential job city =/= Australia vs. the U.S.
:happycry:
Cry a little harder Bruh, I don't think we heard you the first time.
Okay, maybe this is just bad timing but the FBI releasing all that stuff on Bill Clinton feels like they're trying to influence an election.
I've not experienced the whole thing, but I did have job offers in California and North Carolina, which involved visiting both areas as part of the process. I spent several months in Boston during my PhD, two months in DC, and a month and a half in Athens (Georgia). It's not the whole place, but it's a decent cross-section. Mostly east coast, I'll admit.Quote:
Originally Posted by bruhnaldo
The lifestyle in Australia is pretty amazing. New Zealand probably has it even better, but Australia's isolation makes it decently laid-back. You can accomplish things here, but the whole "ethos" in the major Australian cities is on maximising quality of lifestyle. It's a good place to be. Not to mention that we're at or near the top of almost every "quality of life" measure, for what it's worth. But it's more the general easygoingness of the place, coupled with the sensible social safety nets if you're into that sort of thing.
Seriously though. Maternity leave and the metric system. Get it together, guys.
Isn't Sydney increasingly becoming London-like bollocks in terms of property ownership? Watch that start sinking those 'quality of life' surveys.
Everything is going that way whilst China has money to buy it all up.
Vancouver turned to shit and that place was some kind of plaid-covered paradise on Earth. It'd be no surprise if Australia was feeling the same.
They're both boxed in by National Parks, which can't help. You could make Calgary or Canberra the size of France and nobody would care.
Brisbane has a sizeable Chinese poplation and it hasn't changed my quality of life at all. My only problem is that they haven't taken to Rugby Union yet despite the biggest suburban Rugby Club in Queensland being smack bang in the middle of where most live.
Selfish cunts
There must be something about team sports that clashes with the drone mentality. You can drill somebody to death for most Olympic sports, but throw them in a team (or in a group loitering near some stairs on a university campus) and their brains melt.
Must admit I didn't predict Bruh to be the one having a FUCKING MAD meltdown in this thread.
If Clinton gets done, part of the reason will be her campaign trying to run up the score in Arizona instead of making sure she has her 270 votes locked in.
Dems won't win the Senate if she loses, so there will be no effective check on Trump's whims. The Republicans aren't going to stop him if he wins because they'll realise that the only chance the have to stay relevant is to jump on board his populism train. Even now any Republican running in a state that isn't completely one sided is kissing his ass, despite him going against every traditional Republican value, because they've figured out that he's directly tapped enough of their base that they can't win if they oppose him. Same as the Tea Partiers shredded the traditional Republican base by turfing the moderates - you can't win from the middle in the Republican party any more.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/02/us...alls-utah.html
Just got this call. :cool:
I didn't expect him to actually introduce himself as "farmer and white supremacist", but there you go.
Yeah, property prices are becoming a serious problem. Anyone who ran on a "negative gearing is obviously insane" policy platform could probably get elected in any Sydney seat at the moment. Still a great place to live, mind you. I went to the beach before work this morning.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewis
Half court basketball seems to be very popular.
The Japanese blokes love themselves some Rugby however. East Brisbane Rugby Club does well in the lower grades with Japanese outside backs.
Wait, is the election over? nobody told me (ignoring the fact that Ital doesn't appear to have actually been wrong, anyway).Quote:
Originally Posted by Mert
You don't actually believe this do you? You're educated - you can't be stupid enough to think that this is true.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mert
Yay! Trump just got his largest circulation newspaper endorsement:
https://mobile.twitter.com/funder/st...865472/photo/1
Republicans must be so proud.
Just came back for the details. You think Trump is going to sweep the swing states?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mert
The firewall is Colorado/New Hampshire/Pennsylvania/Virginia. If he cracks any one of those four, I'd say he wins the election. You reckon he's going to get all four, as well as the three you listed? Because that's a far, far ballsier prediction than my comparatively lightweight "the polls will narrow before the day". If you're right on a prediction that big, you're a genius.
New Mexico, Wisconsin and Michigan are heavily in favour of Clinton (~80% each state).
And yet he still doesn't want to take my bet.
What the election will ultimately come down to, I think, is whether enough people will plug their nose and vote for Clinton in the midst of the hurricane of shit currently touching down on the election and her campaign. I imagine everyone already knows whether they'll vote for Trump or not, but there were probably people who'd convinced themselves to vote for Clinton after Trump's tapes who are now turning back to their disgusted third-party irrelevance.
One week, fuck me.
Mert and Nate Silver actually agree:
Quote:
It’s true that Trump would have to make a breakthrough somewhere, by winning at least one state in Clinton’s firewall. But that’s why it’s not only reasonable but 100 percent strategically correct for Trump to be campaigning in states such as Michigan and Wisconsin. (I’ll grant that New Mexico is more of a stretch.) Sure, Trump’s behind in these states, but he has to win somewhere where he’s behind — or he’s consigning himself to four more years in Trump Tower instead of the White House. Michigan and Wisconsin are as reasonable as any other targets: Trump isn’t any further behind in them than he is in higher-profile battleground states such as Pennsylvania, and the demographics are potentially more favorable for him.
I think we can all agree it'll be fucking fantastic when it's over and we have four years of respite from all this bollocks
The comfort for Mert even if Clinton wins is that she's absolutely shit. She'll get 4 years, the Republicans get another crack and assuming they don't nominate a wibbling retard they'll win easily.
Two years tops, then it all starts again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Raoul Duke
It's doing my head in as it is and I couldn't tell you anything more than the two candidates.
EDIT: and that it's on the 8th but you could vote early if you posted it in.
No chance. They'll spend 2 years trying to impeach her and then it's on to 2020.Quote:
Originally Posted by Raoul Duke
+1Quote:
Originally Posted by Raoul Duke
'Firewall.' :sick:
I even cancelled the subscriptions to the two journals I used to get because all they talk about is the election. Once it is over I'll reconsider.
You tell em!
Can we have like a swear jar at TTH. Every time mert says "cuck" "alpha" etc he has to put Ł1 into it. We'd be fucking rich by the end of year. Australian rich mind you, not American rich.
Proper beta behaviour. :rolleyes:
Problem is, that's what they keep doing. If they'd go for a fiscal conservative and leave all the god shit alone they'd walk in.Quote:
Originally Posted by Byron
I lolled at her chimping out at 'Bill Clinton is a rapist' (fair play to the heckler there). Didn't deny it, like.
Michelle Obama 2020 :rasta:
:sick:
Racist
It's bizarre how an ability to speak in complete sentences is apparently evidence of your suitability for the presidency. I've seen serious political commentators suggesting Michelle Obama as a future POTUS. Whether it's because they're all caught up in THE MOMENT and they repent of it the next day or they actually believe it is anybody's guess.
Be fair, once Donald Trump is in the last two you've opened the gates to pretty much anyone breathing. Tony Blair should have a go.
This all started when they had to pretend she was good looking, and now they're trapped in the lie.
"Newly-elected President Sean Penn."
You had some right shit candidates in the past - like Barry 'in your guts, you know he's nuts' Goldwater, George McGovern, or Walter Mondale - but they all got massacred in the public / popular vote. That wouldn't happen now, because the Americans have degraded political discourse to a ludicrous extent. There's a prevailing view that you could stick any chancer into the position and it wouldn't matter.
I thought it had reached peak hilarity with Palin in 2008. She could barely speak properly, yet the ticket got nearly sixty fucking million votes. And yet here we are.
Barry Goldwater was an American hero, and pretty much right about everything.
As a counterpoint, Barry Goldwater was wrong about everything and his successors broke the US irreparably.
She is though. :sorry:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewis
(Don't worry, mert. So's Melania. Breathe.)
I do wonder if the Democrats are going to hop on the celebrity candidate train soon. I can absolutely see it happening a couple of elections down the track.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shindig
You people really don't know how to have any fun in politics at all. I miss the sheer joy of Louisiana politics. This denial of wrongdoing is just wonderful:
https://mobile.twitter.com/alexburns...954944/photo/1
It'd be George Clooney, surely.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shindig
Kevin Kostner. :cool:
Nah blokes it's Mel Gibson 😎
Saw a video of Arnie kicking off about Climate Change the other day which I believe isn't viewed as an issue by the republicans so he could be an option for the democrats.
The consolation of a Trump win is knowing that Trump would definitely detest Mert if he ever had the misfortune to meet him.
This is Anerica we're talking about, it would be Britney Spears.Quote:
Originally Posted by Queenslander
Even if you believe Clinton is culpable at this point, we've basically reached Edwin Edwards/David Duke territory:
https://snarkypenguin.files.wordpres...er-sticker.jpg
Better evil and competent. Again, I don't buy the mud that has been slung, but at this stage, even if I did, right?
This is quite good:
What I learned after 100,000 miles on the road talking to Trump supporters
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2...y_to_clipboard
Owen Jones' hostage-like appeal to American voters was good, as was the confirmation that his self-awareness has entirely vanished.
Same thing as Brexit, almost identical in fact: divide between the winners and the losers from globalisation. The losers refuse to accept truths accepted by the winners; the winners refuse even to acknowledge the existence of the losers, or where they do, openly detest them. The winners have access to all the tools of the establishment, but they don't necessarily have democratic numbers on their side.
People have boiled it far too much to that and JD Vance's Hillbilly Ellegy. It is also this (from one of the best conservative journalists around), which has been happening for much longer. Watching just parts of the accompanying Buckley / Regan debate (Regan comes on at about the 16 minute mark) to see how far debate has fallen since I was a kid is just so sad.
http://freebeacon.com/columns/crisis...-intellectual/
Yeah. Mass media has really fucked up our politics.