US Elections - There is 'Ahead in the Polls' behind you

[Fez]

34 minutes ago, NestorMakhnosLovechild said:

How is this a winner for Hillary? Now she's casting judgment on alleged child rape victims and calling their stories "outlandish" before they have a chance to be proven in Court?  Doesn't Hillary advocate that we should believe rape victims? 

Then she can use a different word. Point is, its been proven time and again that just the mere fact of saying something gets people to start believing. But at the same time, she needs to appear Presidential. So she can't bring it up first and she can't accuse Trump of it. But if she can mention it as an aside, that's an important opportunity to take. It gets the idea in peoples' heads and it likely flusters Trump as well.

[Swordfish]

45 minutes ago, Fez said:

Then she can use a different word. Point is, its been proven time and again that just the mere fact of saying something gets people to start believing. But at the same time, she needs to appear Presidential. So she can't bring it up first and she can't accuse Trump of it. But if she can mention it as an aside, that's an important opportunity to take. It gets the idea in peoples' heads and it likely flusters Trump as well.

I can guarantee you she is not gonna bring up those child rape allegations.  She'd be an idiot to do so, and she's not an idiot.

[Dr. Pepper]

2 hours ago, NestorMakhnosLovechild said:

How is this a winner for Hillary? Now she's casting judgment on alleged child rape victims and calling their stories "outlandish" before they have a chance to be proven in Court?  Doesn't Hillary advocate that we should believe rape victims? 

Not anymore.  As far as I know, it's been deleted from her website and she hasn't discussed it in public since progressives started asking her if we should believe Juanita Broadrick and conservatives started to actually believe JB.  

[Fez]

2 hours ago, Swordfish said:

I can guarantee you she is not gonna bring up those child rape allegations.  She'd be an idiot to do so, and she's not an idiot.

Guaranteeing anything you have no control over is a sucker's bet.

It might not be those allegations, it probably won't be actually, but there's a reasonable chance she'll bring up and dismiss something seedy and unconfirmed about him if he tries to talk about any Clinton conspiracies. The safer bet would be about his tax returns.

[SkynJay]

Trump asks black voters 'What do you have to lose?'

Quote

"You're living in poverty, your schools are no good, 58% of your youth are unemployed -- what the hell do you have to lose?" Trump asked the audience in an unscripted moment from a speech in which he otherwise stuck to his teleprompter.

At a guess I would say the right to vote itself would be a big starting point.

As for how Trump arrived at this rather impressive number of 58% a break down can be found here (proving he has used this statistic before today as this article is two months old).  No doubt many people are surprised to learn they are suddenly living in poverty or unemployed (rather than going to school or something crazy like that between ages 16-19).

[Swordfish]

4 hours ago, Fez said:

Guaranteeing anything you have no control over is a sucker's bet.

I'll take that suckers bet.  Winner picks losers signature?

[James Arryn]

5 hours ago, Fez said:

Then she can use a different word. Point is, its been proven time and again that just the mere fact of saying something gets people to start believing. But at the same time, she needs to appear Presidential. So she can't bring it up first and she can't accuse Trump of it. But if she can mention it as an aside, that's an important opportunity to take. It gets the idea in peoples' heads and it likely flusters Trump as well.

I get what you're thinking, but alluding to something you don't want t say outright might play into Trump's hand. If he demands clarification, it gives him the initiative. If she does so,he can call her out for lack of proof...if she doesn't he gets to go off on rants about typical Washington bs and all that, to play his (completely fraudulent) 'straight-talker' card. The fact that he'd be being hypocritical is kinda irrelevant, people seem to either overlook his constant contradictions or are already past them?..it's not a scholastic debate point, but would make for an ad-hom tv moment.

You want him flustered and ranting, but you don't want to feed him the means to actually have a valid point behind his ranting. I think you either bring upsomething outright...thereby being prepared to also discuss his allegations against you, or you deflect. If you try and score points on defense, I think you're potentially giving him an opening, and what's more HC's personality won't help this...she often comes off peevish, passive-aggressive and condescending when getting defensive. Her non-apology apologies aren't great, but they don't really hurt her too much either. She has real holes in her armour, so I think she ought to play defense on her most vulnerable spots, and win almost everywhere else.

I'll say it again, though...Democrats are their own worst enemies in the run-up to debates, always without fail talking about how the R is gonna get smoked, and thereby almost always giving the opposition apparent close losses/ties/victories just by being able to form complete sentences and not shoot anyone during the broadcast.

[Shryke]

16 hours ago, DanteGabriel said:

 

Stupid quote system.

Looks like Paul Manafort is resigning from the Trump campaign. I imagine this is continuing development of Trump's decision to keep being an asshole all the time, but I also wonder if there's some heat to the scrutiny on his Ukrainian profiteering and the pretty explosive charge about him engineering protests against American troops in Crimea.

I hope Manafort's past catches up with him and he dies in grinding poverty and infamy, and sees everyone he loved turn against him. Too much to ask, I know.

Funnily enough, it's actually seeming like Manafort was a moderating force within his campaign and Trump had begun to resent him for it.

nytimes.com/2016/08/20/us/politics/paul-manafort-resigns-donald-trump.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=1&referer=http://www.nytimes.com/

The recent articles were just the final straw.

As an example, apparently Trump's taco bowl photo was something Manafort told him not to do because it would be interpreted as idiotic pandering. And he was right of course.

[Shryke]

8 hours ago, SkynJay said:

Trump asks black voters 'What do you have to lose?'

At a guess I would say the right to vote itself would be a big starting point.

As for how Trump arrived at this rather impressive number of 58% a break down can be found here (proving he has used this statistic before today as this article is two months old).  No doubt many people are surprised to learn they are suddenly living in poverty or unemployed (rather than going to school or something crazy like that between ages 16-19).

Trump's outreach to black voters is ... special:

https://mediamatters.org/video/2016/08/19/watch-cnns-brianna-keilar-explain-trump-advisor-speaking-white-voters-not-black-outreach/212536
This was his Senior Advisor's response to being questioned about why Trump's outreach to black voters was occurring in areas that had almost no black residents.

Quote

KEILAR: I have to stop you because you said he's going there. He's not, he's in Diamondale, which is 93 percent white. When he was in Milwaukee the other day, it was part of Milwaukee that wasn't dealing -- I mean he, it's --

KINGSTON: Well yeah, but Brianna he went --

KEILAR: It's almost completely white.

KINGSTON: I mean, maybe it would have been nice if he went and had a backdrop with a burning car, but the reality is --

 

 

[ummester]

12 hours ago, DanteGabriel said:

Well, it's nice that this topic has run the gamut from discussing imagined people's theoretical stances on child porn to debating the advisability of dropping a child rape accusation in a national debate.

But considering this entire election campaign is it at all surprising? The whole things a circus, a mockery of anything remotely resembling a proud democracy.

Some-one tries to shoot Trump. Assange comes out with these proofs that Hillary arms terrorists and suggests she offed a staffer.

What is it, competition for House of Cards or GoTs or something?

[The Marquis de Leech]

7 minutes ago, ummester said:

But considering this entire election campaign is it at all surprising? The whole things a circus, a mockery of anything remotely resembling a proud democracy.

You make it sound like 2016 is the destruction of a long and proud tradition of civic-minded responsible government and sober campaigning, rather than just another chapter in a long and proud tradition of the US political system being severely screwed up.

[ummester]

Just now, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

You make it sound like 2016 is the destruction of a long and proud tradition of civic-minded responsible government and sober campaigning, rather than just another chapter in a long and proud tradition of the US political system being severely screwed up.

Yea, I know it's been turning to shit for ages  I just think this campaign has reached the point where it's undeniably obvious to the world how fucked up it is.

 

[DanteGabriel]

4 hours ago, Shryke said:

Funnily enough, it's actually seeming like Manafort was a moderating force within his campaign and Trump had begun to resent him for it.

I phrased it unclearly, but that's what I meant -- firing Manafort is the final triumph of "let Donald be Donald."  I think I made the point before, but it's amazing that Manafort could polish a turd like Yanukovich and get cooperation from the Marcoses and Mobutus of the world, but Trump was too much for him.

Yesterday both Eric Trump and Corey Lewandowski talked about how Manafort was going to be a "distraction" -- which indicates to me that the Ukrainian lobbying escapades are a big part of Manafort's firing. Good. Fuck that guy.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

1 hour ago, DanteGabriel said:

I phrased it unclearly, but that's what I meant -- firing Manafort is the final triumph of "let Donald be Donald."  I think I made the point before, but it's amazing that Manafort could polish a turd like Yanukovich and get cooperation from the Marcoses and Mobutus of the world, but Trump was too much for him.

Yesterday both Eric Trump and Corey Lewandowski talked about how Manafort was going to be a "distraction" -- which indicates to me that the Ukrainian lobbying escapades are a big part of Manafort's firing. Good. Fuck that guy.

I doubt Yanukovich needed that much polishing though. The Ukraine and the US have one thing in common, they're really a divided country (NO PUN INTENDED with regard to the Crimea). 

We have the more western orientated big cities like Kiev, and that's what we often see in the western media. But that's probably as represenatative for the Ukraine as NYC or LA are for the US. The rural areas are often way more pro Russian. The breakdown of the Soviet Union was not such a happy day for everybody in the east. So there's a lot of nostalgia about the good old Soviet days. You can also wager a guess, in which parts the people are more fluent in Ukrainian, and where they speak predominantly Russian.

But this is going off topic.

[Martell Spy]

Pretty telling comment in this story, although not too surprising. Trump basically needs a babysitter. 

 

“Kellyanne is not a campaign manager in the traditional sense of the word. She got the title as part of combat pay,” said one source involved with the discussions. “She’s the candidate manager, which considering how tough it is to manage someone like Donald — who has the temperament of a 12-year-old who always gets what he wants — is a far harder job. So far, it’s working. But it’s only been a few days.”

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/paul-manafort-fall-trump-campaign-227212

Inside the fall of Paul Manafort
Donald Trump’s campaign chairman thought he could weather the scrutiny of his lucrative foreign political consulting. He was wrong.

[The Fallen]

This is an article about how, surprisingly, both candidates are against free trade. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/aug/20/trump-clinton-free-trade-policies-tpp

This comment resonates the most with me:

Quote

Lawrence, the chief administrative officer at AlphaUSA, agreed there was some truth to the feeling that trade deals had contributed to the decline in the quality of life in the US, particularly for the middle class.

“A lot of these workers have seen jobs leave this country and go to other countries,” he said. “And we’ve certainly seen that in the automotive marketplace.”

But trade has its advantages, Lawrence said, and no deal should be viewed as “good” or “bad” alone.

“Trade agreements happen not just so we can find the lowest cost to produce our products,” he said, noting that deals also create customers for American companies and open access to foreign resources.

To Lawrence, deals are made in the details: “It’s how we write them – and how do we come to the table with those other countries, take a leadership position, and make something that works for everyone. And that’s not easy, but it’s certainly possible.”

 

 

[ummester]

I recon Clinton is just saying what she thinks the voters what to hear - she'll probably bend over to the banks and big corporations once in the seat.

Hopefully the TPP doesn't go through - even though the article says it's high on Obama's agenda. I don't see how some extra rules regarding US pharmaceutical patents and policing of what internet content we download can assist Australia's economic well-being with China.

http://www.wikileaksparty.org.au/why-australians-should-be-worried-about-the-tpp/

Can't believe this election is taking a positive turn from my POV.

[aceluby]

5 hours ago, ummester said:

I recon Clinton is just saying what she thinks the voters what to hear - she'll probably bend over to the banks and big corporations once in the seat.

I see this a lot, but I'm wondering why you think this is true.  Has she done this before?  The only time she could have possibly done something like this is as Senator of NY, so was there something she ran on then that she turned her back on once she got elected?  Curious given she was re-elected.

[The guy from the Vale]

Indeed, I wonder where this Clinton-specific distrust is coming from. If there's anyone who looks like a pathological liar in this race, it's Trump. And that impression is based on the way he has led his campaign, not some elaborate conspiracy theory.

[ummester]

57 minutes ago, aceluby said:

I see this a lot, but I'm wondering why you think this is true.  Has she done this before?  The only time she could have possibly done something like this is as Senator of NY, so was there something she ran on then that she turned her back on once she got elected?  Curious given she was re-elected.

I mentioned in an older thread how she gave up on socialising medicine and later accepted donations from the medical industry she was trying to reform. She wasn't a senator then, I don't think, just Bill's wife with her project. Lately, there is a lot of news about her saying one thing under oath and the truth revealing something else. She was anti gay marriage and then pro gay marriage, her defence being she changed her mind - but, coincidentally, her mind seems to change in line with public opinion quite often.

Yea, sure, all politicians lie, especially around public opinion. So is she any worse than the others? I dunno. But I don't think she'll oppose the banks and corporations if she ends up president - she is used to her bread being buttered a certain way.