2016 Election Thread

[nicksaviking]

My biggest disappointment came when Clinton slammed Trump for his discriminatory housing practices and Trump came back with how he made an country club in Florida that wasn't discriminatory. I haven't watched any debate discussions since last night so I'm not sure if this has been discussed, but Clinton should have pointed out how Trump was bragging about an instance of him not discriminating as if not discriminating in that single instance is something to celebrate and not the norm.

 

Congrats on not being a bigot that one time.

[Squirrel]

 

The low point for Trump was and continues to be the fact that he won't release his tax returns. Part of his whole schtick is wearing the corporate mongol identity with pride. The fact that he wants to hide whatever is (or isn't) in his tax history suggests it must be huuuge.

The low part for Trump is that he spouts whatever he wants despite the lack of veracity. And people are stupid enough to just believe it because he says it. And that he's a misogynist, racist, bigoted prick. What he does in his rhetoric, and that the media covers it and doesn't really call him on it, is legitimizing hate rhetoric. His taxes, yes, shows a real lack of transparency. And when Clinton suggested that perhaps he hasn't paid any taxes, he says that makes him smart. Right.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Holy moly, Trump looked horrible during that birther segment. He rambled, said nothing, and refused to backtrack on something so obviously incorrect.

[twinsnorth49]

 

Holy moly, Trump looked horrible during that birther segment. He rambled, said nothing, and refused to backtrack on something so obviously incorrect.

In fact he took credit for getting Obama to produce his birth certificate and gave himself a little pat on the back.

 

It's like he completely forgot what the hell the issue was.

[DaveW]

That's why I think it is so big that Hillary admitted that the E-mail thing was a mistake and that she wouldn't do it again if she got to do it over.

Probably not the "admission" a lot of the EMAIL GATE OMG!!!1! people wanted, but the fact that she actually OWNED up and admitted a mistake makes her so much infinitely more appealing then Trump, who for some reason refused to admit the birther mistake.

 

If there is one thing I have learned about America (and sports) American's love giving second chances to someone when they admit a mistake. But when a person keeps lying/doubling down? That is what screws them.

 

See: Andy Petite vs Roger Clemens steroid issues.

[TheLeviathan]

I thought the tax return exchange was where Clinton was probably at her best.  And Trump's retort that he didn't pay taxes makes him "smart" was horrifically stupid.  I was a bit surprised she didn't pivot that into her loophole closing angle, but either way it was well done.  She absolutely nailed that point home.

[Brock Beauchamp]

I thought the tax return exchange was where Clinton was probably at her best. And Trump's retort that he didn't pay taxes makes him "smart" was horrifically stupid. I was a bit surprised she didn't pivot that into her loophole closing angle, but either way it was well done. She absolutely nailed that point home.

I wanted to see her go on the offensive at that point but I think Clinton is minimizing her weaknesses and letting Trump bury himself at the same time.

 

She's simply not an engaging public speaker. She's smart as a whip and intensely studious but she's not a "I'm going to charm you into voting for me" candidate like her husband.

 

I hate to see it but I think she's more suited to sticking to her playbook than winging it and potentially burying herself in the process.

[Monkeypaws]

 

 

Vanimal46, on 27 Sept 2016 - 09:31 AM, said:

How does one go about scoring a debate? Yes, this is a serious question.

 

I think fwar, fip, and wrc+ gets it done.

[Squirrel]

Chief ... did you have something to do with this? 

[nicksaviking]

 

Chief ... did you have something to do with this? 

 

I'd hope that other newspapers in conservative areas see this and realize they too can be brave and go against their traditional affiliations.

 

Though, while this is just speculation, I suppose it's probably likely that Trump supporters don't avidly read their local papers.

[twinsnorth49]

 

I'd hope that other newspapers in conservative areas see this and realize they too can be brave and go against their traditional affiliations.

 

Though, while this is just speculation, I suppose it's probably likely that Trump supporters don't avidly read their local papers.

FTFY.

[stringer bell]

Quite a few Republican defections, including a number of newspapers. I read somewhere that former Senator John Warner was going to endorse Clinton. Have there been any notable Democratic defections?

[Squirrel]

 

I'd hope that other newspapers in conservative areas see this and realize they too can be brave and go against their traditional affiliations.

 

Though, while this is just speculation, I suppose it's probably likely that Trump supporters don't avidly read their local papers.

The Dallas Star endorsed Clinton. And they hadn't endorsed a Democrat in ... 70 yrs I think it said? And many of their readers were cancelling their subscriptions in protest, but the paper stands by what it did.

 

The surprising thing for me about the Arizona Republic was that they have NEVER, in their history, endorsed a Democrat. And while endorsements of any kind don't really hold much sway for me, I found it interesting that their endorsement of Clinton didn't seem that begrudgingly, either. Yes, they commented that they had some concerns, and that no, they hadn't changed their conservative ideology, but how ... well ... scathing they were of Trump. They could have endorsed no one, or perhaps Johnson, to better fit their ideology, but they actually chose to endorse Clinton was a huge message about just how unfit Trump was. If you haven't read the endorsement, I found it interesting.

[Squirrel]

 

 

Quite a few Republican defections, including a number of newspapers. I read somewhere that former Senator John Warner was going to endorse Clinton. Have there been any notable Democratic defections?

Warner did endorse Clinton. Again, not sure how much sway endorsements have, but he was a long-time Senator from Virginia and it could have some effect there, being that Virginia is a swing state. Again, not sure if endorsements sway anyone, but it's interesting.

[TheLeviathan]

As much as the Arizona paper was arguing that Trump was unfit, they also had a number of complimentary things to say about Clinton.  That's a positive.

 

It's sad how well the Trump supporters have already laid the groundwork for blaming those that have defected for his (hopeful) defeat.  There could have been a real moment to look in the mirror that we'll never have.

 

And, make no mistake, this country needs a conservative/fiscal balance in the conversation.  But we also need a sane one.

[nicksaviking]

 

The Dallas Star endorsed Clinton. And they hadn't endorsed a Democrat in ... 70 yrs I think it said? And many of their readers were cancelling their subscriptions in protest, but the paper stands by what it did.

 

The surprising thing for me about the Arizona Republic was that they have NEVER, in their history, endorsed a Democrat. And while endorsements of any kind don't really hold much sway for me, I found it interesting that their endorsement of Clinton didn't seem that begrudgingly, either. Yes, they commented that they had some concerns, and that no, they hadn't changed their conservative ideology, but how ... well ... scathing they were of Trump. They could have endorsed no one, or perhaps Johnson, to better fit their ideology, but they actually chose to endorse Clinton was a huge message about just how unfit Trump was. If you haven't read the endorsement, I found it interesting.

 

I'm not sure how many people take the actual words of the endorsement to heart. I think the biggest benefit in a situation like this is for those people who identify as conservative but know Trump is a bad idea. Hopefully they'll see that if others are going against their traditional ideology this one time, they can too because as a group the pill isn't so hard to swallow.

 

[USAFChief]

 

One thing I've learned by watching/following online last night, is don't tweet. Anything. Ever. No matter what you may say, someone will go to incredible lengths to find a tweet you sent 5 years ago saying something different. 

Posted by Vanimal46 on Yesterday, 06:41 AM in The Sports Bar
Today is National Voter Registration Day! I just got registered this morning.... And get out to vote for you feel is the least of two evils.

 

Seems you've changed your tune, friend.

[Badsmerf]

It's anyone else amazed that facts no longer matter to voters? I mean.... a dude gets up there and blatantly lies... and meh. I can't comprehend how millions of people vote for that. Please, somebody help me understand it.

[gunnarthor]

 

It's anyone else amazed that facts no longer matter to voters? I mean.... a dude gets up there and blatantly lies... and meh. I can't comprehend how millions of people vote for that. Please, somebody help me understand it.

Every politician lies.  Clinton has switched positions on tons of issues - if you support her, she evolved, if you don't, she's a poll driven candidate.  I think most people think politicians just say what the politician thinks will get him/her elected. 

 

Hell, I won't vote for him in a million years but I figured most of Trumps grand statements were just BS for his base.  I don't think he really means much of anything.

 

Does anyone really believe Clinton when she says she will go after Wall St?  I sure don't.  And as racist as Trump has been, Clinton's comments on race - a long history of coded race baiting - and immigrants have been ugly as well.  Before the GOP fell over itself on the Syrian refugees, Clinton's comments on the Latin American refugees were just as bad.  Now she says something different because that's what we want to hear.  Not because she's changed.

[Squirrel]

 

Every politician lies.  Clinton has switched positions on tons of issues - if you support her, she evolved, if you don't, she's a poll driven candidate.  I think most people think politicians just say what the politician thinks will get him/her elected. 

 

Hell, I won't vote for him in a million years but I figured most of Trumps grand statements were just BS for his base.  I don't think he really means much of anything.

 

Does anyone really believe Clinton when she says she will go after Wall St?  I sure don't.  And as racist as Trump has been, Clinton's comments on race - a long history of coded race baiting - and immigrants have been ugly as well.  Before the GOP fell over itself on the Syrian refugees, Clinton's comments on the Latin American refugees were just as bad.  Now she says something different because that's what we want to hear.  Not because she's changed.

And statements like this are as much a part of the problem as anything. Seriously, gunnar. It's obvious you have a deep-seeded dislike of Clinton to the point that you are not even objective. And it's so typical. Throw off Trump's blatant ugliness as BS while creating an image that Clinton is worse. You just have proven what smurf was saying.

[Badsmerf]

You can't say she's changed positions and that she doesn't change in the same paragraph. Either way, changing positions is not the same as lying. I could care less if a candidate changed positions in over 20 years in politics. In fact, it should be expected add we evolve as a society. I'm a big believer in the living constitution. Now lying, that is an entire different subject, and i don't believe the two are remotely similar.

[Shane Wahl]

 

Yeah she is, or she is pretty damn close to being one.

IMO Stein is a dingbat, just like Johnson.

The Green Party and lib party really shot themselves in the foot by putting up such poor candidates. They had a chance to actually get in the conversation for once and they blew it!

This is an actual lie.

[Shane Wahl]

 

Trump won that debate IMO. He plays the insider / outsider angle so well. Every time Clinton repeated some rehearsed talking point, which was often, Clinton just looked like more of a politician. That level of preparation and methodical, wordy speech just doesn't appeal to people these days, I suspect. Will be curious to see if the polls change in a few days.

 

After the first 20 minutes, Trump was incoherent about everything. I do not know how you could possibly interpret it this way.

[Craig Arko]

My problem with the third party candidates is that there hasn't really been a coherent foreign policy articulated by any of them. And I gotta say the Libertarian platform laid out on their site makes me cringe, in a zombie apocalypse sort of way.

 

Clinton is the only one with an understanding of the rest of the world, in my estimation. Of course being Secretary of State will give that.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Every politician lies. Clinton has switched positions on tons of issues - if you support her, she evolved, if you don't, she's a poll driven candidate. I think most people think politicians just say what the politician thinks will get him/her elected.

 

Hell, I won't vote for him in a million years but I figured most of Trumps grand statements were just BS for his base. I don't think he really means much of anything.

 

Does anyone really believe Clinton when she says she will go after Wall St? I sure don't. And as racist as Trump has been, Clinton's comments on race - a long history of coded race baiting - and immigrants have been ugly as well. Before the GOP fell over itself on the Syrian refugees, Clinton's comments on the Latin American refugees were just as bad. Now she says something different because that's what we want to hear. Not because she's changed.

I'm sorry but this is the type of horrible false equivalency that has led us to tied polls.

 

You just compared evolution and personal change to flat-out lying and flip-flopping position multiple times in the *same day*.

 

If you don't like Clinton, fine. But if you can't see the enormous gulf between these two candidates, you're not even trying to view this situation objectively.

[USAFChief]

There was a video up on CNN the day after the debate, looking for reactions from Trump supporters outside a rally in Florida.

 

The Trump supporters interviewed are literally beyond my comprehension.  They have to be willfully ignoring facts, or blindly ignorant beyond hope.

 

It's incredible, really.

[TheLeviathan]

 

There was a video up on CNN the day after the debate, looking for reactions from Trump supporters outside a rally in Florida.

 

The Trump supporters interviewed are literally beyond my comprehension.  They have to be willfully ignoring facts, or blindly ignorant beyond hope.

 

It's incredible, really.

 

Conservativism has become a huge, orange, dangerous caricature of itself and people feel like they have no choice but to stick with it even in this bastardized form.

 

Don't think liberalism isn't tipping towards the same thing.  There are those on the left trying desperately to keep their side from sliding into the abyss of "weaponized sensitivity" and oppressive attitudes about speech and the exchange of ideas.

 

We're in a brutal echo chamber right now.  

[Badsmerf]

I'm over the Johnson vote. He has no clue on foreign policy. He made another gaff recently, unable to identify a world leader he respects. Even after Chris Matthews gave him a chance to change to any leader. He has no clue. I could name a handful of leaders i respect, and i don't go out of my way to know any of them. We'll see where the race is in iowa, but Johnson is not a viable option.

[Brock Beauchamp]

I've spent the past several months reading up on various things about why we're seeing the Trump rise and it makes sense, though people are making bad choices in the process.

 

Disclaimer: what follows is intentionally ignoring racial issues that affect non-whites because that's not my point.

 

White America is pissed off. To an extent, they have a right to be pissed off. Wages have stayed flat for decades, there's little positive outlook, and the nation is changing. People are confused and scared. We're going on 40 years of politicians promising them the bad times of the 70s are behind us, yet nothing actually changes. Politicians juke and weave once in office and continue to support policy their constituency either doesn't like or doesn't understand (I believe an understated point missed by many analysts is the increasing complexity of the world without a corresponding increase in knowledge of the average voter). Trust in the system is non-existent within many circles of formerly establishment voters.

 

Inevitably, from a frightened voting bloc emerges a fear candidate. In a perfect world, people would knuckle down and seek real solutions during these times but that's rarely how things play out in the real world. These situations usually lead to mob mentality because it's so much ****ing easier to blame the outsider than your own bad life choices. So we get a nation of increasing hostility to everyone who isn't the traditional white voting bloc: black lives matter, Muslims, homosexuals, immigrants, etc. This isn't the first time it's happened in this country. It's not the fifth time it's happened in this country. Trump is directly pulling from the Nixon playbook with his hammering of "law and order", which was a direct response to a frightened white populace in a post race riots America. He's pulling from the late antebellum period and the intense northern hatred of Irish and blacks.

 

Lots of people compare Trump to various candidates but after doing quite a bit of reading, I was surprised to find I drew the most parallels to Andrew Jackson. The ill-informed bluster, the lashing out at east coast elites, the "might makes right" attitude, the intentional dumbing down of his campaign to win the lowest common denominator, claiming everyone is against him/the election was stolen, all of those were hallmarks of Jackson's run to the presidency.

[Craig Arko]

Heh, I doubt Mr. Trump would settle for a mere $20 bill.