|
Man, one lousy CNN poll and the entire thread goes to hell.
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 01:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 08:20 |
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:That's essentially my contention. Well, cool. I suppose there's not much to do to change that, though. No bad blood.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 01:39
|
|
|
That's something zen poo poo right there, if you say a racism but no one is around to hear it, does it really matter?
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 01:39
|
|
|
Eugene V. Dabs posted:Well, cool. I suppose there's not much to do to change that, though. No bad blood.  Yeah, we're cool.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 01:41
|
|
|
emdash posted:also, the person whose favorability is higher usually wins the election. doesn't matter if it's 25% or 75%. So until someone clues us all in on the real point of talking about her favorability, I'm just gonna have to assume it's sour grapes about Sanders or a total lack of understanding of how US pres elections work
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 01:41
|
|
|
According to Sopan Deb, Trumps gone off-script again in North Carolina. Pretttty much implied that Hillary was going to straight-up murder the guy who set up her server. "Where is he? Is he still alive?" Fact Check: He's still alive. Also, he's twice used "Your moment of liberation is at hand!", so I assume you've been occupied by a foreign power the last 8 years and it never made the news here. The transcript reads like a thesaurus is vomiting repeatedly on itself.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 01:41
|
|
|
straight up brolic posted:If you think that the only thing that matters in a presidential election is who wins, sure it doesn't matter what else matters, at this point? please enlighten us. I feel like this is what people have been trying to get you to reveal for hours
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 01:42
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:Man, one lousy CNN poll and the entire thread goes to hell. But didn't you know that Hillary is a bad candidate? Here, let me explain every conspiracy theory ever involving Hillary Clinton until you accept that she is lovely and decide to vote for Jill Stein. Vincent Walker Foster Jr. was born January 15, 1945, not knowing what fate would befall him 48 years later at the hands of a future friend who had been born and raised in the home of the Daley machine, Chicago, Illinois...
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 01:43
|
|
|
Eugene V. Dabs posted:Are people just now discovering that Clinton wasn't a great candidate? Why freak out months after this was obvious? Bernie trolls come into thread howling nonsense. Another Bernie troll comes in and asks why we're just now freaking out!
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 01:44
|
|
|
emdash posted:what else matters, at this point? please enlighten us. I feel like this is what people have been trying to get you to reveal for hours It'll probably be inconsequential but I and many others would prefer a hypothetical candidate that people like and reflects better on the health of our democracy
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 01:48
|
|
|
straight up brolic posted:Idk legitimacy, mandate, getting things done, actually being a candidate that people support? Plato's Candidate
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 01:49
|
|
|
straight up brolic posted:Idk legitimacy, mandate, getting things done, actually being a candidate that people support? There is 0% chance of this with any dem president at this point. All of GOP congress and 40-45% of the country are automatically dead set against them. Also if people liked another candidate more maybe they would have won the primary 
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 01:49
|
|
|
RaySmuckles posted:The only thing that matters in this paragraph is that she "disavowed it completely." "She only said it once" is not any sort of excuse, lol if you think she didn't read the speech before hand/edit it/approve it, and the idea that the audience is of any significant importance is laughable. Politicians rarely read their minor speeches beforehand, and almost never edit or approve them. It's rare you get more than a cursory read unless it's a major speech. A random campaign stop? Not a chance in hell. Her chief of staff and comms director might have edited and signed off (that's Maggie Williams and Lisa Caputo). Bill's staff might have. Clinton almost certainly wouldn't have. But as we have repeatedly established before, you know loving nothing about politics.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 01:51
|
|
|
emdash posted:Also if people liked another candidate more maybe they would have won the primary I'm not a hardcore Sanders person, I am just deeply unsatisfied with this entire election cycle (like many other voters). It's not all the press and GOP's fault.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 01:52
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:Man, one lousy CNN poll and the entire thread goes to hell. It was foretold.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 01:54
|
|
|
InnercityGriot posted:Jesus, I'm voting for Hillary this election, but why is it so hard for people to acknowledge she might not be a great candidate? She voted to give a chimpish moron the tools to start the loving Iraq war, which rightfully should be a pretty big shitstain on her career. The only meaningful criticisms of Hillary you can put forward come from the left: her foreign policy is deeply questionable and hawkish, her immigration positions are historically weak, and her relationship with Wall Street is questionable. None of these criticisms are going to work out well for the Republican Party to use because they think all these things are good. The rest of the criticisms of Hillary by and large boil down to "I don't like the mean old Democrat who isn't as fun as the racist cheeto who validates my bad opinions" or "powerful women scare me." These criticisms of Hillary are bullshit but impactful, as we can see with Hillary's favorability ratings. That said, while Hillary isn't a perfect candidate, nor a great candidate, saying she's a bad candidate is wrong because she's still winning, and much of the reason that the race is tightening boils down to the stupidity of the electorate and the overriding desire of the media to make money off the horse race narrative. Hillary isn't a bad candidate, she's a mediocre candidate. Immensely qualified and smart, with some questionable stances but largely a coherent ideological base that will be positive overall, with the perception of being bad by fools and a lack of campaigning chops that aren't necessary to do the actual job she's running for.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 01:54
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/SopanDeb/status/773323655136686081 Methinks the most capricious zephyr hath more design than I, the GOP candidate for president
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 01:58
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:The only meaningful criticisms of Hillary you can put forward come from the left: her foreign policy is deeply questionable and hawkish, her immigration positions are historically weak, and her relationship with Wall Street is questionable. None of these criticisms are going to work out well for the Republican Party to use because they think all these things are good.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 01:58
|
|
|
all poo poo that's been trampled into the mud in the last 239587238947 USpol threads, too . . .
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 02:00
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:That said, while Hillary isn't a perfect candidate, nor a great candidate, saying she's a bad candidate is wrong because she's still winning, and much of the reason that the race is tightening boils down to the stupidity of the electorate and the overriding desire of the media to make money off the horse race narrative. Hillary isn't a bad candidate, she's a mediocre candidate. Immensely qualified and smart, with some questionable stances but largely a coherent ideological base that will be positive overall, with the perception of being bad by fools and a lack of campaigning chops that aren't necessary to do the actual job she's running for. Again, if she's a mediocre candidate then all but 2 Dem candidates in the last 50 years have been absolutely dire.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 02:00
|
|
|
Lo, I have been granted a vision. The first debate shall come, and we shall be free of Arzying for 666 days.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 02:01
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/kenrudin/status/773311993730113536?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw So are any outlets offering context to what "lacks a presidential look" means and how it is not equivalent to "Trump won't release his taxes"?
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 02:02
|
|
|
Petr posted:Bernie trolls come into thread howling nonsense.  if you think I'm a Bernie troll.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 02:02
|
|
|
zoux posted:So are any outlets offering context to what "lacks a presidential look" means I think that's what Sheena Easton was singing about back in the day.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 02:03
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/WardDPatrick/status/773320379888758784 hopefully, at some point, the media realizes Trump has actually treated them dramatically worse than Clinton has
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 02:05
|
|
|
straight up brolic posted:There are a handful of other positions and their implications with regards to her judgement that I would have included, but this is pretty spot on. Good post I'm phone posting.  I think Hillary is immensely qualified and will be a good President. There are a fair number of policies of hers I think are iffy or don't go far enough. I actually really like her as a public speaker but I understand why a lot of people don't. I think she's a fair campaigner, and that her campaign skills are unfairly judged because she's a woman. Most of us would like her more as a public speaker if her delivery was identical but she was a man, for example. She wouldn't be shaking the world, but she would be acceptable. I'm not saying people here are secret misogynist jerks, I'm just observing. I feel it's valuable to remember that Hillary is a competent but boring campaigner. That campaigning isn't a skill relevant to actually being President. See: Obama. And that she doesn't get a fair shake because the media hates her and because she's a woman, and that's not fair, but it's what we have to work with. Thus, all told, I think she's a mediocre candidate, who will be a good president. computer parts posted:Again, if she's a mediocre candidate then all but 2 Dem candidates in the last 50 years have been absolutely dire. I agree. The point I'm failing to make on the phone is that she should be considered a pretty good candidate. But she's Hillary Clinton, a woman and a Clinton, so she gets shafted by original sin by the media and electorate. It's not fair, but it's what she's stuck with. That she's going to still win is a testament to the respect she doesn't get as a pretty decent campaigner.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 02:07
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Politicians rarely read their minor speeches beforehand, and almost never edit or approve them. It's rare you get more than a cursory read unless it's a major speech. A random campaign stop? Not a chance in hell. Politicians are literally Ron Burgundy and this is supposed to be a point in her defense? lol
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 02:07
|
|
|
In the primaries I actually thought she was a substantially better debater and more knowledgeable than Bernie which led me to vote for her.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 02:09
|
|
|
sorry if this was mentioned already but Obama nominated Abid Qureshi, a Muslim, to DC district court. Would be the first Muslim federal judge http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/obama-muslim-federal-judge_us_57cf2cfbe4b03d2d45970d3a
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 02:10
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/773314880489349120 C'mon Nate, you couldn't have come up with three more letters?
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 02:12
|
|
|
emdash posted:https://twitter.com/WardDPatrick/status/773320379888758784 there's literally nothing she could do
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 02:13
|
|
|
straight up brolic posted:In the primaries I actually thought she was a substantially better debater and more knowledgeable than Bernie which led me to vote for her. I didnt pay a lot of attention to the primary in all honesty. I thought Bernie was actually kind of laughable running as a "socialist" and that he had no chance in the general, but I liked him and didn't really care for Clinton. I also knew full well that she would win and would do better in the general, and treated my vote for Bernie more as a protest vote/demonstration to the party tha leftists can work with and support the party if it moves more left than it has been.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 02:13
|
|
|
Nate is a total bitch.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 02:15
|
|
|
rscott posted:Politicians are literally Ron Burgundy and this is supposed to be a point in her defense? lol Next you'll be shocked that politicians literally never write their own legislation.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 02:16
|
|
|
On one side you have a candidate who is openly declaring that he will redo libel laws so as to be able to sue and jail dissenting journalists. That candidate has also praised a Russian dictator for murdering journalists. On the other side you have a candidate not giving as many press conferences as the press might want. Which is worse? Who knows! We report you decide!
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 02:18
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:Nate is a total bitch. Nate got shook so bad by the primaries he's just been flailing
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 02:22
|
|
|
Trump declaring 'YOUR HOUR OF LIBERATION IS AT HAND!' sounds a lot like by the end of this election he'll be revealing his evil mecha and posing melodramatically.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 02:24
|
|
|
lol Nate will gladly use an Alabama poll to color his judgement on the state of the race in Delaware, but is ignoring a poll that came out today with state data
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 02:24
|
|
|
It's pretty unconscionable that the press has utterly dropped the Trump birther poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 02:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 08:20 |
|
|
zoux posted:It's pretty unconscionable that the press has utterly dropped the Trump birther poo poo. or that he openly bragged about buying politicians but I guess that's OK now unless your name ends with Clinton?
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 02:25
|
|
