|
Most likely it's just someone who wound up seated right below a crowd mic. Dunno if they have anyone do warmup before the show but they could easily find out if anyone with an obnoxious laugh needs to be moved before the show starts.
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2016 13:39
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 15:48 |
|
|
One of the universe's greater mysteries is how Frank Luntz has made it 54 years on this planet without having his skull caved in.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2016 07:54
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:And what he does is terrible but you can't deny he's really good at it, and the fact that he's willing to talk about it and explain how he does it is fascinating to me. That's the thing; he was good at it, but he's increasingly out of the loop as far as what drives the base. Hence his frustration with Trump going back to last year, who performs his job on a whole other level.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2016 09:02
|
|
|
The more interesting guest was the never Trump lady in the middle careening back and forth between her latest pundit niche and reflexively defending conservative orthodoxy.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 6, 2016 17:57
|
|
|
Zogo posted:OTOH, the Democrats keep talking from a position as if the Rs are the only ones that have hate. Liberals have hate too. The Ds are also playing the politics of fear. Do people really believe Trump will start lobbing nukes at people because he likes to insult people on twitter? It was overshadowed by the Khan pissing match story, but Morning Joe on Wednesday claimed a few months back Trump repeatedly asked one of his foreign policy advisers why we couldn't just use nukes since we have them. That's why it's a thing all of a sudden. quote:
The DNC had higher ratings overall except for Hillary's acceptance speech which had about 1.5 million fewer viewers than Trump's.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 7, 2016 05:54
|
|
|
Zogo posted:Do you think he'd start launching them? I'm kind of skeptical and it reeks of really hyperbolic politics of FEAR. I don't think it's a question worth seriously asking. If anything he'd pawn that duty off on Pence or whoever like everything else that isn't gladhanding and flying around to meetings and rallies.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2016 07:55
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:I would hope not but there's actually very little oversight in the use of nuclear weapons. The system is designed for rapid deployment because depending on the type of attack, the president might have between five and ten minutes to decide whether and how to retaliate. There aren't really any checks in place from the presidential decision. Someone else read Command And Control too.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2016 17:08
|
|
|
Bill's getting railroaded pretty bad by two separate BS artists. Guess the polls have spooked him something fierce.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2016 03:28
|
|
|
To be fair if you're looking for critical thought from either Ralph Reed or Bill Maher you're barking up the wrong tree.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2016 11:04
|
|
|
Yeah that exchange between him and Mel Brooks' kid was stupid. Who cares if he's not voting for Clinton; they should be happy he's not voting for Trump. Plus he's registered in California so it's not like it matters anyway. Also Neera Tanden's a piece of poo poo who's basically on the same side as Trump regarding how to pay for foreign wars.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 24, 2016 23:26
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:A lot of people in the Democratic establishment camp don't believe they have to earn people's votes. If they dislike Trump then they HAVE to vote for Clinton as that is the only realistic option that helps Trump not get into office. I don't think it's that so much as for some dumb reason they still think they need the votes of people they really shouldn't bother with persuading.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2016 16:54
|
|
|
Zogo posted:I'm anticipating Sean Penn giving a funeral dirge this Friday night and talking very dourly about the existential threat of a Trump presidency. if anything given the week so far he's probably gonna be overly giddy about trump's ongoing implosion or maybe he'll pull a michael moore and cry about how hillary totally lost and trump is invincible. who knows
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2016 16:38
|
|
|
IRQ posted:Bernie doing as well as he did should have taught them that being boring centrists was not what the base actually wants (because who else votes in primaries) but of course they've failed to take notice beyond some lip service to college debt. the last thing any elected democrat wants is to actually have to accomplish something
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2016 19:58
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:As I said, the establishment base is in a bubble at least as much as the more "fiery" portions if the American left. For months the more extreme segments of the pro-Hillary side presented the narrative of how important the House was, and how Sanders didn't care about to do so because of reasons. Now, it is looking like the Democrats may lose the Senate again and apparently now not just the House but the Senate was a lost cause to begin with. Remember in 2014 when those who aligned with the Democratic establishment stated that 2014 is pointless and we should focus on 2016 instead because it is an election year and should be a "shoe-in"? The blatant cheerleading behind the party is obnoxious. well it certainly hasn't helped downticket races that the clinton campaign decided to treat trump separate from the gop at large i get why they're doing it; thinking that they'll have to work with some of these people come january but they're being extremely naive in assuming that congressional republicans are gonna have any more flex with her than they did with obama
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2016 22:01
|
|
|
i wonder how much the islamic state would charge to kidnap and behead stephen moore
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2016 03:44
|
|
|
Zogo posted:Lost in all Trump/Clinton personal attacks and this goofy election is the refusal of the R leadership to approve a new justice. Just grinding things to a halt and acting like Obama didn't win the 2012 election. it's par for the course they've been holding up other federal judicial nominees for years
|
|
#
¿
Oct 15, 2016 15:18
|
|
|
Oh Snapple! posted:This is stupid as poo poo because in a primary the party (as in, the organization itself) should not be trying to influence voters to vote for one of their candidates over another. Their sole job was to facilitate the primary from a functionally administrative POV. That's it. That's where their involvement begins and ends - it doesn't extend to brainstorming up poo poo for one candidate to hit another with. That's scummy as poo poo and pretty much the definition of un-democratic - they're honestly pretty lucky that Hillary didn't even need the help, to the point that the favoritism likely accomplished next to nothing. But it was still there and folks should be pretty annoyed by it. To reiterate, Hillary is not the candidate because of any loving cheating - hell, if anything she was probably annoyed at what a collection of loving dunces decided they had to do. But folks in the DNC did try to play kingmaker and influence the result of their election, and that's super lovely. political parties are inherently anti-democratic organizations the primary process is designed to reward the candidates with the most pull within the party and presumably ability to further the party's interest bernie, while he caucuses with dems in the senate (because what the hell else is he gonna do), isn't part of the party structure and isn't at least from the party's viewpoint the candidate who would best promote their interests. and he really wouldn't because the democratic party is not a leftist organization which isn't to say that sanders couldn't have done what obama did ahead of 08 and build a coalition within the party to beat clinton. but he didn't, and so he's not the candidate punk rebel ecks posted:At the end of the day FPTP is a humongous failure. The United States is FAR too large of a country for only two major political parties. People against it have always pointed out that it would lead to a "wild west" in politics where more extreme groups will have more marketing (i.e. the Nazi Party of the United States) thus spread their hateful ideology. What I kept pointing out is that it is likely that a more extreme candidate could get into power by infiltrating one of the main political parties, winning the primary, and automatically be a humongous threat. Donald Trump has proven this. it's the other way around. the party system is designed to keep out the extreme candidates and favors the ones who support the status quo of course that's provided the party itself isn't falling apart, which is why trump is the candidate and not jeb! or little marco Alec Bald Snatch fucked around with this message at 21:06 on Oct 16, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2016 20:59
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:This may be the intention, but it clearly hasn't worked. Even taking out a Trump, the Republican party has been getting more and more radical over the past few election cycles. well yeah like i said it works if the party isn't collapsing
|
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2016 07:07
|
|
|
SeANMcBAY posted:the way most of the GOP has reacted to him. by the way that's the thing to worry about, not trump
|
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2016 04:58
|
|
|
the primary reason why trump shouldn't be president is because he'll put mike pence in charge of everything that matters and that rear end in a top hat is a true believer
|
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2016 08:08
|
|
|
EugeneJ posted:I can't get past the Correct the Record bullshit, because Hillary winning means every political campaign is going see it as a success and start buying posts online. That's horrifying to me as it's already ruined most of this forum and other parts of the internet. Orwell would be proud of David Brock. romney had a whole sockpuppet army who disappeared around 7:30pm the night of the election when the campaign cut off all their credit cards it's nothing new
|
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2016 18:42
|
|
|
Bass Bottles posted:Going after working class whites is not the winning strategy for the presidential election, but it is for the midterms. nah they just need to get their presidential year coalition to turn out in higher numbers during midterms
|
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2016 21:26
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 15:48 |
|
|
Oh Snapple! posted:Hillary won because she spent decades building a network of surrogates to tell Democratic primary voters how good she is. She was helped and Bernie was hindered by other things (such as registration deadlines well before the primary was actually held in some places), but those aren't the core reasons. yep she won doing literally the same thing obama did to beat her in 08 which led to a lot of laughs from clinton partisans at the time about the system being rigged because they got out-hustled e: on the other hand the fact that sanders did as well as he did with frankly a bush league operation should be cause for concern among the party muckety-mucks Alec Bald Snatch fucked around with this message at 22:28 on Nov 7, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2016 22:26
|
|