-->
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
June 23, 2021, 09:05:29 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
News: Endless Summer Quarterly
Home Help Search Calendar Login Register
+  The Smiley Smile Message Board
|-+  Non Smiley Smile Stuff
| |-+  The Sandbox
| | |-+  Campaign 2016
Pages: 1 ... 59 60 61 62 63 [64] 65 66 67 68 69 ... 81   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: Campaign 2016  (Read 331401 times)
0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #1575 on: October 27, 2016, 07:50:54 PM »

Wait...what was wrong with Bernie's rallies?
I felt like his campaign got too personality-cult-ish.
« Last Edit: October 27, 2016, 07:51:24 PM by Emily » Logged
♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇
The Dr. of Wilsonomics
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 11536


🍦🍦 fear2stop.bandcamp.com ☮☮


View Profile WWW
« Reply #1576 on: October 27, 2016, 08:01:51 PM »

Really?

Meh...we'll agree to disagree there.
Logged

“Look, you’ve got it all wrong. You don’t need to follow me. You don’t need to follow anybody. You’ve got to think for yourselves. You’re all individuals.”
Crowd: “Yes, we’re all individuals!”
Individual: “I’m not!”

——————————————————————————
https://soundcloud.app.goo.gl/C6fnbHnbhVmg8Tgj6
SurfRiderHawaii
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2470


Add Some Music to your day!


View Profile
« Reply #1577 on: October 27, 2016, 10:18:09 PM »

Really?

Meh...we'll agree to disagree there.

Billy, thank you for the sincere soul searching on your vote. I wish every American put in the same earnest thought into voting! Bravo to the Captain too!

The latest polls have Trump back up in Florida. Very scary! My mind boggles at the short term memory problem of some voters. If Trump Univerity had been a Clinton fiasco, you'd never hearthe end of it.
Logged

"Brian is The Beach Boys. He is the band. We're his f***ing messengers. He is all of it. Period. We're nothing. He's everything" - Dennis Wilson
♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇
The Dr. of Wilsonomics
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 11536


🍦🍦 fear2stop.bandcamp.com ☮☮


View Profile WWW
« Reply #1578 on: October 27, 2016, 10:51:55 PM »

Off topic, but I got to say this...ORR, I'm listening to Good Vibrations right now, and I swear the cat in your avatar is RIGHT on the beat. LOL
Logged

“Look, you’ve got it all wrong. You don’t need to follow me. You don’t need to follow anybody. You’ve got to think for yourselves. You’re all individuals.”
Crowd: “Yes, we’re all individuals!”
Individual: “I’m not!”

——————————————————————————
https://soundcloud.app.goo.gl/C6fnbHnbhVmg8Tgj6
SurfRiderHawaii
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2470


Add Some Music to your day!


View Profile
« Reply #1579 on: October 27, 2016, 11:35:15 PM »

Off topic, but I got to say this...ORR, I'm listening to Good Vibrations right now, and I swear the cat in your avatar is RIGHT on the beat. LOL
LOL
Logged

"Brian is The Beach Boys. He is the band. We're his f***ing messengers. He is all of it. Period. We're nothing. He's everything" - Dennis Wilson
SinisterSmile
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 105


View Profile
« Reply #1580 on: October 28, 2016, 01:39:50 AM »

SinisterSmile, I think we're talking passed each other here to some extent. I'm arguing why Trump should not be president, why he isn't showing any knowledge or plan for the job (or even comprehension of how the government or world works), while you're arguing how he has become popular and could win. Those aren't the same thing. I'm not denying it's possible he could be elected, or that he's drawing big crowds. I'm arguing that he hasn't ever said or done anything of substance that shows he has the ability to be a good president. (That doesn't mean it's impossible that he could be, but you could argue the same about a few hundred million other people.)

Generally I would think people choose a candidate based on him or her best aligning with one's own values or principles. Trump has shown quite literally none, other than an inability to take any criticism without lashing out in a juvenile way. His inconsistent positions aren't because he's new to politics--which he's not, he's been dabbling in it for decades and seriously considered runs in the past...he's had time to bone up--it's because he has no positions. It's so obvious. These aren't misstatements, they're often contradictions that show no core beliefs or knowledge on the subjects at hand. Recommending violations of international law, defaulting on national debt, infringing on other countries' sovereignty, supporting or not supporting this or that, etc., these aren't "oh, I got that wrong because I've only been a politician for 18 months." It shows a total disinterest in truth or policy.

But again, I totally concede that he has drawn a lot of attention and built up a cult of personality style of follower. Some politicians do that. I despise that kind of politics and think it's inherently dangerous in addition to being just kind of stupid. (Voting based on charisma is ludicrous. It's like buying based on advertisements. ("Shiny off-road trucks and models' cleavage! I need this beer!"))

Let me know if I'm misinterpreting, but I think that's our issue. Talking about two different things.



At it's core, the point that I'm trying to get across is that you and many others underestimate him by a huge margin, and that's allowed him to get where he is. He's ran his campaign using a drunken master-like technique, you might think that he's just a buffoon that's stumbling around, but all of his moves are calculated. You say that he can't handle criticism, but the reality is that he doesn't tolerate attacks. He deliberately baits the media and his political opponents into picking a fight that they can't win, and he's used that technique to get where he is right now. There are almost too many examples to name, but I can make a list of the best ones sometime.

Again, it's not luck that or money that got him where he is. Remember he made Jeb Bush, with all the money behind him drop out early into the race. He is a master tactician. You can say that he's got no positions, but they're on his website, they're all cemented now.  He has dabbled in politics a little, but he's only been a politician for a very short amount of time. In 2000 he knew to pull out because it wasn't the right time, he knows when to put up a fight.

What's your criteria for a good president? He's shown he can managed a crisis, he's been hit with scandals that would knock out regular candidates. He's shown that he can generate massive enthusiasm in the public by having the highest voter turnout in the history of the Republican party. He's shown that he can adapt to his environment, he defeated 16 other politicians as a man with no real experience in politics or debating. What would he have to do to be a good president in your eyes? The way I see it, this race is basically The Tortoise And The Hare. If the host of The Celebrity Apprentice can convince the American public that he's a better choice than a politician of 30 years, then he's absolutely deserves to be president.
Logged
SinisterSmile
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 105


View Profile
« Reply #1581 on: October 28, 2016, 02:36:13 AM »

Quote from: Emily
He's been a grown up for 50 years and dabbling in politics, as the captain says, for 40. That he's changing his positions repeatedly over the course of 18 months, sometimes within the span of hours, is not a matter of strategy. It's a matter of making mistakes, not thinking things through, of saying what gets the best crowd reaction at the moment. It's also part of why his support doesn't leave 42%. The difference between his lack of coherent positions and Clinton's changing positions over the course of 30 years is not "only" that she can mask something. She has actually had coherent positions for years, though some have changed. He has not. Whatever one thinks about Clinton's changing positions, it's not due to ignorance.

You are also assuming too much if you think he has been doing his testing and cementing. Basically he was flapping in the wind until he brought Bannon on. Since then, if you see a conspiracy theory on Breitbart, infowars, freerepublic, etc -  a week later, Trump is trumpeting it. He's following the alt-right internet, not the other way around.

I think you assume too little of him. He's been reframing this election from the very get go and everyone else has had to play catch up. He's baited the media from the very beginning with ambiguous statements and during the primary he could control the news cycle with just a few tweets. The past couple of months he's toned it down his twitter attacks and over the top personality. He knows what he's doing and it's working so far. Now if you want to talk conspiracy, the Clinton campaign declared war on a cartoon frog and simultaneously blames Russia for everything going wrong. Trump's knows when to pick a battle, I can't say the same for Hillary's campaign.

Quote from: Emily
Do you have evidence for this? A video or something? Because I've been seeing him on TV in the NY media market since I was a kid and he's always spoken like an idiot.

It's like the captain said, he knows how to read from a teleprompter but it sounds like every other politician. Whenever he ad libs, people go nuts. He can tone it down and act 'presidential', but why would he when he's framing the election as the everyman vs a corrupt political system?

Quote from: Emily
He didn't generate his wealth.
Yes, it was luck when he defeated 16 other candidates in the primary. The right has been eating itself for the last decade. They set themselves up for it in the 70s and 80s. Until the 60s, African Americans were pretty evenly split between Republicans and Democrats. White southerners were split, but there were more Democrats. White northerners were split, but there were more Republicans. With the civil rights acts of the '50s and '60s, and the voting rights act, the votes went pretty cleanly along regional lines - northern representatives voted for, southern voted against. But the presidential candidates split along party lines: Nixon refused to help M.L.K. in Birmingham, Kennedy reached out. Johnson (and Rockefeller) supported the civil rights acts and Goldwater was against. Consequently, African Americans started moving toward party independence or Democratic registration. White southern Democrats started shifting to the Republican party. Nixon and, more strongly, Reagan, saw this as an opportunity to grow the Republican base, and pursued a "southern strategy" of racial dog-whistles and raising religious social issues to the fore in campaigning. Thus, social conservative and rural white people, particularly in the south, started voting Republican despite the fact that the Republican establishment supported policies that were economically damaging for much of that population. Over the next few decades, the Republican establishment more and more shamelessly went along with a growing nativist movement in their party, allowing the "base" to be attracted by what are now alt-right positions, while the establishment voted for more traditional conservative positions. The election of Obama and the success of the Conservative Coalition's construction of the Tea Party made a ripe situation for a Republican showdown.
Trump, in the meantime, has been dancing around running for president for over a decade. He did run before, but nobody remembers it because no one cared. They cared this year not because he's talented, but because the base wants to overthrow the establishment and he was the guy available. It could have been almost anyone, but he has the luck of already having money and fame, so he could pretty much just step in. Other people have to get party support to get a platform. He already had a platform. It wasn't strategic planning on his part. It was luck.

Sounds like you could make a case that he has excellent timing.

Quote from: Emily
Paris Hilton doesn't fit the exact bill the alt-right wants. First, she's female. The alt-right is a men's movement, for the most part. Second, Trump and his sons, particularly the eldest, have been in contact with the alt-right before this election. The relationship really took off with Trump's birther sh*t. He was perfect for an existing movement, he had money, he had fame.

I don't suppose the snuggle person wants to be famous. If you consider fame a sign of genius, that brings me back to Paris Hilton. Do you believe she's a genius?

You haven't addressed why he has been unable to expand his base beyond the 42%.

Quote from: Emily
Why have his powers completely failed him beyond the existing movement he stepped into?

I don't consider fame alone to be a sign of genius. If Paris Hilton, with no experience as a politician, convinced millions of that she was the right person for the most powerful job in the world, don't you think she would be a genius? If Trump becomes President, will you chalk it up to luck?

As for the 42% support, I'm sure it's more than that. Trump created a support base that is super energised, immune from media attacks and itching to take down the establishment. Couple that with the Trump supporters that keep it a secret because they don't want to be called Nazis, sexist, racist, xenophobic, you name it. All that matters is the vote. I think he'll win but if he doesn't, it's going to be much closer than the media has let on.

Quote from: Emily
I got a similar vibe from Sanders' rallies. Not quite the same, because the prevalent mood wasn't anger and revenge. But demagoguery isn't cool, left or right.
Trump is more comparable to Mussolini than Hitler, but it doesn't make sense to dismiss a comparison simply because other people have made inapt comparisons to the object before. That doesn't render the object incomparable.
The comparison is only there because people look for that connection, just as it's come up during the past 2 elections. It's an easy pill to swallow because vague WWII connection = super duper evil Hitler bad stuff
« Last Edit: October 28, 2016, 02:37:16 AM by SinisterSmile » Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #1582 on: October 28, 2016, 03:48:32 AM »

I think you've been watching this campaign through a narrow lens and you aren't noticing a lot of reactions to him outside your line of vision.
Many of the things you consider to be successes have been, broadly speaking, failures. They've only been successes among the people he doesn't need more successes with.
I think you've got a theory and you're massaging evidence to fit your theory. I'm sure not consciously. I have absolute faith that you're a true believer. But energetic assertion doesn't make things true.
For example, there is statistical evidence that supports my assertion that he was not successful in the debates. Your evidence is that you believe he was.
If he wins and the polls are still saying he'd lose, that would be good evidence, but if he loses will you accept that evidence? Or will you say it was 'rigged' and the majority voted for him?

Your opinions of Clinton are also based on Breitbart-ish gossip. Are you aware that the media <> her campaign? I don't recall her campaign sayijng anything about the frog. And they certainly don't blame Russia for "everything going wrong". Though Trump IS blaming 'rigging' for everything going wrong for him.
Before the second debate, his advisors, the media, other Republicans, were all saying it would be a mistake for him to attack B Clinton on alleged sexual assault because a) it's been tested repeatedly and it doesn't work against H Clinton and b) it would open the door for the media to talk about Trump's own record on that matter. Everyone knew it and he walked right into it.
Now, you probably believe that it worked for him, because the right Internet doesn't believe in statistics and they believe that they, exclusively, are "the people".
But it really did not turn out well for him. If he knew how to listen to experts and learn, he wouldn't have done that and he'd be in much better shape now. But what Clinton proved is that this whole "punch back harder" credo of Trump's is a dangerous and stupid one. It means that if someone, in this case her, tweaks him about something, in this case the former Miss Universe, he will be so focused on taking revenge for his wound that he won't notice the potential negative repercussions of his revenge outside of his target.
This is one, among many, reasons why he would be a terrible president. Wound his ego, he starts throwing wild punches that can cause untold damage.
 He's a classic bully.  And they very often do very well among a subset of the population, but they don't often do so well generally.


Eta: Hitler - read what you have written about Trump. It reads as if you yourself are building a comparison to Hitler. I still think his style is more Mussolini, but you may be convincing me that Hitler is more apt.
« Last Edit: October 28, 2016, 03:51:38 AM by Emily » Logged
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #1583 on: October 28, 2016, 04:45:18 AM »

SinisterSmile, I think we're talking passed each other here to some extent. I'm arguing why Trump should not be president, why he isn't showing any knowledge or plan for the job (or even comprehension of how the government or world works), while you're arguing how he has become popular and could win. Those aren't the same thing. I'm not denying it's possible he could be elected, or that he's drawing big crowds. I'm arguing that he hasn't ever said or done anything of substance that shows he has the ability to be a good president. (That doesn't mean it's impossible that he could be, but you could argue the same about a few hundred million other people.)

Generally I would think people choose a candidate based on him or her best aligning with one's own values or principles. Trump has shown quite literally none, other than an inability to take any criticism without lashing out in a juvenile way. His inconsistent positions aren't because he's new to politics--which he's not, he's been dabbling in it for decades and seriously considered runs in the past...he's had time to bone up--it's because he has no positions. It's so obvious. These aren't misstatements, they're often contradictions that show no core beliefs or knowledge on the subjects at hand. Recommending violations of international law, defaulting on national debt, infringing on other countries' sovereignty, supporting or not supporting this or that, etc., these aren't "oh, I got that wrong because I've only been a politician for 18 months." It shows a total disinterest in truth or policy.

But again, I totally concede that he has drawn a lot of attention and built up a cult of personality style of follower. Some politicians do that. I despise that kind of politics and think it's inherently dangerous in addition to being just kind of stupid. (Voting based on charisma is ludicrous. It's like buying based on advertisements. ("Shiny off-road trucks and models' cleavage! I need this beer!"))

Let me know if I'm misinterpreting, but I think that's our issue. Talking about two different things.



At it's core, the point that I'm trying to get across is that you and many others underestimate him by a huge margin, and that's allowed him to get where he is. He's ran his campaign using a drunken master-like technique, you might think that he's just a buffoon that's stumbling around, but all of his moves are calculated. You say that he can't handle criticism, but the reality is that he doesn't tolerate attacks. He deliberately baits the media and his political opponents into picking a fight that they can't win, and he's used that technique to get where he is right now. There are almost too many examples to name, but I can make a list of the best ones sometime.

Again, it's not luck that or money that got him where he is. Remember he made Jeb Bush, with all the money behind him drop out early into the race. He is a master tactician. You can say that he's got no positions, but they're on his website, they're all cemented now.  He has dabbled in politics a little, but he's only been a politician for a very short amount of time. In 2000 he knew to pull out because it wasn't the right time, he knows when to put up a fight.

What's your criteria for a good president? He's shown he can managed a crisis, he's been hit with scandals that would knock out regular candidates. He's shown that he can generate massive enthusiasm in the public by having the highest voter turnout in the history of the Republican party. He's shown that he can adapt to his environment, he defeated 16 other politicians as a man with no real experience in politics or debating. What would he have to do to be a good president in your eyes? The way I see it, this race is basically The Tortoise And The Hare. If the host of The Celebrity Apprentice can convince the American public that he's a better choice than a politician of 30 years, then he's absolutely deserves to be president.

Emily seems to be addressing a lot of this better than I could, but I'll just address a few other things:

1. I'm not underestimating him in terms of ability to win. As I've said, he has become very popular, and I grant that. Therefore he could win. So no underestimation there.

2. No positions. Yes, they're on his website, but he contradicts them all the time. All along, he's been saying things all over the map, including in direct opposition to what's on his website. My point is, I have no reason to believe he knows his positions, or if he does, that they are actually his positions. Which ones are the real ones? Website? Spoken? Which time? He has been sufficiently all over the map that a huge number of people can find their own positions in there and believe that he shares their positions--but only because they make that choice of faith.

3. What makes a good president. Some sort of understanding of government and the world would be an obvious requirement for me, and he either lacks that, or (if I am being charitable) pretends to lack it. Respect for the constitution and the laws. A moral / ethical core that shows respect for all people. A charitable attitude toward the weak and poor. Pragmatism and a spirit of compromise over ideological purity. Aversion to military conflict, but without losing sufficient military power that we could show strength and win necessary wars. Ability to communicate complex and often terrible ideas (because most decisions of a president seem to be between two or more terrible options) in an understandable way, and ideally complete sentences. Honesty and integrity. Ability to operate in a complicated world with diverse and competing interests. Those are some things off the top of my head. But generally speaking, I think presidents get too much credit or blame for things, and I think the media and population are pretty stupid about how they think about things.
Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
SinisterSmile
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 105


View Profile
« Reply #1584 on: October 28, 2016, 05:06:05 AM »

Quote from: Emily
I think you've been watching this campaign through a narrow lens and you aren't noticing a lot of reactions to him outside your line of vision.
Many of the things you consider to be successes have been, broadly speaking, failures. They've only been successes among the people he doesn't need more successes with.

I've taken a lot of things into consideration. Brexit, the energy difference between supporters, the relentless media attacks on Trump, Wikileaks circling above, online polls and lots of little things. Like The Tortoise And The Hare, on paper the hare should've statistically won, but that wasn't a straightforward race and neither is this.

Quote from: Emily
I think you've got a theory and you're massaging evidence to fit your theory. I'm sure not consciously. I have absolute faith that you're a true believer. But energetic assertion doesn't make things true.
For example, there is statistical evidence that supports my assertion that he was not successful in the debates. Your evidence is that you believe he was.
If he wins and the polls are still saying he'd lose, that would be good evidence, but if he loses will you accept that evidence? Or will you say it was 'rigged' and the majority voted for him?

I'm a true believer that luck has nothing to do with Trump's success in this race, and that he is leagues more persuasive than Clinton. If you'd like to post the stats we can go through it, but I'm sure I can find evidence that'll back up my viewpoint. I'll accept the result if it's fair and square, keep in mind Trump isn't the first person to bring up the possibility it's rigged (https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/791022438486343680). Now my question to you, if Trump wins, will you accept the result? Or will you say that Russia influenced the outcome?

Quote from: Emily
Your opinions of Clinton are also based on Breitbart-ish gossip. Are you aware that the media <> her campaign? I don't recall her campaign sayijng anything about the frog. And they certainly don't blame Russia for "everything going wrong". Though Trump IS blaming 'rigging' for everything going wrong for him.
Before the second debate, his advisors, the media, other Republicans, were all saying it would be a mistake for him to attack B Clinton on alleged sexual assault because a) it's been tested repeatedly and it doesn't work against H Clinton and b) it would open the door for the media to talk about Trump's own record on that matter. Everyone knew it and he walked right into it.

If you'll allow Wikileaks to be bought into the fold, there are very clear cases of her campaign colluding with the media. If you think the Wikileaks aren't worthwhile, we have coincidences like this happening at CNN: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDyOhcKpn74.
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/feed/donald-trump-pepe-the-frog-and-white-supremacists-an-explainer/
Here's her campaign talking about the frog. Now I'll give her credit because this was released after she collapsed on 9/11 and this was so ridiculous that it took away a lot of attention from the collapsing video and the deplorable comment.
In regards to Bill Clinton, it was the best move he could do. The access hollywood tapes came out, and it was a counterpunch he needed. The media was going for blood, Trump released an apology and in the apology he mentions Bill Clinton's alleged rape victims, it did a good job of muddying the waters. Do you think any other politician could survive a tape like that?


Quote from: Emily
Now, you probably believe that it worked for him, because the right Internet doesn't believe in statistics and they believe that they, exclusively, are "the people".
But it really did not turn out well for him. If he knew how to listen to experts and learn, he wouldn't have done that and he'd be in much better shape now. But what Clinton proved is that this whole "punch back harder" credo of Trump's is a dangerous and stupid one. It means that if someone, in this case her, tweaks him about something, in this case the former Miss Universe, he will be so focused on taking revenge for his wound that he won't notice the potential negative repercussions of his revenge outside of his target.
This is one, among many, reasons why he would be a terrible president. Wound his ego, he starts throwing wild punches that can cause untold damage.
He's a classic bully.  And they very often do very well among a subset of the population, but they don't often do so well generally.

Wait, why's he a bully?

Quote from: Emily
Eta: Hitler - read what you have written about Trump. It reads as if you yourself are building a comparison to Hitler. I still think his style is more Mussolini, but you may be convincing me that Hitler is more apt.
I can see how you might think his style is literally Hitler because I've been using a lot of dark language, but trust me he's not.

This is a good video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pADHLsECWxY
Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #1585 on: October 28, 2016, 05:34:32 AM »

I typed a response which failed to post because of a tunnel. Now at work. Perhaps in a few hrs.
Logged
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #1586 on: October 28, 2016, 11:23:13 AM »

FBI reopening Clinton email case based off emails newly uncovered via unrelated investigation.
Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
SurfRiderHawaii
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2470


Add Some Music to your day!


View Profile
« Reply #1587 on: October 28, 2016, 11:50:57 AM »

FBI reopening Clinton email case based off emails newly uncovered via unrelated investigation.

Of course, no details. Republican FBI Director writes Republican Congressmen that they are reviewing new emails. Now, right before the election. Smells like 6 day old bass.
Logged

"Brian is The Beach Boys. He is the band. We're his f***ing messengers. He is all of it. Period. We're nothing. He's everything" - Dennis Wilson
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #1588 on: October 28, 2016, 12:47:33 PM »

You know it's all about that bass, 'bout that bass--no turbot.
Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇
The Dr. of Wilsonomics
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 11536


🍦🍦 fear2stop.bandcamp.com ☮☮


View Profile WWW
« Reply #1589 on: October 28, 2016, 12:50:49 PM »

LOL
Logged

“Look, you’ve got it all wrong. You don’t need to follow me. You don’t need to follow anybody. You’ve got to think for yourselves. You’re all individuals.”
Crowd: “Yes, we’re all individuals!”
Individual: “I’m not!”

——————————————————————————
https://soundcloud.app.goo.gl/C6fnbHnbhVmg8Tgj6
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #1590 on: October 28, 2016, 01:24:01 PM »

I guess the FBI is no longer in on the global master plan to carry out Clinton's "criminal scheme."
Logged
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #1591 on: October 28, 2016, 01:34:07 PM »

I guess the FBI is no longer in on the global master plan to carry out Clinton's "criminal scheme."
or it's even a more circuitous master plan than ever imagined!  Roll Eyes
Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #1592 on: October 28, 2016, 03:30:40 PM »

This guy occasionally cracks me up.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZurTgx_ZE50
Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
SurfRiderHawaii
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2470


Add Some Music to your day!


View Profile
« Reply #1593 on: October 28, 2016, 07:31:33 PM »

You know it's all about that bass, 'bout that bass--no turbot.

Red herring then?  Wink
Logged

"Brian is The Beach Boys. He is the band. We're his f***ing messengers. He is all of it. Period. We're nothing. He's everything" - Dennis Wilson
♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇
The Dr. of Wilsonomics
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 11536


🍦🍦 fear2stop.bandcamp.com ☮☮


View Profile WWW
« Reply #1594 on: October 28, 2016, 07:36:28 PM »

Something fishy is going on...

I'm kidding. I say things just for the halibut.
Logged

“Look, you’ve got it all wrong. You don’t need to follow me. You don’t need to follow anybody. You’ve got to think for yourselves. You’re all individuals.”
Crowd: “Yes, we’re all individuals!”
Individual: “I’m not!”

——————————————————————————
https://soundcloud.app.goo.gl/C6fnbHnbhVmg8Tgj6
♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇
The Dr. of Wilsonomics
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 11536


🍦🍦 fear2stop.bandcamp.com ☮☮


View Profile WWW
« Reply #1595 on: October 28, 2016, 08:14:14 PM »

Thoughts on this?

http://observer.com/2016/10/2006-audio-emerges-of-hillary-clinton-proposing-rigging-palestine-election/
Logged

“Look, you’ve got it all wrong. You don’t need to follow me. You don’t need to follow anybody. You’ve got to think for yourselves. You’re all individuals.”
Crowd: “Yes, we’re all individuals!”
Individual: “I’m not!”

——————————————————————————
https://soundcloud.app.goo.gl/C6fnbHnbhVmg8Tgj6
SinisterSmile
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 105


View Profile
« Reply #1596 on: October 28, 2016, 10:17:05 PM »

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/10/28/hillary-clinton-to-hold-press-conference-shortly.html

And the award for the world's shortest press conference goes to...

Also, is Gary Johnson trying to throw this? People want to vote for someone that isn't Trump/Clinton, and he's making it hard for people that want to vote for him.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvULsrjLdI4
« Last Edit: October 28, 2016, 10:28:23 PM by SinisterSmile » Logged
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #1597 on: October 29, 2016, 05:08:21 AM »

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/10/28/hillary-clinton-to-hold-press-conference-shortly.html

And the award for the world's shortest press conference goes to...

I dunno, during and right after college I did some basketball writing. In 1996-97, the Gophers had a strong season and a great player in Bobby Jackson. After a game hosting Indiana, a local writer exercised his every-game habit of trying to build a book of quotes about Jackson. The press conference went like this:

Q: What did you think about Bobby Jackson tonight?
Bobby Knight: If there was one player on your team I could have, it'd be [low-scoring, pick-setting center] John Thomas.
Q: Why?
BK: Because I know a helluva lot more about basketball than you.
[exits press room]

Also, is Gary Johnson trying to throw this? People want to vote for someone that isn't Trump/Clinton, and he's making it hard for people that want to vote for him.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvULsrjLdI4

Johnson has been running a bit of a train-wreck campaign. For someone with substantial name recognition coming in and several popular platform points, it has been absolutely shocking to watch him waste it.
Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #1598 on: October 29, 2016, 05:18:59 AM »

Unseemly and not remotely surprising. I don't think this comment meant stuffing ballot boxes or anything, but I think it is one of many examples in U.S. history that hints at us apparently deciding our interests trump (no pun intended) democracy. Sometimes it really happens, such as with the shah in Iran before the Revolution, or half a dozen South American countries. Sometimes we just get whiffs of back-channel influence, like the discussion about who should lead Ukraine after Yanukovych. I think her point is mostly that when you can make rules, you make rules that favor your preferred outcome. It's standard U.S.--and certainly standard Clinton--policy.
Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #1599 on: October 29, 2016, 07:50:52 AM »

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/10/28/hillary-clinton-to-hold-press-conference-shortly.html

And the award for the world's shortest press conference goes to...

Also, is Gary Johnson trying to throw this? People want to vote for someone that isn't Trump/Clinton, and he's making it hard for people that want to vote for him.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvULsrjLdI4

That wasn't a press conference per se. It was a statement. Not unusual.
When was Trump's last open press conference? This is such a non-issue.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 59 60 61 62 63 [64] 65 66 67 68 69 ... 81   Go Up
Print
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
Page created in 0.137 seconds with 21 queries.