What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Campaign 2016 Part XVII: If debates are great theater, I think this one closes early

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVII: If debates are great theater, I think this one closes e

Well he recently said racist things so it's not that hard to figure out. Anyhow back to the comment section for you.
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVII: If debates are great theater, I think this one closes e

mookie1995 said:
Isn't it interesting how tD has been a HUGE public figure for 40+ years and until the machine starting pumping, "racist" has never been used as an adjective nor adverb?

baaaaaaah
Click to expand...

You seem to be a trump supporter, mookie. Do you deny his public proclamations during this campaign regarding mexicans (murderers, rapists, unfair judges) and muslims make him seem intolerant of those groups.
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVII: If debates are great theater, I think this one closes e

mookie1995 said:
Isn't it interesting how tD has been a HUGE public figure for 40+ years and until the machine starting pumping, "racist" has never been used as an adjective nor adverb?

baaaaaaah
Click to expand...

David Berkowitz had been around for 25 years but we didn't start calling him a serial killer until he committed multiple murders. What's your point? After a couple of random incidents of racism early in his career that were barely publicized it might even have been unfair to brand Trump as such. Since he announced his intention to run for the presidency it has been one bigoted statement after another and he is fairly considered a racist now by all but the mentally infirm. Even the white nationalists (a cleaned up euphemism for racist bigot) claim him as one of their own.
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVII: If debates are great theater, I think this one closes e

WeAreNDHockey said:
I think it is ironic that the only reason Trump is anywhere near close in the polls is because the democrats nominated the weakest candidate in terms of personal popularity and favorability in my lifetime by a country mile, and the only reason the republicans aren't going to have a 1984 type landslide is they nominated the most unqualified and dangerous candidate a major party has ever chosen, and fortunately we are not yet a country where the majority are knuckle dragging, rebel flag waiving, 88 tat sporting d ou ch e bags.
Click to expand...

This is about as close to my views as I've read. And that's dam scary as a citizen of this country......
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVII: If debates are great theater, I think this one closes e

mookie1995 said:
Isn't it interesting how tD has been a HUGE public figure for 40+ years and until the machine starting pumping, "racist" has never been used as an adjective nor adverb?

baaaaaaah
Click to expand...

You mean besides when he was nailed for his racist practices in the 70s and 80s? mookie if you are gonna troll you gotta try harder otherwise you are just Frauddude without the weird web sites :p
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVII: If debates are great theater, I think this one closes e

Nobody knows if Trump is a racist, and it doesn't matter. He exploited white working class racism to win the nomination. OK, so Republicans have all done this since Nixon, but he is the first nominee to base his whole campaign on it. Rewarded with office, he would continue to use it to maintain and build popularity. The difference is as a candidate he only has rhetoric, while as an official he would have policy.

Fun's fun, but no way can we let him into a position where he can hurt real people. The media don't care -- their money insulates them from consequences -- so it's up to us to send this twat back home.
 
Last edited:
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVII: If debates are great theater, I think this one closes e

Drumpf's actions when it came to his properties back up the claim that he is racist.
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVII: If debates are great theater, I think this one closes e

joecct said:
Well, there are the Clintons and the Kennedys on your side of the ledger.
Click to expand...

Not even close. This is another false equivalency. About as meaningful as the modern "necessity" for TV news to be "balanced" instead of factual. Clinton (or Democratic) surrogate comes on and says something factual so a Trump (or Republican) surrogate is given time to say something to the opposite. Fact checkers are already showing Trump to be speaking falsely 4 or 5 times as frequently as Clinton. I'd say the Democratic lies and hypocrisy will certainly keep the Great Lakes filled with Jesus' tears, but the oceans and seas will be kept full by the Republicans and their surrogates.
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVII: If debates are great theater, I think this one closes e

Kepler said:
Because of course.
Click to expand...

The pastor protested the line of questioning with, “I thought you were going to do a profile". Um, dude fleshing out the bio from your own web page is doing a profile.

WeAreNDHockey said:
Not even close. This is another false equivalency. About as meaningful as the modern "necessity" for TV news to be "balanced" instead of factual.
Click to expand...

There is nothing wrong with allowing two 'sides' to try to make their case and let the viewer decide if either is full of crap or not. I take it you won't watch any of the debates?
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVII: If debates are great theater, I think this one closes e

Slap Shot said:
There is nothing wrong with allowing two 'sides' to try to make their case and let the viewer decide if either is full of crap or not. I take it you won't watch any of the debates?
Click to expand...

Not my point and not why the media does it. The news media used to present something accurate and factual to the viewers and left it at that. Now if Clinton or a surrogate came on and said 2+2=4 there would be a Trump surrogate on during Clinton's statement there with the opportunity to refute the claim that 2+2=4. It isn't about presenting the who, what, when, where and how. It is about not pi55ing off the other side. A political debate between two candidates in not like that at all, and isn't staged for that purpose. And I doubt I will tune in to the debates. The last ones I watched were between the 3 main 1992 presidential candidates. Since then, even the debates have become more "reality TV" than actual debates where one can learn something about the candidates they did not know. My guess is I'll learn more from the things you and the others in this thread post. I'm serious about that and mean it as a compliment to almost everyone who posts in the campaign threads. Even those I don't agree with.
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVII: If debates are great theater, I think this one closes e

Still going to have to pile up a much bigger pile of crap to make any of the other 3 a better candidate.
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVII: If debates are great theater, I think this one closes e

joecct said:
lies? hypocrites? If you give a pass to those two families, then you are seeing the world thru blue tinted glasses.
Click to expand...

I am giving a pass to no one...but your false equivalency of comparing politicians to a pastor who lied and then tried to cover it up when he was caught red handed is hilarious especially for a religious person.
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVII: If debates are great theater, I think this one closes e

WeAreNDHockey said:
Not my point and not why the media does it. The news media used to present something accurate and factual to the viewers and left it at that. Now if Clinton or a surrogate came on and said 2+2=4 there would be a Trump surrogate on during Clinton's statement there with the opportunity to refute the claim that 2+2=4. It isn't about presenting the who, what, when, where and how. It is about not pi55ing off the other side. A political debate between two candidates in not like that at all, and isn't staged for that purpose. And I doubt I will tune in to the debates. The last ones I watched were between the 3 main 1992 presidential candidates. Since then, even the debates have become more "reality TV" than actual debates where one can learn something about the candidates they did not know. My guess is I'll learn more from the things you and the others in this thread post. I'm serious about that and mean it as a compliment to almost everyone who posts in the campaign threads. Even those I don't agree with.
Click to expand...

While true, it's a matter of supply and demand and significantly our fault as consumers of the dreck they put out there. We want the National Inquirer in all its forms if we can get it, and if we have to consume news we want bold print, exclamation marks, and headlines only. Put Buckley out there now and see how many watch him.
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVII: If debates are great theater, I think this one closes e

- On one hand, someone once said don't interrupt your opponent when they are making a mistake, and in the first half of August Trump was definitely doing that. So for awhile it made sense for Hillary to stay low, raise funds, and get the ground operations going (I hope) while Trump dug himself deeper.
- That said, you can't do that forever. What works for two weeks is less effective for an entire month, and is horrible strategy for 3 straight months.
- Additionally, a little offense against Trump goes a long way towards causing him to make mistakes. His early August meltdown didn't happen in a vacuum, it happened because the Dems came out swinging in the convention and largely because of the Khan speech. Yes he can say what in previous campaigns would be crippling stupid stuff on his own, but in this campaign it clearly has not been enough to finish him off. It feels, though, like the stuff that does cause damage comes in reaction to what Hillary or other Dems say. So Hillary doesn't necessary need to go into fifth gear, but a little offense goes a long way.
- On the other hand, though, as others have pointed out, August is a pretty dead time as a lot of people are finishing up their summer, so you won't get the biggest bang for your back. Perhaps saving the money and political ammo for after Labor Day is the most cost-effective way to do it.
- Placing a lot of emphasis on the debates can go both ways. Yes, it might be the best forum to point out that Hillary is a serious answer and Trump is inane bombast, but if people haven't gotten that message yet, will they really make that much of a difference? Don't get me wrong, it still makes sense to be well prepared, as to not give Trump a chance to climb back into people's minds as a serious answer, so don't sleep on them. But there's way too much that can (and will) happen in the last two months to have that be a majority of one's strategy.

Overall, August took us from what looked like it was becoming a dead heat to one where Hillary has a notable but not insurmountable lead. Granted it has tightened since mid-August, but there is always it seems a slight correction from the original bounce. But my point is, the strategy for August was a net gain, we shouldn't lose too much sleep over it. But now that is has done it's job, it's time for a new one for September and home stretch.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top