• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2015 |OT2| Pls print

Status
Not open for further replies.
I

ItWasMeantToBe19

Banned
That post is perfection, I am crying tears of pride, benji.

Trump leads by over 15 points in Nevada and South Carolina. The reason why:

Trump's lead rests on widespread perceptions that he's the best candidate to handle the economy (67% say so in Nevada, 59% in South Carolina, while no other candidate hits double-digits) and illegal immigration (55% in Nevada and 51% in South Carolina, topping the other candidates by 40 points or more). About 6 in 10 in each state say Trump is the candidate most likely to change the way things work in Washington (60% in Nevada, 58% in South Carolina). Furthermore, nearly half -- 47% in Nevada and 44% in South Carolina -- view Trump as the candidate with the best chance of winning the general election next November.
Click to expand...

Basically because he's rich and hates immigrants.

So, yeah, you never saw those things coming.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/14/politics/republican-poll-donald-trump-nevada-south-carolina/index.html
 
P

pigeon

Banned
So policy-wise:

* I'm not all that impressed by Hillary's college plan, and I'm not sure off the top of my head what makes it more financially practical than Bernie's. 10 hours a week doesn't seem like the difference maker here.
* I do basically think that Hillary is wrong about Syria and out of step with the Democratic party in being so. A coalition of the willing isn't really sufficient, to my mind -- we need a truly multilateral coalition to justify the intervention. (Yes, Coriolanus changed my position on this.) Foreign policy is actually the place where Clinton's positions are most iconoclastic relative to Democrats. Unfortunately there's nobody on the stage who can really push her on that -- Sanders doesn't want to shake the boat on foreign policy and Webb and Chafee are just not relevant enough.
* The candidates look like they're disagreeing on marijuana, but they mostly aren't.
* As I mentioned, the question about banking legislation really crystallizes the entire campaign. Both real candidates agree that we need to improve our banking legislation. Hillary says that her plan is actually better than Bernie's, because of shadow banks -- this is the wonkish, detail-oriented response. Bernie's response is to say that we need to control Wall Street instead of letting Wall Street control Congress -- this is a response that eschews wonkiness in favor of populist rhetoric and fighting for "political revolution." Hillary's campaign is about having better plans than Bernie. Bernie's campaign is about having more passion than Hilary. The two agree basically every time on aims, but fail to come to grips with each other in terms of discussion, because they're operating on different levels.
* Otherwise...everybody agrees on everything? There weren't really any substantive policy differences on display. Which is not surprising, but for a debate that was theoretically all about policy it's interesting that the outcome is everybody has the same positions except Jim Webb.
 
R

RustyNails

Member
benjipwns said:
Sanders campaign releases education plan:
RedGuardsreadRedBookHultonGetty-2000x1351-.jpg

140609_FOR_RedGuards.jpg.CROP.promo-mediumlarge.jpg

_63290681_glizhensheng.jpg

cultural%20rev%203.jpg
Click to expand...
Best
 
R

RustyNails

Member
So whats the shadow banking business Hillda was talking about? To be honest as a layperson it sounded something like the illuminati and the freemasons stuff
 
H

Hopfrog

Member
What exactly is Bernie's plan for taking on Wall Street and the banks? Or Hillary's for that matter? It is classic, straight from Jackson's playbook Democratic populism to go after the banks and financiers, but how will they go about actually attempting to do this? More interested in Bernie's plan as he has positioned himself so specifically as the furthest left "economic inequality" candidate.
 
H

Hopfrog

Member
RustyNails said:
So whats the shadow banking business Hillda was talking about? To be honest as a layperson it sounded something like the illuminati and the freemasons stuff
Click to expand...

She mentioned AIG right? I am assuming she is referring to institutions not traditionally thought of as "banking" institutions, i.e. not commercial banks, the ones most directly targeted by previous regulations like Glass-Steagall.
 
benjipwns

benjipwns

Banned
pigeon said:
So policy-wise:

* The candidates look like they're disagreeing on marijuana, but they mostly aren't.
* As I mentioned, the question about banking legislation really crystallizes the entire campaign. Both real candidates agree that we need to improve our banking legislation. Hillary says that her plan is actually better than Bernie's, because of shadow banks -- this is the wonkish, detail-oriented response. Bernie's response is to say that we need to control Wall Street instead of letting Wall Street control Congress -- this is a response that eschews wonkiness in favor of populist rhetoric and fighting for "political revolution." Hillary's campaign is about having better plans than Bernie. Bernie's campaign is about having more passion than Hilary. The two agree basically every time on aims, but fail to come to grips with each other in terms of discussion, because they're operating on different levels.
* Otherwise...everybody agrees on everything? There weren't really any substantive policy differences on display. Which is not surprising, but for a debate that was theoretically all about policy it's interesting that the outcome is everybody has the same positions except Jim Webb.
Click to expand...
Other than immigration, this is basically true for the Republicans as well. Trump especially has made it about persona and "passion" more than anything.

Where Trump/Carson/Carly (and to an extent the same is true for Sanders) benefit is that they're automatically taken to be more trustworthy just because they aren't regular politicians. Jeb! or Rubio says they want to build a wall, nobody believes it, they're really for amnesty! Trump says it and says Mexico will pay for it because he's Trump, well, you can already check that off as done. Carly says she'll shut down Planned Parenthood, done and done. Chris Christie probably personally performs abortions, he hugged Obama after all.

Herman Cain had something similar going in 2012, and since everything was based on his persona, when the cracks showed he fell apart instantly.

And the reality is that Trump is right about not saying anything about his policy plans. Because there's nothing to gain from putting out actual policy details. It can bite you in the butt now or later. But if you just set general goals, that's all people remember anyway and how is someone going to say you don't really want to raise taxes on the poor to give free college to residents of Mexico.

Thing is, certain campaigns and candidates, are addicted to putting out massive policy books over and over on every potential issue. The Kerry campaign couldn't stop doing this to absurd lengths.

This is why we need Jim Webb as our next President, because with him we know if someone throws a grenade at us, he'll kill them. That's change we can believe in that will make us stronger at home and respected in the world.
 
L

Lord_Byron28

Member
I only got about halfway through the debates so far but here are my impressions so far:

Clinton- definitely showing her experience. She and Sanders were the only ones that didn't look like they were reading from a teleprompter during their intros. Clinton actively looked around the crowd while speaking unlike all others that were rather glued to the teleprompter/camera. She also has done a good job speaking more in depth about different bills and policies than any of the others. She has done a good job at grounding Sanders. She came across especially competent in foreign policy and knowledgeable about world politics. She killed me when she trolled Chaffe by not responding to him. Overall she came across for better and for worse as Obama 2.0. I feel she won't go through an Obama first term presidency where she tries reasoning with the right and instead just goes in Obama 2nd term mode which isn't too bad. There are still some foreign policy, trade deals, and privacy rights that I feel Clinton, Bush, and Obama did that I fully expect Hillary to follow suit with as well. Not the worst outcome since it will only further kill the right.

Sanders- Sanders supporter here. I'm befuddled by Sanders. I went out and saw him at a rally in Manassas,VA and watching him at this debate, I've noticed something. He always speaks very vaguely and relies on a lot of catch phrases and political buzz words. He never really speaks in depth about his plan. However, that doesn't mean it necessarily hurts his chances since a lot of low information voters who only vote in presidential elections pay attention to that rhetoric. With that said it doesn't be nice if he spoke more specifically and outlined his plans. I've done my research and I know he has well sounding plans but he rarely communicates these plans at his rallies or debates beyond saying vague ideas which is dissapointing. I think he came across strong in his intros but came across especially weak with his first two questions, he completely evaded the questions. He came across as competent in most areas especially BLM, Gun Control (whether you like it or not there is a significant democratic base that have similar beliefs to him), his voting history with foreign policy was strong but I felt he spoke too vague about future plans. Great moment with helping out Clinton with the email scandall.

O'malley- I actually liked him and there were many times where I felt he countered Clinton with exactly what I was thinking in regards to foreign policy. I liked his answer to BLM but given his history...... I actually thought he came across as the strongest in terms of gun control. With all of that said I feel like he needs more time to bake in the oven, so to speak. He seems likeable and some charisma as well as being a decent speaker at times. However he was obviously nervous and felt a little over his head. Not too mention he had one of the most wooden teleprompter intros including where he completely messed up one part. I think he should run for senator and if elected then run for president a little later would be a better trajectory for him, imo. He has a lot of potential but I don't see him having enough experience in a debate to take on Trump. I also think he is slightly under qualified for the job of President but then again you see the GOP clown car. I could see O'Malley picking up a bit of the Biden vote as he represented himself as a good median between Clinton and Sanders at times.

Webb-seems like a moderate slight republican who wasn't down when the crazy train took over the republican party and switched parties. He's not getting elected and the arguments back and forth about his air time probably did more damage to Webb. He had a few good points and I felt he created a good foil representing some right wing/moderate views on policies even if I didn't actually agree with him.

Chaffe- lol he is never going anywhere. I think he made one good counter to Clinton which caught her off guard. However then she straight ethered him by not even responding to his email attack which was completely stupid for him to do especially after what Sanders just did.

I will wait and see how the second half of the debates go when I watch it later. I did like how Clinton, O'Malley and Sanders didn't run away from Obama, that's how a party should behave and it's why the republican party is so strong.

I would love if sometime before primaries if we got to have a few debates with all presidential candidates. When it's towards the end the GOP clown car will shake itself out to a couple candidates. Have the top runners for the Democratic nominees such as Clinton, Sanders and possibly O'Malley. Then have Trump and the next 2 candidates with the largest support in the GOP race debate with the Democratic nominees. However this will never happen.
 
W

Wilsongt

Member
I see Rubio is taking the "free stuff" narrative and running with it.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/rubio-dem-debate-was-just-who-was-going-to-give-away-the-most-free-stuff/

“Free college education, free college education for people illegally in this country, free health care, free everything,” he continued. “Their answer to every problem in America is a government program and a tax increase. That’s all they prescribe time and time again.”

“This is stuff from the ’80s, the mid ’80s, and we’re back there,” Rubio concluded. “As I said before the debate, it became exactly what I predicted it would be: a race to the left to see who’d be the most radically liberal, the most big government. And that’s what this whole primary is going to be for the Democratic side.”
Click to expand...
 
T

thepotatoman

Unconfirmed Member
pigeon said:
So policy-wise:

* I'm not all that impressed by Hillary's college plan, and I'm not sure off the top of my head what makes it more financially practical than Bernie's. 10 hours a week doesn't seem like the difference maker here.
* I do basically think that Hillary is wrong about Syria and out of step with the Democratic party in being so. A coalition of the willing isn't really sufficient, to my mind -- we need a truly multilateral coalition to justify the intervention. (Yes, Coriolanus changed my position on this.) Foreign policy is actually the place where Clinton's positions are most iconoclastic relative to Democrats. Unfortunately there's nobody on the stage who can really push her on that -- Sanders doesn't want to shake the boat on foreign policy and Webb and Chafee are just not relevant enough.
* The candidates look like they're disagreeing on marijuana, but they mostly aren't.
* As I mentioned, the question about banking legislation really crystallizes the entire campaign. Both real candidates agree that we need to improve our banking legislation. Hillary says that her plan is actually better than Bernie's, because of shadow banks -- this is the wonkish, detail-oriented response. Bernie's response is to say that we need to control Wall Street instead of letting Wall Street control Congress -- this is a response that eschews wonkiness in favor of populist rhetoric and fighting for "political revolution." Hillary's campaign is about having better plans than Bernie. Bernie's campaign is about having more passion than Hilary. The two agree basically every time on aims, but fail to come to grips with each other in terms of discussion, because they're operating on different levels.
* Otherwise...everybody agrees on everything? There weren't really any substantive policy differences on display. Which is not surprising, but for a debate that was theoretically all about policy it's interesting that the outcome is everybody has the same positions except Jim Webb.
Click to expand...

More or less, the biggest disagreement is on if playing to the center on economic policy is more likely to succeed than just pushing for what you really want. Basically the idea is if you water down your policies to a point where it gets little done and is so complicated no one can understand it, people won't see it as a reason to vote for you even if it is better than the alternative (see obamacare). All of that is political strategy, but that still might affect policy if the reason you're compromising is out of fear of people calling you "socialist" instead of actual compromise with people you need to vote for your bills.

I'd also remind people that Bernie still compromises and always votes for the better than nothing alternative, but he'd make it pretty clear why he has to compromise and who's to blame, instead of compromising from before the fight begins.

I think you can also look at Obama, who said NAFTA was a bad deal, and then proceeded to do another bad deal with very similar problems that NAFTA has. I think the backgrounds of the two candidates does make it pretty clear that she would continue with those same types of disappointments, while Bernie would not.
 
I

ivysaur12

Banned
http://reductress.com/post/democrat...omment-thread-under-humans-of-new-york-photo/

Democratic Debate to Take Place In Comment Thread Under ‘Humans of New York’ Photo

The Democratic National Committee announced last Friday that the upcoming Democratic Primary Debate would be held in a comment thread under a Humans of New York photo this coming Tuesday. High-ranking party members hope that the change of venue will increase ratings, as studies indicate that people are more likely to read comment threads than to watch presidential debates.

“This is great news,” says a meek-looking woman sitting on a bench in an outdoor plaza wearing a colorful scarf while scribbling in a sketchbook. “It’s so good when the system recognizes us young people.”

The decision follows a series of instances in which prominent Democrats, including President Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, commented on popular “HONY” Facebook posts. In July, Clinton left a message for a young, tearful, LGBT youth, predicting that his life would be “amazing”. Then, in September, President Obama commented on a photo of an Iranian father and son, saying that their story “really resonated” with him.

Both comments instantly went viral, prompting Jonathan Martin of the New York Times to call Humans of New York comment threads “the ideal medium for registered Democrats.”

“You can bet I’ll tune in to this one,” says a rumpled gray-haired man in a train station, with a tan line on his left hand’s ring finger. “And if she were still here, she would, too. But I blew it. Bad. That’s the thing about life: Sometimes, you don’t get a vote.”

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Chair of the Committee, explains the reasoning behind the controversial decision.

“We wanted to give candidates a chance to discuss important issues in a context voters would understand, so the irrational and hate-filled Humans of New York comment threads seemed like the obvious choice,” she says. “Plus, capitalizing on the sentimentality of the individual’s struggle is an American political tradition.”

Though the proposal has received backlash, with naysayers calling it “an insult to the democratic process” and “What is Humans of New York?”, the Committee decided to go through with the plan after learning that the popular website has nearly 15 times as many likes on Facebook as presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.

“It’s hard to argue with those numbers,” Schultz explains.

“My three-year-old son, he loves Facebook. He’s always trying to look over my shoulder when I’m on it. I’m worried about what all this technology is doing to him,” says an anonymous construction worker looking pensive near a pedestrian walkway. “But I’ll probably let him watch this Facebook debate. I only get him twice a month. It’s hard to say no to him sometimes.”

Political analysts predict that the new debate format will dramatically alter debate tactics, but you’ll have to wait until Tuesday to see how many times Clinton uses the “edit” function before she realizes that everyone can see her changes.

Brandon Stanton, creator of HONY, has commented on the DNC’s choice, calling it “an honor and a privilege”. He also revealed that he would be voting for Bernie Sanders, “because, well, look at me”.

CNN has not yet announced which photo the candidates will be commenting on, but executives have assured the press that it will be “appropriately touching”.

The debate is set to begin at 9 PM, and voters will be able to watch in real time by continuously refreshing their browsers.
Click to expand...
 
F

Fenderputty

Banned
Hopfrog said:
She mentioned AIG right? I am assuming she is referring to institutions not traditionally thought of as "banking" institutions, i.e. not commercial banks, the ones most directly targeted by previous regulations like Glass-Steagall.
Click to expand...

Pretty much. Shadow banking isn't regulated because they don't take normal bank deposits like standard banking does. The lack of regulation allows more risky ventures. I'm NOT very up to speed on it though.

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/shadow-banking-system.asp
 
benjipwns

benjipwns

Banned
Hopfrog said:
She mentioned AIG right? I am assuming she is referring to institutions not traditionally thought of as "banking" institutions, i.e. not commercial banks, the ones most directly targeted by previous regulations like Glass-Steagall.
Click to expand...
But outside of Citigroup, the repealed parts of Glass-Steagall wouldn't have applied to any of the collapsing companies like AIG, Bear, Lehman, Merrill Lynch. None of the companies that actually did combine commercial and investment banking were hit hard, they weathered the storm better. (Both Obama and Elizabeth Warren have admitted that none of Glass-Steagall would have done anything, and Warren's gone so far as to say she only supports it for "the message" it would send. Whatever that is.)

AIG was a solvent insurance company, with a holding company arm that sold the same bad paper to the same idiots over and over until those same idiots were rolling over cash until some smarter idiots realized AIG would never be able to make their call and started to make a move to pull out so they left the original idiots in the shit hole since they were also leveraging over and over on this non-existent paper.

And by idiots I mean Goldman Sachs.

AIG could have crashed and burned into a normal bankruptcy and it only would have bombed out Goldman Sachs. Thankfully they had former and future employees sacrificing for public service.

LTCM was before the few Glass-Steagall provisions were repealed and it was an even greater disaster. (In the context of a single fund.) Its financial plan was predicated on essentially the same method of selling off garbage one second before it became more garbage. Profiting off all the millions of small differences.

The problem was promoting over leveraging that was being rolled over too quickly AND endlessly. This wasn't changed, it's the new normal if you look at the current bubble. It's the core of the Greenspan Put. As long as you can run to the discount window, and essentially create two loans off that mere fact you can stack your books full of absurd debt that you can keep rolling over until the buyers can't buy.

And it's not like the next Administration is going to be prosecuting any of the actual illegal shit (Lehman and Barclay's essentially back-dating a court document to pay the latter $5 billion extra and collect millions in bonuses for former Lehman executives against shareholder AND court knowledge...for example) that went along with the completely stupid shit just like the current one didn't per Holder's unchanged 1999 policy. And so endless criminal justice system loops for the poor and/or minority (ideally both! Two-fers!), one-time fines for the wealthy because sending those people to jail might have collateral consequences*.

No, you're probably not alone if you're confused about the seeming disconnect between my anti-state regulation and jail the wealthy positions. I think Glass-Steagall is a handy canard just like the CRA is for conservatives, when the answer is actually far far more interesting and a fascinating story to boot. And while I think unchecked bubbles would fix themselves more than silly central planning, I also think that under current laws/regulations they probably should be enforced equally, not waived away for those who play and only those who play. The W. Bush SEC didn't do it because they were ideologically conservative, they did it for the same reason the Clinton and Obama SEC's have, they're really all in the same business. (Or they're in disbelief, which I think was the story of Madoff. "No way something this good could be a ponzi scheme! Don't even look into it!")

I do however believe there is strong evidence that all current problems can be linked to the LBJ-Nixon Administration in some manner. LBJ is the one who took Fannie and Freddie off the governments one set of books to lower the projected deficit but left their guarantee in place which is the only reason subprime tranches had any value. He's also the one who sent Jim Webb to Vietnam, where he had a grenade thrown at him. Jim Webb that is, not LBJ. LBJ probably would have killed the guy though by pulling out his dick.

*Too big to jail.
 
benjipwns

benjipwns

Banned
Also, the fact that nobody seemed to care that the ratings agencies had a massive conflict of interest is arguably the best part of the bubble. Whaddya mean my paper's garbage? I gave it an AAA rating!
 
H

hydragonwarrior

Member
So First Lady is reserved for the wife of the President.

So first time in history we'll have a First... Man? And it's going to be cool (hopefully!) to see Bill in the White House doing First Man duties lol.
 
S

sc0la

Unconfirmed Member
Originally Explained by benjipwns:
Vox's Method of Headlining their Explanatory Journalism, explained by benjipwns

You just put what your article is about and then write ", explained" at the end.

[insert card stack here]
Click to expand...
 
T

teiresias

Member
benjipwns said:
The real question is...did he do it on his first day? After his dad had died?
yHKJ0gS.gif
Click to expand...

Damn, Bernie's all like, "See Webb, you're doing fairly well by comparison, chin up."

Hillary's just like, "Ummm . . . awk . . . waaaard."

O'Malley's just like, "I'm going to just scoot my notes this way so he doesn't spit on them."
 
I

Ignatz Mouse

Banned
My advice to Bernie fans is to stop attacking Clinton and substantiate your choice.

Seriously, it's like negative campaign ads, they don't usually change people's minds, they just drive people away altogether. Bernie can't win the primary in a depressed turnout.
 
R

RustyNails

Member
benjipwns said:
The real question is...did he do it on his first day? After his dad had died?
yHKJ0gS.gif
Click to expand...
Anyone else think O' Malley's body movement resembled that of RoboCop? It was very mechanical, rigid, efficient and lacked any fluidity or basic human body behavior. Just in this gif for example, he looks like a terminator focused on murdering john connor.
 
benjipwns

benjipwns

Banned
Bernie and Webb were Freshmen Senators together so they might be buds. Their desks in the chamber were even right next to each others, awwwww.
 
B

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
Officerrob said:
Anybody watching this Trump interview on MSNBC? He's gone soft. Zero push back, much softer tone
Click to expand...

He's conserving energy, dude knows all anyone will be talking about for a few days is the debate. Trump won't be able to get back on the radar until after the first set of poll numbers comes through and gets reported on, then he'll be able to reenter the media cycle.
 
benjipwns

benjipwns

Banned
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...mbarrassed-to-ask-about-democratic-socialism/
What is socialism?
What about Sanders's philosophy, democratic socialism?
Why aren't there more socialists in the United States?
What are some socialist things that I interact with in my daily life?
What do Americans think about socialism?
What's the difference between a democratic socialist and a Democrat such as Hillary Rodham Clinton?
Could democratic socialism work here?
What are some of the arguments against democratic socialism?
Click to expand...
 
R

RustyNails

Member
B-Dubs said:
He's conserving energy, dude knows all anyone will be talking about for a few days is the debate. Trump won't be able to get back on the radar until after the first set of poll numbers comes through and gets reported on, then he'll be able to reenter the media cycle.
Click to expand...
Already happened this morning. Leading by double digits in Nevada and SC. In fact his lead grew considerably. Even staying out of media while Ben Carson repeatedly hit his own face with a baseball bat has worked well for him.
 
M

Makai

Member
RustyNails said:
Already happened this morning. Leading by double digits in Nevada and SC. In fact his lead grew considerably. Even staying out of media while Ben Carson repeatedly hit his own face with a baseball bat has worked well for him.
Click to expand...
Carson's numbers improved after his gaffes.
 
B

Bam Bam Baklava

Member
My god.

Trump's lead rests on widespread perceptions that he's the best candidate to handle the economy (67% say so in Nevada, 59% in South Carolina, while no other candidate hits double-digits) and illegal immigration (55% in Nevada and 51% in South Carolina, topping the other candidates by 40 points or more). About 6 in 10 in each state say Trump is the candidate most likely to change the way things work in Washington (60% in Nevada, 58% in South Carolina). Furthermore, nearly half -- 47% in Nevada and 44% in South Carolina -- view Trump as the candidate with the best chance of winning the general election next November.
Click to expand...

These kinds of numbers are almost thread worthy. He's leading on the issues by massive margins.
 
W

Wilsongt

Member
RustyNails said:
Already happened this morning. Leading by double digits in Nevada and SC. In fact his lead grew considerably. Even staying out of media while Ben Carson repeatedly hit his own face with a baseball bat has worked well for him.
Click to expand...

Why waste any energy when you can see your competition flaming out and tanking all around you?

Trump is smart.
 
B

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
Bam Bam Baklava said:
My god.



These kinds of numbers are almost thread worthy. He's leading on the issues by massive margins.
Click to expand...

I'm not surprised. I was looking at the Reuters tracking poll and apparently he's got a massive lead among Republicans who view themselves as lean conservative and moderately conservative. The only place Carson is doing as well as Trump is, is among those who describe themselves as very conservative. Basically, Trump looks to be this cycle's Romney.
 
A

Aaron Strife

Banned
The NV/SC polls are nuts.

The "Trump is falling, Rubio rising!" narrative is the media trying to make fetch happen. Rubio, Bush and Kasich are the most electable? Yeah well ~80% of the GOP primary electorate don't give a shit. In fact if Trump is scoring near majorities on the electability question then throw the conventional wisdom out the window because the voters aren't having it.

Trump is going to dominate the early contests all the way up to Super Tuesday and he will be the nominee barring any RNC antics. I will avatar bet this with anyone
 
T

teiresias

Member
I've said it before and I'll say it again. What would a concession speech in November look like coming from Trump - would he literally call the electorate morons, refuse to concede, threaten court action? I can't imagine his ego would let him be gracious in defeat.
 
R

RustyNails

Member
teiresias said:
I've said it before and I'll say it again. What would a concession speech in November look like coming from Trump - would he literally call the electorate morons, refuse to concede, threaten court action? I can't imagine his ego would let him be gracious in defeat.
Click to expand...
A phone call from Bill Clinton started Trump candicacy. Another phone call will end it graciously.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT6| Made this thread during Harvey because the ratings would be higher
338 339 340 341 342
17K
2M
UselessNapkin replied
GAF Museum - The Greatest OTs of All Time (or at least, some of the great ones)
|OT|
4
2K
Komatsu replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT5| The Man In the High Chair
395 396 397 398 399
20K
2M
RDreamer replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT4| The leaks are coming from inside the white house
396 397 398 399 400
20K
2M
ShironRedshift replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT3| 13 Treasons Why
393 394 395 396 397
20K
2M
Zaraki_Kenpachi replied
Top Bottom