Support NeoGAF

[hipsterpants]

So, what the fuck happened to Conway? Her touch has been notably absent from the past 48 hours and it feels like we are back in vintage Trump mode. I could understand yesterday morning being a fluke, but Trump's given two rally speeches off-script. Just looking at some website headlines, it's like we're back in the height of Trump's lunacy. Was there some major internal power struggle that we didn't hear about?

Also, GODDAMN at Obama's speech. He is the GOAT, no doubt.

I'm guessing there is some internal campaign fuckery in regards to fallout to the birtherism statement. I don't have the link on me, but someone posted here that apparently Trump and his campaign people were still talking about how to address the issue like 15 minutes before the hotel fiasco.

I'm sure Trump is furious about getting attacked again after getting treated with kids gloves for the past month.

 

[Abinash117]

It seems in some polls Trump does modestly better in no degree white males or not much better.

But in any other demographic he is doing worse. Since the the polls are close isn't Hillary in a similar position? Although, not as nearly as bad . It seems to me the election is really done to mostly to turnout, but it looks like Hillary can improve if she improves her favorabilities and shore up her support among Democrats and leaners. I wonder does she really need to destroy Trump, it will obvious crater is support to a point and prevent some from even looking at his way anymore. She'll obviously gain too, but I think she'll gain a lot if she can show off how liberal she actually is; it really doesn't have to be her talking about policy .

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

It's amusing that "Basket of Deplorables" has been picked up as a phrase online because it's the nerdiest fucking phrase possible to describe racists, lol.

 

[giga]

Quick q: contributions under $200 aren't publicly disclosed right? Name, employer, zip, etc. Only if the individual contributions add up to more than $200 during a calendar during is when they need to be itemized.

 

[Paskil]

Quick q: contributions under $200 aren't publicly disclosed right? Name, employer, zip, etc. Only if the individual contributions add up to more than $200 during a calendar during is when they need to be itemized.

Um, not as far as I know. I was at the FEC site the other day and donations under that amount were listed. I saw $1 donations listed.

 

[Oblivion]

How...

"Binders full of women"....Do white people just ignore shitty lines that insult them???

I had a female co-worker a couple a years ago who was a self-professed "feminist", who said she didn't like the kinds of things Romney said and did regarding women, but he was a businessman and would therefore be good for the economy.

She was White too, btw.

 

[giga]

Um, not as far as I know. I was at the FEC site the other day and donations under that amount were listed. I saw $1 donations listed.

Did you check the receipt? That person's calendar year donation amount might have exceeded $200.

 

[Slizeezyc]

Quick q: contributions under $200 aren't publicly disclosed right? Name, employer, zip, etc. Only if the individual contributions add up to more than $200 during a calendar during is when they need to be itemized.

Why don't you just say you want to know if you can give over $200 or not to Jill Stein?

 

[VendettaRed07]

You're right...Trump shouldn't even be tied...

It's kind of crazy all things considering

It might sound weird but ultimately I think white women are the X factor demo this election, because I don't think any other demographic can vary as much as they can. When the votes are in they could possibly overwhelmingly go for the first female nominee, they could tie with trump, or Trump could win them by a good Margin; it's really impossible to tell at this point.

It's one reason why I felt like "doubling down on a strength" and pick Warren as her VP would have been the best move this primary, rather than solidifying a weakness, but oh well; I guess we'll see

 

[giga]

Why don't you just say you want to know if you can give over $200 or not to Jill Stein?

Pat McCrory actually.

 

[benjipwns]

Quick q: contributions under $200 aren't publicly disclosed right? Name, employer, zip, etc. Only if the individual contributions add up to more than $200 during a calendar during is when they need to be itemized.

They don't have to be, but they can be.

The Obama team got knocked the first time because they weren't tracking them at all since you didn't have to and that whole online credit card loophole thing was found that they had to shutdown temporarily.

Another funny campaign law, you don't have to track them, but you're responsible if they violate the law. (And you clearly need to track them, how else would you know when someone goes over $200? You're going to trust them to report it?)

 

[Paskil]

Did you check the receipt? That person's calendar year donation amount might have exceeded $200.

Eh, I don't know. The $15 donation is from someone that is only listed as giving one donation ever, that I can see.

 

[Tarkus]

Stay safe NYC gaf

 

[Abinash117]

I had a female co-worker a couple a years ago who was a self-professed "feminist", who said she didn't like the kinds of things Romney said and did regarding women, but he was a businessman and would therefore be good for the economy.

She was White too, btw.

I guess for some people they might be willing to let things slide as long as the person they are voting for gets what they wan done. If Obama was businessman and a progressive like he is, than I bet she will 1000% back Obama.

Americans have a capitalistic mind set; so it makes sense for many to think businesses handle knows how to handle money = businessmen know how to handle the economy. Plus, women are used to sexists things so they are more likely to let things slide.

 

[benjipwns]

It's kind of crazy all things considering

It might sound weird but ultimately I think white women are the X factor demo this election, because I don't think any other demographic can vary as much as they can. When the votes are in they could possibly overwhelmingly go for the first female nominee, they could tie with trump, or Trump could win them by a good Margin; it's really impossible to tell at this point.

It's one reason why I felt like "doubling down on a strength" and pick Warren as her VP would have been the best move this primary, rather than solidifying a weakness, but oh well; I guess we'll see

that's two women for women to hate tho

 

[giga]

Eh, I don't know. The $15 donation is from someone that is only listed as giving one donation ever, that I can see.

I just went through several and it looks like they are. Here's an example from a random Bernie dude.

Click the image number for your dude you should see "amount of each receipt for this period" ($15), as well as election cycle to date. The latter should be more than $200.

 

[Oblivion]

I guess for some people they might be willing to let things slide as long as the person they are voting for gets what they wan done. If Obama was businessman and a progressive like he is, than I bet she will 1000% back Obama.

Americans have a capitalistic mind set; so it makes sense for many to think businesses handle knows how to handle money = businessmen know how to handle the economy. Plus, women are used to sexists things so they are more likely to let things slide.

I don't think so. The Republicans will always have an advantage when it comes to the economy. People see that businessmen, who tend to be rich, hang out with Republicans, and think to themselves if they're rich, and Republican, then I'll become rich as well if I vote Republican!

This is incredibly infuriating since Republicans have a pretty shitty track record on the economy and Dems have created tens of millions more jobs. But nobody gives a shit that Bill Clinton presided over 23 million jobs (I'm not crediting his policies for that, mind you, but you'd think that would help improve Dems image on the economy front, but nope. Marxism!).

 

[benjipwns]

I think you mean Newt Gingrich/Dennis Hastert and Bob Dole/Trent Lott presided over 23 million jobs.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

I think you mean Newt Gingrich/Dennis Hastert and Bob Dole/Trent Lott presided over 23 million jobs.

Hastert probably employed dozens of people personally to cover up being a rapist, true job creator.

 

[Spoiled Milk]

Hastert probably employed dozens of people personally to cover up being a rapist, true job creator.

One might call that redemption!

 

[benjipwns]

Hastert probably employed dozens of people personally to cover up being a rapist, true job creator.

Look do you want jobs that last or temporary seasonal jobs?

 

[Debirudog]

It amazes me how we got out of this goddamn bloody recession by electing a kenyan muslim president and yet republicans want to ruin everything by electing the least responsible person for the economy.

Just because he's white and a proud racist.

 

[benjipwns]

It amazes me how we got out of this goddamn bloody recession by electing a kenyan muslim president and yet republicans want to ruin everything by electing the least responsible person for the economy.

Just because he's white and a proud racist.

Again, I believe you mean "electing and re-electing a Republican House."

It's weird how you guys keep messing this up. Like you're trying to deny the objective success of Republican-led Congresses.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

edit: Never mind, journalists on Twitter misread a copycat Instagram as the real one.

 

[aspiegamer]

Look at what Breitbart's Instagram account liked (TW: Holocaust revisionism, extreme Antisemitism):

Good thing Trump only hired the CEO of this outlet to be his campaign manager.

Welp, time to start a new list of "things related to Trump that would instantly KO Hillary's campaign were she involved" for Sunday, and it's barely past midnight!

 

[benjipwns]

from brietbart's instagram:

lol

 

[Bowdz]

Again, I believe you mean "electing and re-electing a Republican House."

It's weird how you guys keep messing this up. Like you're trying to deny the objective success of Republican-led Congresses.

Actually, since the NBER says the recession started December 2007 and ended June 2009 (a time in which the House was controlled by the Democrats), I think we can say we got out of the recession by re electing a Democratic House.

 

[benjipwns]

Actually, since the NBER says the recession started December 2007 and ended June 2009 (a time in which the House was controlled by the Democrats), I think we can say we got out of the recession by re electing a Democratic House.

So electing the progressive Democrats to Congress in 2006 caused the recession after all.

And electing more Blue Dogs in 2008 fixed it.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

My self-proclaimed white nationalist relatives are triggered by the phrase "price discrimination" because it involves the word "discrimination."

I have no idea how these people are still alive.

 

[Bowdz]

So electing the progressive Democrats to Congress in 2006 caused the recession after all.

And electing more Blue Dogs in 2008 fixed it.

 

[User1608]

My self-proclaimed white nationalist relatives are triggered by the phrase "price discrimination" because it involves the word "discrimination."

I have no idea how these people are still alive.

They sound like they need a safe space.

 

[benjipwns]

That reminds me I was reading a to-be-published article on the power of spin. And the jist was that spin is actually useless for everyone except your supporters, that its real effect is in keeping them in the fold. You never convince opponents for obvious reasons, and most of the time "undecideds" never hear the spin because they aren't paying as close attention.

I don't know about the model, but the hypothesis seemed to make sense to me from an anecdotal standpoint. And I actually think I saw this argument somewhere else before.

Spoiler

Just look at GAF. And I don't mean just political threads...there's a whole forum of it over there.

 

[BlastProcessing]

So, what the fuck happened to Conway? Her touch has been notably absent from the past 48 hours and it feels like we are back in vintage Trump mode. I could understand yesterday morning being a fluke, but Trump's given two rally speeches off-script. Just looking at some website headlines, it's like we're back in the height of Trump's lunacy. Was there some major internal power struggle that we didn't hear about?

Also, GODDAMN at Obama's speech. He is the GOAT, no doubt.

I think people are giving Conway too much credit. She appears on TV way too much to be actually running a campaign. I think Bannon and Ailes are the ones who have put Trump on his leash and I think they are more than happy to have Conway serve as the public face.

 

[Dubbedinenglish]

Where is Hillary, metaphysically?

 

[User 463088]

The fact that none of you told me that Mrs. Coco Peru was in Arrested Development is a damn travesty.

 

[DontBeThatGuy]

I think people are giving Conway too much credit. She appears on TV way too much to be actually running a campaign. I think Bannon and Ailes are the ones who have put Trump on his leash and I think they are more than happy to have Conway serve as the public face.

That birther statement sure as shit wasn't Conway.

 

[mo60]

It looks like hilary is still leading trump by a decent margin in Minnesota.
http://www.startribune.com/minnesota-poll-clinton-keeps-lead-but-trump-gains/393840031/

 

[Spoiled Milk]

Where is Hillary, metaphysically?

Astral plane movement requires a soul.

 

[Debirudog]

I think Ailes actually has the most experience to manipulate the media to Trump's benefit.

 

[Sianos]

Astral plane movement requires a soul.

Key word is *a* soul, though. Doesn't specify where you get it from...

RIP Harambe, he died for a noble cause.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

I think Ailes actually has the most experience to manipulate the media to Trump's benefit.

Ailes secretly running the Trump campaign after sexually harassing dozens of conservative women has managed to become the creepy sub-plot of 2016 even after all the horrible things that have happened this year.

 

[benjipwns]

That brings to mind another conservation I was reading today involving people debating Hillary's extent of atheism, I think people forget that from what I can tell Hillary is like super religious personally. But in the Social Gospel tradition. Which once was the dominant position of the religious in American politics but now you say that and people only think of the Moral Majority.

And it's not something she's ever really flip-flopped on. Just played up or down as required.

It's also a political cleavage that gets really undercovered in the media. In part because I think it's a blindspot to the media. Religious = conservative anti-gay/anti-abortion wacko has been so ingrained in our political narrative and been one of the loudest factions in politics since the 1980s.

But they're starting to dwindle, to where I wonder if that Social Gospel tradition isn't actually a more dominant force even if not brought into form as an alliance. Obama did do some tapping into that. Hillary seems afraid to, with reason probably. Kerry, Gore, etc. all avoided it as much as possible at times. (Then went weirdly in the other direction like they did on almost everything.)

It's funny because Democrats were running so hard from atheism after Dukakis, Clinton showed how to do it almost perfectly except for the fact that he personally was arguably the worst person to do it from a moral standpoint, and then they kept running from atheism while also running from a progressive religious position. Which I think Obama tapped into and got himself success. And Hillary might also do well to, especially with a candidate like Trump against her who couldn't fake being a true believer if he tried. His Almighty is Trump.

She doesn't even mention "faith" on her webpage. That was all over both of Obama's campaign sites.

 

[Abinash117]

I don't think so. The Republicans will always have an advantage when it comes to the economy. People see that businessmen, who tend to be rich, hang out with Republicans, and think to themselves if they're rich, and Republican, then I'll become rich as well if I vote Republican!

This is incredibly infuriating since Republicans have a pretty shitty track record on the economy and Dems have created tens of millions more jobs. But nobody gives a shit that Bill Clinton presided over 23 million jobs (I'm not crediting his policies for that, mind you, but you'd think that would help improve Dems image on the economy front, but nope. Marxism!).

If she isn't completely loyal to the GOP; by just being a businessman Obama might could have persuade her only if she just care more about his previous occupation than the party he identifies as.

It is something that Republicans can sell since they are affiliated with businesses a lot and like I said people assume because you are a businessperson you know how to deal with the economy. It is also interesting that a lot more people don't distance themselves from Republicans a lot more based on that considering how many people don't like how corporations run things and how Republicans heavily represent corporation interest, or maybe they are.

 

[Pixieking]

That brings to mind another conservation I was reading today involving people debating Hillary's extent of atheism, I think people forget that from what I can tell Hillary is like super religious personally. But in the Social Gospel tradition. Which once was the dominant position of the religious in American politics but now you say that and people only think of the Moral Majority.

And it's not something she's ever really flip-flopped on. Just played up or down as required.

It's also a political cleavage that gets really undercovered in the media. In part because I think it's a blindspot to the media. Religious = conservative anti-gay/anti-abortion wacko has been so ingrained in our political narrative and been one of the loudest factions in politics since the 1980s.

But they're starting to dwindle, to where I wonder if that Social Gospel tradition isn't actually a more dominant force even if not brought into form as an alliance. Obama did do some tapping into that. Hillary seems afraid to, with reason probably. Kerry, Gore, etc. all avoided it as much as possible at times. (Then went weirdly in the other direction like they did on almost everything.)

It's funny because Democrats were running so hard from atheism after Dukakis, Clinton showed how to do it almost perfectly except for the fact that he personally was arguably the worst person to do it from a moral standpoint, and then they kept running from atheism while also running from a progressive religious position. Which I think Obama tapped into and got himself success. And Hillary might also do well to, especially with a candidate like Trump against her who couldn't fake being a true believer if he tried. His Almighty is Trump.

She doesn't even mention "faith" on her webpage. That was all over both of Obama's campaign sites.

There was a Post Opinion piece about her faith this time last week... Very easy to miss, and doesn't really delve that deeply into the question, but it hits upon the same points you do in your post re: "Social Gospel/Social Justice". It definitely feels that religion hasn't played as much a part of this election as it usually does, though that may be because a) Trump is hated by the GOP, who usually play-up the religious angle and b) Trump himself doesn't have much (any?) religion.

And it's true that the media haven't really gone-in on religion and the religious demographics. This piece about "Which is a worse sin, abortion or racism?" is one of the few I've seen that touch-upon the the problem evangelicals have with their usual Republican-voting stance, but it's from June.

As for why she's not being more overt with her religion. maybe the problem is that she's trying to tap into Republicans turned-off by Trump, which means as soon as you mention religion, you're making people remember that she's pro-choice?

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

There was a Post Opinion piece about her faith this time last week... Very easy to miss, and doesn't really delve that deeply into the question, but it hits upon the same points you do in your post re: "Social Gospel/Social Justice". It definitely feels that religion hasn't played as much a part of this election as it usually does, though that may be because a) Trump is hated by the GOP, who usually play-up the religious angle and b) Trump himself doesn't have much (any?) religion.

And it's true that the media haven't really gone-in on religion and the religious demographics. This piece about "Which is a worse sin, abortion or racism?" is one of the few I've seen that touch-upon the the problem evangelicals have with their usual Republican-voting stance, but it's from June.

As for why she's not being more overt with her religion. maybe the problem is that she's trying to tap into Republicans turned-off by Trump, which means as soon as you mention religion, you're making people remember that she's pro-choice?

Religion versus racism is a bullshit frame though because Evangelicals nowadays are driven mostly by hatred of Muslims and Islam. And that is clearly racial as 97% of their beliefs overlap.

One thing that is interesting about religion is that religious groups are basically captured demographics that have no opportunity of changing parties. I mean... black people aren't going to join the Republican Party right now because of religion, neither are Latinos, and definitely not Muslims.

Meanwhile, the Democrats have stayed pro "Muslims should not be put in camps" which has made Evangelical support impossible and getting Mormons is impossible with the Democrats being full of LGBT+ people and pro-choice women.

Really, Trump getting such overwhelmingly strong support from Evangelicals despite Trump being Christian in identity only whereas Hillary is clearly religious shows something interesting. It shows that religious people won't cross over because of religious beliefs or lack thereof.

If an atheist can get through a Democratic primary (likely would have to happen by running far to the left on racial issues), then I think their lack of faith wouldn't be that much of a liability nowadays (whereas it would be suicidal in 1976 or 1980 where religious individuals were more willing to cross over on issues of religion).

 

[benjipwns]

As for why she's not being more overt with her religion. maybe the problem is that she's trying to tap into Republicans turned-off by Trump, which means as soon as you mention religion, you're making people remember that she's pro-choice?

I was thinking of that in the context that maybe this doesn't hurt you as it did say, vs. George W. Bush who was religious on the face like crazy.

Say that in 2004 your split among the religious was 30% Social Gospel/25% Moderate/45% Moral Majority. But now it's more like 35% Social Gospel/40% Moderate/25% Moral Majority simply due to generational changes. We know even among highly religious millennials they're far more tolerant of things like homosexuals, transgendered, etc. even if they're more pro-life. I think that puts a greater chunk of people into the Moderate category, which comparatively would make the Social Gospel chunk relatively stronger.

Trump was pro-choice for 30 years, he converted in 2011. And he couldn't out-God anyone to save himself probably.

Maybe I wouldn't send Hillary, the devil incarnate out there, but it seems like an ideal vote suppressor in a lot of these potential red state-swing states. Anonymous mailers from completely unaffiliated and non-coordinating PACs. Trump has to have all sorts of garbage he's said. Especially in the 80s and 90s.

A lot of those megachurches have large Social Gospel wings. Some of those gigantic Texas ones aren't even evangelical as we'd commonly describe these days. It seems like the kind of thing you could get surrogates to at least undermine Trump in.

Like Joel Osteen and all that prosperity gospel horseshit. Those people won't mind Hillary's religious stances as much as the Moral Majority types did. Osteen even has written out homosexuality as a full sin and written in homophobia as one because it makes him more money. He refuses to back either party clearly for similar reasons.

I'm more or less just randomly spitballing here, like you said, it's interesting it hasn't come up as much. It barely even came up in the GOP Primaries of all places. I rarely see much about it on conservative blogs compared to the past. Even Hillary as an atheist doesn't get as much traction as Obama being a Muslim or John Kerry being an fake Catholic/real atheist did. Hillary being a criminal is like 80+% of it.

 

[cartoon_soldier]

Fucking hell. Now all media attention will focus on the NYC bombings.

 

[Debirudog]

Fucking hell. Now all media attention will focus on the NYC bombings.

Well, it's inevitable and unfortunate. :/

Fuck the bombers.

 

[Psychoward]

checked twitter to see if Trump had said anything reprehensible about the NYC bombings yet

he literally sounds like a mentally ill person. Even if his policies were 100% better than Hillary's I'd still be wondering if he's actually suffering from a mental illness or just has an extremely low IQ or what

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

I am a mentally ill person and don't scream at women because I don't like them and I don't threaten to end the first amendment of the United States out of revenge against a reporter, mmkay.

I was thinking of that in the context that maybe this doesn't hurt you as it did say, vs. George W. Bush who was religious on the face like crazy.

Say that in 2004 your split among the religious was 30% Social Gospel/25% Moderate/45% Moral Majority. But now it's more like 35% Social Gospel/40% Moderate/25% Moral Majority simply due to generational changes. We know even among highly religious millennials they're far more tolerant of things like homosexuals, transgendered, etc. even if they're more pro-life. I think that puts a greater chunk of people into the Moderate category, which comparatively would make the Social Gospel chunk relatively stronger.

Trump was pro-choice for 30 years, he converted in 2011. And he couldn't out-God anyone to save himself probably.

Maybe I wouldn't send Hillary, the devil incarnate out there, but it seems like an ideal vote suppressor in a lot of these potential red state-swing states. Anonymous mailers from completely unaffiliated and non-coordinating PACs. Trump has to have all sorts of garbage he's said. Especially in the 80s and 90s.

A lot of those megachurches have large Social Gospel wings. Some of those gigantic Texas ones aren't even evangelical as we'd commonly describe these days. It seems like the kind of thing you could get surrogates to at least undermine Trump in.

Like Joel Osteen and all that prosperity gospel horseshit. Those people won't mind Hillary's religious stances as much as the Moral Majority types did. Osteen even has written out homosexuality as a full sin and written in homophobia as one because it makes him more money. He refuses to back either party clearly for similar reasons.

I'm more or less just randomly spitballing here, like you said, it's interesting it hasn't come up as much. It barely even came up in the GOP Primaries of all places. I rarely see much about it on conservative blogs compared to the past. Even Hillary as an atheist doesn't get as much traction as Obama being a Muslim or John Kerry being an fake Catholic/real atheist did. Hillary being a criminal is like 80+% of it.

You implicitly assume that white evangelical Christianity is about anything other than a holy war between Evangelical Christians and Muslims. I don't agree with that assumption.

http://www.prri.org/research/prri-brookings-immigration-report/

74% of white evangelicals think that Islam is not compatible with American values. Most white Christians have developed a strong hate and fear of Muslims.

This hate and fear of Muslims as a driving factor also makes Trump and Israel interesting. Trump has clearly gathered together the most Antisemitic base for a presidential candidate in 50 years. But he's also really pro-Israel and has seemingly lost no support over having both of those positions. Perhaps white evangelical support for Israel is not out of support for a Jewish state as much for the fact that said Jewish state is at war with so many Muslim nations?