• 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 2016 |OT11| Well this is exciting

Status
Not open for further replies.

Dan

No longer boycotting the Wolfenstein franchise
I see this a lot in this thread. I tend to agree. HOWEVER! How long did it take for her to come up with a good answer to her Iraq vote? to the email bullshit?

No, this is not the most obvious thing ever. Hillary has shown before that despite getting telegraphed warnings about what she'll be hit with that she is not always prepared with a sharp, clear answer.

So yes I want to believe she's prepared for this hit, but there is plenty of room to question whether or not she actually will be.
I'm saying there shouldn't be any doubt the Clinton campaign has considered Trump bring this up. I'm inclined to believe they'll have a good response, but yes, even when she's been previously 'prepared' she's come up short on some topics. The only definitive thing I would say is that the distinct possibility of Trump bringing up Bill's infidelities is surely not a surprise.

I also think they're fully aware after two decades of what kinds of responses work, and how the attacks look. With emails, it was newer and in many ways the Clinton camp wanted to have a more nuanced discussion instead of going with cleaner answers that admitted more fallibility, but took too long to realize average Americans didn't give a fuck. I think they undoubtedly have a much more complete and internalized view on how to handle questions about Bill's troubles after all this time.
 
You're not changing those people's minds. The current end just comes across as ridiculous editing.
By putting the "they'd have squandered it" in there you do two things

1) You give him an opportunity to defend why he said that. We don't want him to defend himself. Instead, we defended his stance on our terms by saying it's because he loves money and is greedy. This is a good connection for us to make.

2) You can use that "they'd have squandered it" later if you're so inclined. Like, don't throw everything at one ad when you'll be cutting quite a few more in the next week or so. Let this one breathe a bit.
 

Slacker

Member
I'm not in politics, not a speech writer, and not even all that bright, but I'll take a stab at a Clinton response to Trump mentioning Bill's infidelities.

Trump: (mentions it - I honestly can't think of how he'll bring it up without looking like the biggest a-hole in existence)

Clinton: Yes like many families Bill and I went through difficult times in our marriage, but we were able to work through them and I'm glad we did. When I look back at my life do I see things I wish would have happened differently? Or course, I think everyone can say that. But looking where I am now with a husband who loves and supports me through anything, an amazing daughter and son-in-law, and two perfect grandchildren, and the opportunity to serve the country I love as First Lady, Senator, Secretary of State, and now running for president, I thank God every day that the twists and turns in my life lead me here.

Trump: Did you by any chance get fat when pregnant with Chelsea? Maybe I can use that.
 
The thing is, with the emails, she didn't want to answer it because she didn't do anything wrong. So, her natural inclination is to say "Well, okay, fine, bad idea, but whatever. Who cares?" Because, in a rational world, no one would have cared.

With the Bill thing, it's easier to come up with an answer because she has nothing to feel bad about. She was the victim, and there's nothing Trump can say that hasn't been said in the last 20 years.
 

PBY

Banned
The thing is, with the emails, she didn't want to answer it because she didn't do anything wrong. So, her natural inclination is to say "Well, okay, fine, bad idea, but whatever. Who cares?" Because, in a rational world, no one would have cared.

With the Bill thing, it's easier to come up with an answer because she has nothing to feel bad about. She was the victim, and there's nothing Trump can say that hasn't been said in the last 20 years.

Adam come on. In a rational world, it is a big deal, and people do care. She fucked up in a high ranking office.

THAT SAID

We're in a world where people don't understand negligence versus criminality, so we all take sides, etc. There's no sense of: "heh, that was a bad mistake. Bad judgment. Hope she learns from this, etc."
 
Adam come on. In a rational world, it is a big deal, and people do care. She fucked up in a high ranking office.

THAT SAID

We're in a world where people don't understand negligence versus criminality, so we all take sides, etc. There's no sense of: "heh, that was a bad mistake. Bad judgment. Hope she learns from this, etc."

I mean, no. She did the same thing previous Secretaries of State did. She didn't break the law. Hell, Powell tried to tell her to make sure nothing was on record so they didn't find anything. I guarantee you, if we could get our hands on Rice or Powell's emails (but we can't because they either deleted them or refused to share them) there would be just as many "oopsies" in there.

I'm arguing that her natural inclination on the email issues was a PR sanctioned "Fuck off" because she knew she wasn't totally in the wrong. It's one part being technically right (the best kind of right!) and one part being a bit stubborn after 30 years of this bullshit.
 

Iolo

Member
All these immediate post-debate polls are just there for hits, as are the analysts commenting on them. We have to wait several days, probably Monday before we can say anything.
 
Adam come on. In a rational world, it is a big deal, and people do care. She fucked up in a high ranking office.

THAT SAID

We're in a world where people don't understand negligence versus criminality, so we all take sides, etc. There's no sense of: "heh, that was a bad mistake. Bad judgment. Hope she learns from this, etc."

No it's not a bif deal at all and never has been treated as such for anyone but HRC:

The lengths we go to in order to rationalize this all will be seen, in retrospect, as extraordinary.

When the Bush administration was discovered to have erased millions of emails illegally sent by 22 administration officials through private, RNC-owned accounts, in order to thwart an investigation into the politically motivated firing of eight US attorneys, just one talk show covered it that Sunday.

When Mitt Romney wiped servers, sold government hard drives to his closest aides and spent $100,000 in taxpayer money to destroy his administration’s emails, it was barely an issue.

When Hillary Clinton asked Colin Powell how he managed to use a Blackberry while serving as Secretary of State, he replied by detailing his method of intentionally bypassing federal record-keeping laws:

I didn’t have a Blackberry. What I did do was have a personal computer that was hooked up to a private phone line (sounds ancient.) So I could communicate with a wide range of friends directly without it going through the State Department servers. I even used it to do business with some foreign leaders and some of the senior folks in the Department on their personal email accounts. I did the same thing on the road in hotels.
... There is a real danger. If it is public that you have a BlackBerry and it it [sic] government and you are using it, government or not, to do business, it may become an official record and subject to the law.

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/12191766
 

StoOgE

First tragedy, then farce.
Adam come on. In a rational world, it is a big deal, and people do care. She fucked up in a high ranking office.

THAT SAID

We're in a world where people don't understand negligence versus criminality, so we all take sides, etc. There's no sense of: "heh, that was a bad mistake. Bad judgment. Hope she learns from this, etc."

The Bush administration was running a private server for state business that was located in the RNC offices, but do go on about how terrible of judgement Hillary had. It was up until that point in time, standard operating procedure to keep your own e-mail address.

Was it a good idea? Well, no. Was it her idea? No.

Where is the outrage about the millions of missing e-mails during the Bush admin? Where are the inquiries looking into donations to Thousands of Points of Light and meetings with officials in the two Bush administrations?

There is absolutely a double standard at play here and she is absolutely right to be really mad about it.
 

Boke1879

Member
All these immediate post-debate polls are just there for hits, as are the analysts commenting on them. We have to wait several days, probably Monday before we can say anything.

I'd say at least Friday and even then that won't totally take into account all of her campaigning this week and trump being trump
 

PBY

Banned
Not trying to start an email conversation, because I totally agree with all of your points, particularly the double standard one.

My only point was to say that we don't differentiate between minor fuckups and significant scandals, and in this climate, we almost can't
 
Congress Reaches Agreement To Fund Government Until December


Negotiators in the House and Senate have reached a deal on a bill to fund the government through December 9.

Republicans and Democrats have been arguing for weeks to find a way forward before the September 30 deadline in order to avoid a government shutdown.

The Senate version of that water bill does contain Flint aid, but the House version — up until now — had not. On Tuesday, House leaders finally agreed to add $170 million of assistance for Flint to their water bill. Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid says he now sees a path forward on the government spending bill.

"I think it should be a good day for the Senate. It should lead to our being able to move forward on this continuing resolution," Reid said. "There are a couple of outstanding issues, but I think they should be able to be resolved."

And

The Associated Press
‏@AP
BREAKING: Kerry threatens to cut off all contacts with Russia over Syria, unless Russian and Syrian bombardment of Aleppo ends.

https://twitter.com/ap/status/781147584693927937

The Senate also overrode Obama's veto on the 9/11 Bill.
 
I like how Trump's campaign manager is the head of a Nazi website:

The undermining of nation-state sovereignty by the likes of George Soros, the UN, the EU, the IMF, the World Bank, the Davos crowd, the City of London and Wall Street, and the Obama/Clinton/Kerry U.S. interventionist foreign policy groupthinkers has catalyzed the recent, revolutionary sea change in Western politics.



And hell hath no fury like a Polish, Jewish, American elitist scorned. Following the fall from grace, Applebaum began utilizing her global media contacts, disbursing heavily curated and obfuscated “facts patterns” meant to construct an anti-democratic global news narrative depicting the new democratically elected Law & Justice government as far right fascists and illiberal anti-democrats.

http://www.breitbart.com/london/201...sive-msm-vs-anti-globalist-right-will-people/
 

Cheezus

Member
I wonder if it would be best to simply dismiss Trump's attack as being invasive to her personal life. She could use it as an opportunity to harp on Trump's habit of holding people to a standard he doesn't hold himself to and play on people's fears of him being too authoritarian.
 

Tarkus

Member
By GARY JOHNSON SEPTEMBER 28 said:
The America I know wasn’t on the television screen on Monday night. My America is about the freedom to make choices, pursue your dreams and use your skills as entrepreneurs. It is about having more choices than just red versus blue.

Americans want to be able to choose a president who is capable of reason, of learning from failures, and of telling them the truth, even when it hurts. Most of all, they want to choose a president who will adhere to the Constitution and will make government live within its means.

I’m offering that choice. I wasn’t part of the presidential debate on Monday, but as Americans listened in dismay to the so-called major parties’ candidates, Google searches for “Gary Johnson” skyrocketed.

I’m the third candidate — the leader of the Libertarian Party. My name will be on every ballot alongside that of my running mate, Bill Weld, who like me was a twice-elected Republican governor of a strongly Democratic state. Contrary to the Republican and Democratic presidential candidates, Bill and I don’t believe the United States is a polarized nation.

We don’t deny that there are very real tensions on the fringes, and we can’t simply ignore those tensions. But when it comes down to the basics, most Americans really aren’t that far apart.

Our kids are better educated than ever before. Our technology enables entrepreneurship and transparency. Our military is second to none, as it should be. But our two-party political system is an entirely different story. Hyper-partisanship may be entertaining, but it’s a terrible way to try to run a country. We’re the alternative — and we’re the only ticket that offers Americans a chance to find common ground.

People might call us fiscal conservatives. Like most Americans, I believe that government does too much and costs too much. As governor of New Mexico, I vetoed more than 750 bills and reduced government involvement in business, better known as “crony capitalism.”

Some would call us social liberals. I’ve been vocal in criticizing the disparity in the treatment of black Americans by the police. I want reform in our criminal justice and sentencing systems. “Three strikes” laws and mandatory minimums have put the United States among the world leaders in incarceration. Treating drug use and abuse as crimes, rather than health issues, has put far too many Americans behind bars.


What would government be like in a Johnson administration? First, we would begin the conversation about the size of government by submitting a real balanced budget. Every government program would have to justify its expenditures, every year. Cuts of up to 20 percent or more would be on the table for all programs, including military spending. Changes to Social Security and Medicare must also be considered.

As governors, we balanced our budgets and reduced taxes: I cut taxes 14 times; Bill Weld did so 21 times in his six years leading Massachusetts. It just requires commitment and certainty.

Hillary Clinton’s and Donald J. Trump’s proposals call for much more spending. Both parties are responsible for our unsustainable fiscal problems: President George W. Bush nearly doubled our national debt, to $10 trillion from $5.7 trillion. President Obama is on track to double it again.

Second, we would protect the Constitution and civil liberties and stop treating immigration as a bad thing. In the difficult case of abortion, I support a woman’s right to choose. I’ve long supported civil liberties, including marriage equality and freedom from mass surveillance.

Given the way it has served as both a launching pad and a crash-landing site for Republican presidential prospects, immigration was strangely absent from Monday’s debate. Neither the Republican-controlled Congress nor President Obama has done anything to fix the dysfunctional immigration system. Deporting millions of noncriminal undocumented immigrants and building a wall, as Mr. Trump proposes, are ludicrous ideas.

A majority of Americans can actually agree on a solution. We would allow those immigrants who are here without documents, but with otherwise clean records, to come forward, pay taxes, undergo a background check and legally reside in the United States. We’d eliminate categories and quotas on immigration, and border enforcement would be devoted to keeping out real criminals and would-be terrorists.

Third, we would offer free trade to all nations, but limit military intervention to when our nation is attacked. We would honor all treaty obligations and pursue strategic alliances that made our country safer.

Mrs. Clinton wants to continue a muddled mix of intervention, regime change and bombing campaigns. That approach brought us Syria, Iraq, Libya and failed nation-building in Afghanistan. Our troops and the American people deserve clear objectives, with a well-drawn distinction between defense and futile interventions. And our troops deserve authorization from Congress for their activities overseas, an important detail that has fallen by the wayside.

The same common-sense attitude applies to trade and diplomacy. Our ticket is the only one to support free trade. The goal is to enhance prosperity and peace without sending our young people to war.

Less than six weeks before Election Day, independents and, particularly, young voters are increasingly turning to Bill Weld and me as reasonable, rational and experienced candidates. We are the party that can break the partisan gridlock which for too long has kept real solutions out of reach.
Op ed from NYT
 
He's literally said he's gonna deport millions.

Why is that "too fear mongerish?" because you wont be deported?

A) because you can't deport registered voters and US citizens,

B) deportations have been high during the Obama administration, (deported in Chief)

there is a reason why support among Hispanics is only hovering in the high 60s to low 70s not in the 90s.

when appealing to specific demos, the aim has to be smart, not just lazy fear mongering
 
Op ed from NYT

I’m the third candidate — the leader of the Libertarian Party. My name will be on every ballot alongside that of my running mate, Bill Weld, who like me was a twice-elected Republican governor of a strongly Democratic state. Contrary to the Republican and Democratic presidential candidates, Bill and I don’t believe the United States is a polarized nation.

AKA I live in a fantasy world immune from empirical evidence
 
If Gary really wants to say he's going to tell the truth, even when it hurts, he shouldn't continue on writing an article talking about how he has a chance to be president.

Because the painful truth for him and his supporters is that Gary Johnson is not going to be president and voting for him isn't going to accomplish much of anything, besides maybe helping white supremacy come to America.

That's the painful truth. Until he admits that, he can't, in good conscience, actually say he tells the truth, even when it hurts.
 

StoOgE

First tragedy, then farce.
I wonder if it would be best to simply dismiss Trump's attack as being invasive to her personal life. She could use it as an opportunity to harp on Trump's habit of holding people to a standard he doesn't hold himself to and play on people's fears of him being too authoritarian.

All she has to say is:

"That was the single hardest and trying time my family and I have ever gone through, and through the support of the American people, my friends and family and my deep faith in god, we prayed hard and put in the work, and I am happy to say that we have come out much stronger as a family. It was a trying time for me, and has no bearing on this campaign and appears to be a low-brow attempt for a failing candidate to drag this campaign into the mud instead of focusing on the very real problems that Americans face today. As Michelle Obama said, when they go low, we go high. So let's not talk about private matters from 20 years ago and focus on the American people."

But you know, written better. It is such a slam dunk for her if he goes there.
 
"There's only one of us on stage that's cheated on their spouse, Donald.

Yes, we had hard times, but we did what so many couples do-- we worked through them, rather than giving up."
 

PantherLotus

Professional Schmuck
The Hillary Messaging Maxim:

Quick, memorable, to-the-point gut checks = lazy fear mongering and not intelligently communicating nuanced issues.

vs.

Intelligently communicating nuanced issues = not getting to the point quickly enough for Americans.


Everyone got that?
 
A) because you can't deport registered voters and US citizens,

B) deportations have been high during the Obama administration, (deported in Chief)

there is a reason why support among Hispanics is only hovering in the high 60s to low 70s not in the 90s.

when appealing to specif demos, the aim has to be smart, not just lazy fear mongering

1 Trump has said he potentially would deport citizens, even if he can't.

2. The add doesn't say he's going to deport citizens. It says "Donald Trump wants us to dissapear" and that "he will deport millions, our dreamers, destroying our families" (citizens have and know undocumented immigrants)

It literally uses his words. I think its silly that people who don't have anything to fear in regards to deportation are telling others that its too "fear mongering" to use the candidates own words
 
Here's my answer on the Bill thing:

Yes, Donald. My marriage, like millions of marriages across the country, ran into some difficulty. Bill and I, like many others, turned to friends, family and faith to work through our challenges. Unlike most Americans, though, we got to do it in front of 300 million people, in a very public way. But, that's alright. We both dedicated ourselves to public service. And having gone through what I went through, I realized that the public part of public service is often the most challenging. Everyone wants to tell you how to feel, how to react, and what you should do. But, at the end of the end of the day, relationships require work between partners. That is what Bill and I did, and we came out stronger together.

(Yes, intentional)
 
I do hope that those people googling Gary Johnson are actually reading what comes up so he stops being the magical "whatever I want him to be" candidate to undecideds.
 
So foxnews.com has decided they're just not going to cover the debate anymore or anything from it, and instead will use 50% of their page to talk about Hillary's emails, with the rest about the overrule of Obama's veto.
 

Veelk

Banned
Here's my answer on the Bill thing:

Yes, Donald. My marriage, like millions of marriages across the country, ran into some difficulty. Bill and I, like many others, turned to friends, family and faith to work through our challenges. Unlike most Americans, though, we got to do it in front of 300 million people, in a very public way. But, that's alright. We both dedicated ourselves to public service. And having gone through what I went through, I realized that the public part of public service is often the most challenging. Everyone wants to tell you how to feel, how to react, and what you should do. But, at the end of the end of the day, relationships require work between partners. That is what Bill and I did, and we came out stronger together.

(Yes, intentional)

I like this response the best. Bringing attention to the public nature of an issue that hundreds are allowed to resolve privately is a way to help her be relatable while acknowledging her status as a politician.

Throw some shade on his being an adulterer whose trying to criticize a woman for being cheated on, and it's perfect.
 
Ipsos/Reuters (September 22-26, 2016)
Trump / Clinton Head-to-Head Likely Voters - Clinton 44%, Trump 38%.
Four-Way Ballot Head-to-Head Likely Voters - Clinton 42%, Trump 38%, Johnson 7%, Stein 2%.

I don't know what the numbers were for the last poll. This is pre-debate

Was this posted yet?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom