• 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 |OT7| Notorious R.B.G. Plans NZ Tour

Status
Not open for further replies.

itschris

Member
Washington Post: 23 things Donald Trump has said that would have doomed another candidate

iMzKIhH.png
 
Trump is largely outsourcing what's typically called a campaign's ground game, which includes the labor-intensive jobs of identifying and contacting potential supporters. Ed Brookover, recently tapped to serve as the Trump's liaison to the RNC, says the campaign is making progress on adding its own staff in key states.

The campaign estimates it currently has about 30 paid staff on the ground across the country.

"There are some holes," Brookover said. "There are fewer holes than there were.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/trum-battleground-states-shortage
The campaign estimates it currently has about 30 paid staff on the ground across the country.

The campaign estimates it currently has about 30 paid staff on the ground across the country.

The campaign estimates it currently has about 30 paid staff on the ground across the country.
kobev.gif
 
There were only just two candidates (or maybe not, depending on the timing of the note), as that's the same day that Bernie launched his campaign.

That's pretty narrow evidence, if it is even evidence at all.
I could believe its just me believing these articles, but its not ME making this up. Its what is being reported. Can I be at least forgiven for believing in media?

The aggression is real (not you), but thank you for breaking it down for me.
 
PoliGAF, help me, I think my mom might legit be a Bernie or Bust person. She started talking about how "if Trump got elected maybe things would get so bad that America would learn its lesson". What do I do????????
 
That bird photo is the single-worst thing to come out of this primary season. Trump's dick size bragging live on national TV being the best, of course.
What does this mean?
Political party aims to protect one of their candidates from Republican attacks. Shocking news. Were Sanders the only candidate in the race with a known name and reputation at that point I'm 100% confident there'd be warnings about his previous, "colorful" statements on economic issues such as Venezuela and bread lines. She's the only person at that point that would poll above an asterisks of a percent at time of writing. Sanders wasn't even in. Hell, he wasn't even a Democrat at that point. One could argue that the author there might not have even known who Sanders was at the time, to say nothing of trying to work against him specifically.
I get it now. My bad, should have just kept it to myself.
That's not the message I think anyone wants you to take from here. Discussion on essentially any and everything is welcomed here as long as they're willing to make a sound argument for themselves. If you had actual, detailed and specific proof of some conspiracy against Sanders, people would gladly hear you out.
PoliGAF, help me, I think my mom might legit be a Bernie or Bust person. She started talking about how "if Trump got elected maybe things would get so bad that America would learn its lesson". What do I do????????

http://www.theonion.com/article/un-warns-trump-may-be-7-months-away-acquiring-nucl-53093
 
I am going to laugh so hard when Bernie Sanders doesn't concede before the convention and ends up losing a prime time speaking slot. The humiliation is going to be incredible. A 10 minute speaking slot? Ha!

In other news, I am officially announcing the start of PredictionGAF. Some time ago, NeoXChaos had volunteering members predict who the winner of the Republican primaries would be and the winners were announced about two months ago. We are now going to regularly record predictions just for fun! I am going to keep a running tally of how successful people are. If you want a question submitted, PM it to me. If you want to participate, just your predictions (adding a slash to the last tag) and I will probably find it.

First questions! Deadline to submit predictions is 1 week.

- Will Bernie concede early enough to secure a prime time speaking slot at the DNC?
- Who will be the Democratic VP pick?
- Who will be the Republican VP pick?
 
So first off, like, I am not sure that the DNC is supposed to be impartial. The DNC's job is to try to win the presidency, protect downticket races, and support Democratic policy goals. If Donald Trump tried to run as a Democrat, would you want the DNC to be impartial, or would you want the DNC to work hard to block him on the grounds that he is an insane unqualified racist? (Note that I'm not suggesting anything particular about Sanders here, just questioning this assumption.)

But leave that aside for the moment. Even if the DNC is impartial it doesn't mean that they don't have OPINIONS. Whether or not the DNC ran fair contests, is it really surprising that people working for the DNC, pretty much the definition of establishment politicians, BELIEVED that Hillary would win and be the nominee they would have to support? Because (and again this assumes the email is from somebody in the DNC) that's all this phrasing suggests.

I don't think that believing the conventional wisdom that Hillary would win, which turned out to be clearly accurate, is really evidence of collusion against the other candidates.

If anything, my concern about this email is that the first paragraph just says "Ultimately, we need to" and then ends in mid-sentence. If this is a conspiracy it is a very poorly organized one.

Hope you get the job, btw!
Thank you very much, and thank you for the decent analogy. That does make sense, putting it that way.
 

dramatis

Member
I get it now. My bad, should have just kept it to myself.

I gave you articles, gave you the document, what more do you want? It has her initials right there, when there were 2 candidates. The DNC is supposed to be impartial, correct? Why is it naming only HRC? That is my hangup. Again, if its not believable, or I did something wrong, I'll accept my loss and move on.
You asked why we were not talking about the DNC colluding with the media to portray Sanders in a negative light.

There are a number of things wrong with that question, and quite frankly if you still don't understand why it is not an issue:

  1. The document content is clearly aimed at Republican candidates. It is explicitly stated in the points list.
  2. The document does not mention the media. It merely outlines their public messaging strategy, which is what they will say to the media, and not them asking or compelling the media to write specifically XYZ.
  3. The document is dated May 2015. At that time, the Democratic primary was considered nonexistent because Hillary Clinton was sucking the life out of the contest, with or without the DNC.
  4. By extension, if you're brainstorming strategy, it's no surprise to look at the current environment and produce a strategy based on an assessment of the field at the time. Hillary was the strongest contender then, so naturally planning a strategy with the idea that she would win in mind is not that shocking. If there is a huge river in the middle of your battlefield, are you really going to plan a strategy without thinking about the river at all?
  5. You came with the perception that Sanders has been portrayed negatively in the media; in May 2015 and for several months after, Sanders actually received very positive media attention, while Hillary was being dogged with Benghazi and emails until October. Hillary has received and still receives more negative media attention than Sanders.
That's why there's not much substance to the links you posted or the argument you posit.
 

phisheep

NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
PoliGAF, help me, I think my mom might legit be a Bernie or Bust person. She started talking about how "if Trump got elected maybe things would get so bad that America would learn its lesson". What do I do????????

Send her to the UK, she can vote to leave the EU as well.
 
Political party aims to protect one of their candidates from Republican attacks. Shocking news. Were Sanders the only candidate in the race with a known name and reputation at that point I'm 100% confident there'd be warnings about his previous, "colorful" statements on economic issues such as Venezuela and bread lines. She's the only person at that point that would poll above an asterisks of a percent at time of writing. Sanders wasn't even in. Hell, he wasn't even a Democrat at that point. One could argue that the author there might not have even known who Sanders was at the time, to say nothing of trying to work against him specifically.

That's not the message I think anyone wants you to take from here. Discussion on essentially any and everything is welcomed here as long as they're willing to make a sound argument for themselves. If you had actual, detailed and specific proof of some conspiracy against Sanders, people would gladly hear you out.
Well, that certainly isn't helping. I read a few articles, watched a few news sites, posted my sources. Is that not due diligence?

You guys are tough. I think it is a believable idea, which I tried to back up, but it wasn't enough; I suppose this is not the place to speculate, to come to conclusions based on sound reasoning, and that was my mistake. So I will leave, tail tucked between my legs, never to return.

Take care, and my apologies.

[*]You came with the perception that Sanders has been portrayed negatively in the media; in May 2015 and for several months after, Sanders actually received very positive media attention, while Hillary was being dogged with Benghazi and emails until October. Hillary has received and still receives more negative media attention than Sanders.
I respectfully disagree. Bernie Bros, Socialist/Communist, Sexist (For his 'bros' throwing money at Hillary motorcade). But I digress, I was wrong, and I accept that. I'll be on my way.
 

fauxtrot

Banned
You can't back up your claims with "news" websites that have been proven to be total bullshit and/or horribly biased to the point where the facts aren't relevant to them. It's like writing a thesis and expecting it to be OK to use Wikipedia articles as your sources.

With that said, you should stay. I don't think anyone wants you to leave, and staying away from discussions that aren't just echo chambers is not going to be educational or healthy for you if you do want to learn about politics.
 
PoliGAF, help me, I think my mom might legit be a Bernie or Bust person. She started talking about how "if Trump got elected maybe things would get so bad that America would learn its lesson". What do I do????????

Firstly, don't discredit how she feels. Even if you think she's completely, totally and insanely wrong? Don't lecture. It's hard to do, and so easy to want to, but lecturing people just makes them dig in.

Acknowledge how she feels, but then just ask her what she would tell the millions of us who would be harmed, daily, by Trump being in power. What are we supposed to do while America learns whatever lesson this is supposed to be. Am I supposed to go back in the closet or continue to get shot at so someone can learn how bad things can get? Are families supposed to be torn apart so that we can learn a lesson?

Let her know you respect how she feels, but this is about way more than getting exactly what she wants. It's about, literal, life and death for people.
 

pigeon

Banned
Well, that certainly isn't helping. I read a few articles, watched a few news sites, posted my sources. Is that not due diligence?

You guys are tough. I think it is a believable idea, which I tried to back up, but it wasn't enough; I suppose this is not the place to speculate, to come to conclusions based on sound reasoning, and that was my mistake. So I will leave, tail tucked between my legs, never to return.

Take care, and my apologies.

I respectfully disagree. Bernie Bros, Socialist/Communist, Sexist (For his 'bros' throwing money at Hillary motorcade). But I digress, I was wrong, and I accept that. I'll be on my way.

For the record, I think your original posts were fine. I thought your post about how "it's crazy we're ignoring the evidence" was maybe going to get some pushback.

I'm sad about how echoey this thread is so I think you should stay! But we are pretty argumentative.
 
  1. You came with the perception that Sanders has been portrayed negatively in the media; in May 2015 and for several months after, Sanders actually received very positive media attention, while Hillary was being dogged with Benghazi and emails until October. Hillary has received and still receives more negative media attention than Sanders.
Does anyone here remember just how unrelatable the media was making Hillary Clinton seemed that summer? Like the time she was walking in a parade and her security had her corralled like royalty? The media was mocking her for at least a week.
 
Firstly, don't discredit how she feels. Even if you think she's completely, totally and insanely wrong? Don't lecture. It's hard to do, and so easy to want to, but lecturing people just makes them dig in.

Acknowledge how she feels, but then just ask her what she would tell the millions of us who would be harmed, daily, by Drumpf being in power. What are we supposed to do while America learns whatever lesson this is supposed to be. Am I supposed to go back in the closet or continue to get shot at so someone can learn how bad things can get? Are families supposed to be torn apart so that we can learn a lesson?

Let her know you respect how she feels, but this is about way more than getting exactly what she wants. It's about, literal, life and death for people.

What I actually told her is that I didn't want my children to be forced to live with conservative SC judges. I don't think she would actually go through with Trump.

I only bring it up because although Bernie is supposed to be the young man's candidate, both of my parents (who are in their late 60s) are still enormously into Bernie. They're probably just outliers.
 

Iolo

Member
The article does. If Sanders was in the race as well, yet the primary focus was to put forth HRC (Hillary Rodham Clinton), thats nothing?

Break it down for me, please. I notice(d) a distinct lack of media coverage for Sanders in a positive light, and I'm putting the two together, as does this article and a couple others.

The New York Post. How reliable are they?

http://nypost.com/2016/06/16/leaked-document-shows-the-dnc-wanted-clinton-from-start/

Here's some background info on the New York Post, aka the worst piece of paper on the east coast, America's continually published piece of bullshit.

warning: language
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9DMo3uQpd40

also you are welcome to stay here and speculate, it's basically all we do here
 
What I actually told her is that I didn't want my children to be forced to live with conservative SC judges. I don't think she would actually go through with Trump.

I only bring it up because although Bernie is supposed to be the young man's candidate, both of my parents (who are in their late 60s) are still enormously into Bernie. They're probably just outliers.

There are always hold outs everywhere. All you can do is try and explain why you're supporting Hillary. I think, given time, 99% of the Bernie or Bust people will come home.

I would have had the opposite problem had Hillary not won. My mom has a visceral hatred of Bernie. She loathes him. I'd have had to get her to vote for him...somehow.
 

Link

The Autumn Wind
So now Donald tweets polls where he's behind? LOL.
I saw on one of the news channels that his explanation was that some people don't want to admit they'll be voting for him when they are surveyed, so he's actually ahead.

No, seriously.
 

Rebel Leader

THE POWER OF BUTTERSCOTCH BOTTOMS
PoliGAF, help me, I think my mom might legit be a Bernie or Bust person. She started talking about how "if Trump got elected maybe things would get so bad that America would learn its lesson". What do I do????????

You left out a portion of the conversation because to me it sounds like she thinks Trump wil be a lesson for voting for him
 
I've been thinking as a "gotcha" question, reporters should be asking GOPers this question point blank.

"Should Omar Mateen been allowed to purchase his AR-15."

There's no good answer on that one other than "no," which they won't say but if they did you follow up with "So what gun control measure do you support to have prevented that?"

The optics will be horrible for them when they probably ignore the question.
 
ClEmpXKWMAAPDPI.jpg


What does this mean?

This is dated literally the day Bernie announced.

I also find it suspicious the leak didn't include who sent it.

Yes, and he was literally not on anyones radar.

I don't see anything in there that says "We must suppress other candidates in order for HRC to win". That memo, sent by unknown, talks about how HRC has weaknesses and how to address those weaknesses. Everyone and their mothers had Clinton being the nominee, yet a single memo sent by unknown about asuming HRC is going to be the nominee against a field of

1) An independent Senator from Vermont
2) Brick, who killed a man with a trident grenade
3) The other two guys who nobody cares about
 

Wilsongt

Member
I've been thinking as a "gotcha" question, reporters should be asking GOPers this question point blank.

"Should Omar Mateen been allowed to purchase his AR-15."

There's no good answer on that one other than "no," which they won't say but if they did you follow up with "So what gun control measure do you support to have prevented that?"

The optics will be horrible for them when they probably ignore the question.

They are paid off to be pro-gun as possible. Anyone getting a gun means more money for the gun makers, which means more money for the NRA, which means more money for them. It's their own fault that he was able to purchase a gun in the first place, but they would never say that. So what do they do? Blame it on ISIS, which may have just been a ruse by the shooter, and no longer mentioning it was LGBT people who got killed.
 

Teggy

Member
I've been thinking as a "gotcha" question, reporters should be asking GOPers this question point blank.

"Should Omar Mateen been allowed to purchase his AR-15."

There's no good answer on that one other than "no," which they won't say but if they did you follow up with "So what gun control measure do you support to have prevented that?"

The optics will be horrible for them when they probably ignore the question.

<guy on twitter>It wasn't an AR-15</guy on twitter>
 

Dan

No longer boycotting the Wolfenstein franchise
The campaign estimates it currently has about 30 paid staff on the ground across the country.

"There are some holes," Brookover said. "There are fewer holes than there were.
Understatement of the year.

Nothing exemplifies the blind religious fever some found in the Bernie campaign more than losing your shit over a bird landing near him. That's not politics. That's religion.
 
They are paid off to be pro-gun as possible. Anyone getting a gun means more money for the gun makers, which means more money for the NRA, which means more money for them. It's their own fault that he was able to purchase a gun in the first place, but they would never say that. So what do they do? Blame it on ISIS, which may have just been a ruse by the shooter, and no longer mentioning it was LGBT people who got killed.

Let them blame ISIS. I'll turn it around on their ass and then ask "Should ISIS supporters who are US citizens be allowed to buy a gun?"

Make them either answer it or look like a wuss avoiding it. Eventually, some idiot GOPer will fuck up and say "yes."

<guy on twitter>It wasn't an AR-15</guy on twitter>

Whatever gun it was, doesn't matter.
 
I could believe its just me believing these articles, but its not ME making this up. Its what is being reported. Can I be at least forgiven for believing in media?

The aggression is real (not you), but thank you for breaking it down for me.
Give how bloody obvious it is that this isn't proof of anything and given that you linked to the freaking NY Post. Nah you can't be.
 

fauxtrot

Banned
Nothing exemplifies the blind religious fever some found in the Bernie campaign more than losing your shit over a bird landing near him. That's not politics. That's religion.

Most definitely. I was still fully on board the Bernie train at this point in the campaign, but when my girlfriend showed me the Birdie video clip the night after it happened, it made me so uncomfortable. The audience's reaction (aka freaking the fuck out like the heavens parted and God came down to the podium to officially endorse him) was some of the most cringe-inducing stuff I've seen in a long time, as was the social media response to it. I hate having to use "cringe", but there is literally nothing else that better encapsulates how that whole thing felt to me.
 

Teggy

Member
I saw on one of the news channels that his explanation was that some people don't want to admit they'll be voting for him when they are surveyed, so he's actually ahead.

No, seriously.

Ah, so he's going with the Bradley effect, huh? People are too embarrassed to anonymously admit they are voting for Trump. OK.
 
As someone else posted, I'd say pictures of Obama having a speech in the pouring down rain is a lot more powerful than a bird that landed on a podium.

I'd also like to think that the birdie tweeted 'You'll never be president now" to him.

The bird actually informed Sanders that jet fuel doesn't melt steel beams
 
The article does. If Sanders was in the race as well, yet the primary focus was to put forth HRC (Hillary Rodham Clinton), thats nothing?

Break it down for me, please. I notice(d) a distinct lack of media coverage for Sanders in a positive light, and I'm putting the two together, as does this article and a couple others.

The New York Post. How reliable are they?

http://nypost.com/2016/06/16/leaked-document-shows-the-dnc-wanted-clinton-from-start/

The New York Post is owned by Rupert Murdoch, the owner and creator of the Fox News media empire. It's a rag. But more importantly, in as much as the conservative / neoconservative propaganda machine of the last 25 years can be tied to one person, it's him. In as much as you believe in corporate puppet masters pulling the strings behind the scenes and shadowy Bilderbergian agendas, he fits the bill. He is the "big money".

I don't mean to suggest that Hillary is above reproach. But you should just ask yourself--and you don't have to address it here--but if you think she is that beholden to corporate donor interests, if she's that bought and sold, if she's so corporate-centrist or Republican-lite, why the biggest money in Republican politics has essentially made it its life mission to discredit and de-legitimize her.
 
If that memo is driving you guys crazy, wait until you hear about the 'Stanford University study'. Which is probably just some guy's term paper, but whatever. IT PROVES THE FRAUD. So... you know.

FRAAUAUUUUUD.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom