• 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 2017 |OT3| 13 Treasons Why

Status
Not open for further replies.

Kusagari

Member
By contrast Trump doesn't drink at all, so their idea of "Someone I'd like to have a drink with" is impossible. Putting aside the fact that Trump would be utterly insufferable to have a conversation with, as evidenced by...every conversation he has ever had with anyone in his life.

It would have been interesting to see someone attack Trump on the image he somehow managed to conjure of being like your average American, when it's the exact opposite down to the fact he doesn't even drink.

Unfortunately, Hillary was probably the worst candidate in history to attempt this.
 

Nordicus

Member
By contrast Trump doesn't drink at all, so their idea of "Someone I'd like to have a drink with" is impossible. Putting aside the fact that Trump would be utterly insufferable to have a conversation with, as evidenced by...every conversation he has ever had with anyone in his life.
Let's not forget that Trump wears a suit practically everywhere
 

Emerson

May contain jokes =>
Fuck. How serious is this? I view the Census as INTEGRAL and I know Republicans hate it. This scares me. Is Time overreacting or are they on point?

http://time.com/4774288/census-bureau-john-thompson-resigned/

Most of this article is just talking about how important the census is in general.

I'm sure it's a big deal that the director resigned, but trying to make it earth shattering is probably an overreach. His term was going to expire this year anyway, so it's not like an Obama appointee would have gotten to manage the entire thing.

Really the underlying point of that article should be that the 2018 midterms are ridiculously important. Among the many reasons for that is having a Congress who will ensure the census gets proper support and is accepted when it comes to redistricting.
 
It would have been interesting to see someone attack Trump on the image he somehow managed to conjure of being like your average American, when it's the exact opposite down to the fact he doesn't even drink.

It's always been beyond my comprehension how so many ordinary, working-class Americans decided they could identify with a billionaire who lives in a golden penthouse with his super-model wife.
 
It would have been interesting to see someone attack Trump on the image he somehow managed to conjure of being like your average American, when it's the exact opposite down to the fact he doesn't even drink.

Unfortunately, Hillary was probably the worst candidate in history to attempt this.

"Donald's brother drank himself to death and now Trump won't even drink! How can he relate to the average American???"

This is the worst line of attack of all time.
 
By contrast Trump doesn't drink at all, so their idea of "Someone I'd like to have a drink with" is impossible.

The other "guy they'd like to have a beer with" is an alcoholic. Meanwhile, Obama bought a beer home brewing kit and the White House has had four official beer styles because of that.
 
I've said this before, but it bears repeating. Don't attack Trump's weaknesses. He'll just deflect and counterattack and then the only headlines are gonna be about dirty campaigning and both sides etc. etc. Go after his strengths. He's built himself up as a businessman, demolish that. He claims he's a dealmaker, go after that. Talking about how racist he is or how stupid he is or how unrelatable he is doesn't work.
 

Pixieking

Banned
I've said this before, but it bears repeating. Don't attack Trump's weaknesses. He'll just deflect and counterattack and then the only headlines are gonna be about dirty campaigning and both sides etc. etc. Go after his strengths. He's built himself up as a businessman, demolish that. He claims he's a dealmaker, go after that. Talking about how racist he is or how stupid he is or how unrelatable he is doesn't work.

Bolded just doesn't work. My wife works with someone who thinks Trump really broke the mold, and Hillary was to blame for people dying. He doesn't think Trump is a bad businessman, because Trump fails upwards. Married to a super-model, owning golf courses and hotels... This is not the generally accepted notion of being a bad businessman. And, in fact, this may be the worst line of attack. People try all the time to build something of value, and they fail and feel rotten. Trump is the kind of person they want to be - not in terms of character, but in terms of luck and success. Even when he failed, he didn't end up bankrupt, homeless, going back to a job he hates, and a boss who is abusive.

More succinctly, he's provided for his wife and children. That's a barometer of success that a lot of people work towards.
 
Bolded just doesn't work. My wife works with someone who thinks Trump really broke the mold, and Hillary was to blame for people dying. He doesn't think Trump is a bad businessman, because Trump fails upwards. Married to a super-model, owning golf courses and hotels... This is not the generally accepted notion of being a bad businessman. And, in fact, this may be the worst line of attack. People try all the time to build something of value, and they fail and feel rotten. Trump is the kind of person they want to be - not in terms of character, but in terms of luck and success. Even when he failed, he didn't end up bankrupt, homeless, going back to a job he hates, and a boss who is abusive.

More succinctly, he's provided for his wife and children. That's a barometer of success that a lot of people work towards.

Yep, can confirm.
 

Maledict

Member
Bolded just doesn't work. My wife works with someone who thinks Trump really broke the mold, and Hillary was to blame for people dying. He doesn't think Trump is a bad businessman, because Trump fails upwards. Married to a super-model, owning golf courses and hotels... This is not the generally accepted notion of being a bad businessman. And, in fact, this may be the worst line of attack. People try all the time to build something of value, and they fail and feel rotten. Trump is the kind of person they want to be - not in terms of character, but in terms of luck and success. Even when he failed, he didn't end up bankrupt, homeless, going back to a job he hates, and a boss who is abusive.

More succinctly, he's provided for his wife and children. That's a barometer of success that a lot of people work towards.

Absolutely. One thing I think we underestimated or realised was that a huge swathe of America is firmly convinced he's a genius billionaire after watching however many seasons of Celebrity Apprentice. You aren't going to tear that down.

Instead, they should have focused on the exploitation and abuse his businesses have covered - like they did with Romney. Early on we heard from the Democrats that the plan was to turn Donald into an abusive landlord, as no-one likes their landlord. Instead they went off on *rightful) moral outrage, but what offends people doesn't affect people and so...
 
It would have been interesting to see someone attack Trump on the image he somehow managed to conjure of being like your average American, when it's the exact opposite down to the fact he doesn't even drink.

Unfortunately, Hillary was probably the worst candidate in history to attempt this.

Nobody would or should attack Trump on not drinking, because his reason why is basically the most human thing he has about him.
 
Didnt he skyrocket to the top of the primary after his "mexicans are rapists" speech? That kind of throws the "I elected him because hes a businessman" excuse out of the window.
 
Absolutely. One thing I think we underestimated or realised was that a huge swathe of America is firmly convinced he's a genius billionaire after watching however many seasons of Celebrity Apprentice. You aren't going to tear that down.

Instead, they should have focused on the exploitation and abuse his businesses have covered - like they did with Romney. Early on we heard from the Democrats that the plan was to turn Donald into an abusive landlord, as no-one likes their landlord. Instead they went off on *rightful) moral outrage, but what offends people doesn't affect people and so...

The problem is that no one trusts Hillary so she is the wrong messenger for ANY message about Trump.

Obama would have been able to convince lots of voters that Trump is unworthy for office, but when Hillary uses the same lines, a lot of voters won't buy into it just because Hillary said it.

Didnt he skyrocket to the top of the primary after his "mexicans are rapists" speech? That kind of throws the "I elected him because hes a businessman" excuse out of the window.

Yes, but back then he was only getting the support of 44% of primary voters. Basically he was able to consolidate the votes of the crazies early on. But he was not getting support from outside that 44% until everyone was certain that the nominees would be Trump and Hillary.
 

mo60

Member
Canadians!
Um.The republicans have won the presidency only three times since 1992 and two of the three times they won it barely.They are dominant in state legislatures and etc right now,but they don't have a reliable coalition that makes it easy for them to win the presidency consistently like they did from 1952-1992.The Democrats presidential coalition since 1992 has been strong enough to make presidential elections either close for them if they lose or strong wins for them
 

royalan

Member
The problem is that no one trusts Hillary so she is the wrong messenger for ANY message about Trump.

Obama would have been able to convince lots of voters that Trump is unworthy for office, but when Hillary uses the same lines, a lot of voters won't buy into it just because Hillary said it.



Yes, but back then he was only getting the support of 44% of primary voters. Basically he was able to consolidate the votes of the crazies early on. But he was not getting support from outside that 44% until everyone was certain that the nominees would be Trump and Hillary.

I no longer believe this. Obama would have been able to convince people who were already convinced that Trump was shit. But Obama is no more trusted on the right than Hillary is. Lets not forget that hatred of Obama is part of what fueled the Tea Party wave.

I think the only reason Obama is enjoying the favorables he is right now is because all of his baggage was transferred to Hillary.
 
What happens when Garland leaves the court and goes to the FBI and Trump fires him for whatever bullshit two months and gets to have his cake and eat it? I don't know why anybody would even entertain Garland going over there.
 
I no longer believe this. Obama would have been able to convince people who were already convinced that Trump was shit. But Obama is no more trusted on the right than Hillary is. Lets not forget that hatred of Obama is part of what fueled the Tea Party wave.

I think the only reason Obama is enjoying the favorables he is right now is because all of his baggage was transferred to Hillary.

The only people I know of that actively hate Obama are Green Party types and Fox News watchers.

But with Hillary? I know many people who hated Hillary, including many who voted for her but still hated her. And we aren't even talking far left or far right people. I'm talking like liberal veterans who were pretty pissed off at what Hillary did with the email server or Bernie fans who never hated Obama but had been convinced to not trust Hillary.

Look at this very forum for example. You can find lots of posters who view Hillary with nothing but disgust yet still view Obama fondly.

But you are right that part of what happened is the GOP stopped focusing all their attacks on Obama and shifted more towards attacking Hillary. But that still proves my point that so long as the GOP doesn't have the Clairvoyance to predict the next nominee, Dems will have a much easier time beating Trump.
 

Ogodei

Member
Who is embracing this? Not only does it give up a court seat, but it gives Repubs a reason to call it partisan and get him out/recused because of the Pres nominating him for SC.

Aye, i haven't seen anyone embrace it aside from a few courtier DC pundits who think it's so clever and bipartisan.

Edit: Cummings, really? Minus respect...
 

Hubbl3

Unconfirmed Member
Did Trump just tweet "We" and nothing else?

Insider footage of his staff seeing him trying to send a tweet:

9213125.gif
 

Blader

Member
Look at this very forum for example. You can find lots of posters who view Hillary with nothing but disgust yet still view Obama fondly.
Yep. In a thread about drone strikes during Obama's presidency, you'll see people squirm uncomfortably; in a thread about Hillary and foreign policy (e.g. no fly zones in Syria), the knives come out.
 

Wilsongt

Member
I hope one day that something comes from all of this mess and someone finally gets a smack on the wrist and a finger waggle telling them not to do it again.
 
Yep. In a thread about drone strikes during Obama's presidency, you'll see people squirm uncomfortably; in a thread about Hillary and foreign policy (e.g. no fly zones in Syria), the knives come out.

And just putting aside policy for a sec, it was her optics and general lack of enthusiasm (because she really didn't show it off very well to the public compared to Obama) that made her look like the same career politician ppl didn't want anymore. I believe that also is what held back Romney and McCain, surprisingly enough.
 

Wilsongt

Member
And just putting aside policy for a sec, it was her optics and general lack of enthusiasm (because she really didn't show it off very well to the public compared to Obama) that made her look like the same career politician ppl didn't want anymore. I believe that also is what held back Romney and McCain, surprisingly enough.

I don't think Queen was nearly as awkward as Romney and McCain.

She was just didn't exude the sheer magnitism that Obama did while speaking.
 

dramatis

Member
With School Vouchers, Who Benefits and Who's Left Behind? Indiana's Program Offers Lessons.
While the city's public and private schools managed, for decades, to co-exist amicably, that changed in 2011, Robinson says. That's when state lawmakers began the Indiana Choice Scholarship Program, a plan to allow low-income students to use vouchers, paid for with public school dollars, to attend private, generally religious schools.

Six years later, Indiana's statewide voucher program is now the largest of its kind in the country and, with President Trump and Education Secretary Betsy DeVos openly encouraging states to embrace private school choice, the story of the Choice Scholarship — how it came to be, how it works and whom it serves — has become a national story of freedom, faith, poverty and politics.
St. Jude opened its school doors in March of 1929. By 2011, when the state unveiled its voucher program, the school enrolled 479 students. That first year, a small number received vouchers: just 28.

Then something happened to the program that began a remarkable shift, not only at St. Jude but across the state.

Father Jake Runyon saw it happening and told his parishioners.

"We've been seeing some financial troubles here at St. Jude Parish," Runyon said in a formal presentation that was recorded in 2014 and posted on the church's website. The parish was in its third straight year of financial losses.

One big reason for the losses: The church was pouring money from its offertory into the school and neglecting repairs to its steeple and cooling system.

Then, Runyon shared the good news: After an attempt by the state teachers union to kill the young voucher program, Indiana's Supreme Court had found it constitutional, allowing families to spend public school dollars in private, religious schools. Not long after, the program was expanded dramatically to include children who had never attended a public school. Suddenly, many St. Jude students qualified.

All they had to do was apply.

"The effect on that this year," Runyon told parishioners in 2014, "it would have been $118,000 of money we just left there, that the state of Indiana wanted to give me, and we weren't able to take advantage of it."

Runyon's presentation — since taken down from the church's website — was a pitch for a new way of distributing financial aid to St. Jude students, one that would maximize the money coming in through vouchers and allow the parish to use more of its offertory elsewhere.
Unlike voucher programs in some other states, participating private schools in Indiana have the freedom to do what they've always done: admit or reject students based on their own guidelines, even if those students are using taxpayer-funded vouchers.

Behning defends that decision, saying it was important that schools retain their ability to be selective. "The one reason we let schools have some admissions criteria is we did not want to change the very fiber of those schools."

What qualifies as fiber?

A spokesperson for the Indiana Department of Education, Adam Baker, says "a private school can deny a student based on past academic performance or prior disciplinary action," among other criteria.

Some schools post GPA requirements on their websites. Struggling students need not apply. Ditto students with a suspension. This has raised fears among the state's public school leaders that private schools are cherry-picking.

"Anecdotally, yes, we hear that schools can cherry-pick," Baker says, but he insists that the state has "never received a formal complaint from a parent."
Much longer article at the link.
 

Wilsongt

Member
Education is a business in the US now. It doesn't matter if children suffer and are not learning properly, as long as someone in administration is getting paid.

And funneling public money into private religious schools is just disgusting.
 
I think that there's some value to the idea of a carefully managed charter school program, in the sense that yeah, sometimes private enterprise comes up with solutions government doesn't. So if you can harness that, and make sure that standards are maintained, it can be a good way to find new and useful tools for education.

Vouchers, though, don't generally have ANY kind of requirement, and totally ignore the myriad reasons why private schools perform better in favor of "lol public schools suck let's just take their money and give it to private schools."
 

Suikoguy

I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
Vouchers, though, don't generally have ANY kind of requirement, and totally ignore the myriad reasons why private schools perform better in favor of "lol public schools suck let's just take their money and give it to private schools."

You could also fund more pilot programs. The primary advantage to that, you can mandate that the results from the programs are public.

The one thing private schools will probably do better is efficiency, and that's also not a guarantee. The incentive is there, while it's not nearly as strong in the public school environment. You will be far less likely to see computers sitting around not being used (or even installed) in a private school. Of course, more flexibility given to public school in how they receive and must spend money would help with that too. I'd bet some shitty public schools fucked that up for everyone.
 

sc0la

Unconfirmed Member
It's always been beyond my comprehension how so many ordinary, working-class Americans decided they could identify with a billionaire who lives in a golden penthouse with his super-model wife.
I used to think this then I realized the average American Everyman is just a tough break or two away from the same life. Everyone else just didn't bootstrap hard enough. They can identify with him because they are him, minus a few bouts of bad luck.
 
I used to think this then I realized the average American Everyman is just a tough break or two away from the same life. Everyone else just didn't bootstrap hard enough. They can identify with him because they are him, minus a few bouts of bad luck.

I mean

They also identify with him because he is openly racist, which is how they think
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom