Support NeoGAF

[Glass Joe]

Good thing the US is not relying on idiots(white men) to give Hillary the victory.

What the hell?

 

[natjjohn]

This is missing the fucking point. The point is the double standard applied by the law. Some corporations were allowed to publish political opinions and others were not. The First Amendment doesn't apply to only favored corporations, it applies to all because there is no reasonable interpretation of it that says it applies to none.

Are you referring to media (TV, newspapers, radio, etc.)?

And comparing it to paid advertisements?

 

[ClosingADoor]

This is missing the fucking point. The point is the double standard applied by the law. Some corporations were allowed to publish political opinions and others were not. The First Amendment doesn't apply to only favored corporations, it applies to all because there is no reasonable interpretation of it that says it applies to none.

Your argument is that media organisations can't air news and opinion programs about politics because it would be discrimination. That's kind of a strange position to hold.

 

[thelastcrusader]

But he praised her for never quitting, never giving up, when he's previously said she was unfit to be President, and didn't have the stamina to do the job. Was it really a good answer, or did it betray Trump's assessment of Clinton through the campaign, or betray his own beliefs?

Never quitting at a spirit level is one thing. 99% sure he meant physical stamina alluding to her whole pneumonia scare. Spirit is willing, flesh is spongy and bruised type of thing.

 

[dramatis]

You (as the speaker) want to position yourself between the camera and your opponent.
That way everything he or she does while not speaking is seen. Every sign of weakness or awkwardness.

In a town hall, as the speaker you want to be in camera shot with the undecided voters sitting in the 'arena', not in the same shot as your opponent.

 

[benjipwns]

Are you referring to media (TV, newspapers, radio, etc.)?

And comparing it to paid advertisements?

Your argument is that media organisations can't air news and opinion programs about politics because it would be discrimination. That's kind of a strange position to hold.

Either the right of individuals to assemble as corporations to spend money on publishing political content is protected or it's not.

There's no exceptions in the First Amendment.

 

[Shake Appeal]

Also, is there really any kind of real evidence or belief to support that 'complacency' had a real effect in Brexit? Or is this just something everyone wants to believe to downplay the fact that a lot of people wanted (or thought they wanted) the Leave option?

Turnout for Brexit was high. And, contrary to initial reporting, youth turnout was high. So yes, the "complacency" narrative is a little weak in explaining Brexit, unless you're referring to the complacency of the political leaders arguing against it.

 

[ClosingADoor]

Either individuals are allowed to assemble as corporations to spend money on publishing political content or they're not.

There's no exception in the First Amendment.

You don't see the difference between a media organisation covering an election, and a totally unrelated corporation buying ad space for their favorite candidate?

The First Amendment is not some holy scripture. Exceptions can be made and are made all the time. There is nothing wrong with that, as long as it is for the public good.

 

[Ganondolf]

The Brexit comparison is bad. Polling aggregates told us it was extremely close, and a lot of polling indicated a slight Leave win was coming.

Polling aggregates are not telling us the US Presidential election is close. Not to mention when you break down the US electoral college his chances look even more grim.

Yet some seem to be making the same error that led to the Brexit surprise (ignoring lots of polls), whilst simultaneously pointing to Brexit as proof some kind of similar upset is coming. It's baffling.

this is a lie, most polls showed that more people where going to vote Stay. to the point where Johnston and farrar said on the day (before the vote) they were probably going to lose.

Also the brexit vote had a massive turnout, higher than the elections.

EDIT: I don't know enough about the US system to comment if a similar thing will happen, just pointing out the amount of wrong information about the Brexit vote.

 

[benjipwns]

You don't see the difference between a media organisation covering an election, and a totally unrelated corporation buying ad space for their favorite candidate?

There is no difference constitutionally. General Electric routing its political statements through NBC shouldn't make them protected when four dudes forming a non-profit aren't.

The First Amendment is not some holy scripture. Exceptions can be made and are made all the time. There is nothing wrong with that, as long as it is for the public good.

It's the fucking law and it's clear as day. "No law restricting." Period.

There's no "public good" in granting the state power to suppress the press when it's unfavorable. That's Trumpian thinking.

 

[Tal Shiar Agent]

Either the right of individuals to assemble as corporations to spend money on publishing political content is protected or it's not.

There's no exceptions in the First Amendment.

No exceptions? Fighting words.

It shouldn't be protected, as we've seen since the ruling its ripe for abuse.



Actually there is a distinction between press and other corporations in the Constitution. There are explicit protections for the press, there are not for corporations.

 

[Glass Joe]

Clinton: "It’s just awfully good that someone with the temperament of Donald Trump is not in charge of the law in our country"

Trump: "Because you’d be in jail"


So this is how despots happen. This is a man who threatens to jail his political opponent...

In jail over the email scandal, not because she's merely a political opponent. Judging by the rest of your post, you're following the race well. There'a no need to try to trick the uninformed reader in that manner, it's simply deceptive and underhanded.

 

[benjipwns]

No exceptions? Fighting words.

Also complete shit which is why the Court has backed down from the broad violation of it made in allowing that power initially.

Actually there is a distinction between press and other corporations in the Constitution. There are explicit protections for the press, there are not for corporations.

No, there isn't. Anyone can function as "the press." The government has no power to label which corporations or individuals are and are not "press" for the purposes of restricting rights. "The press" is the medium, not an industry.

 

[Tal Shiar Agent]

Also complete shit which is why the Court has backed down from the broad violation of it made in allowing that power initially.

You can't threaten to kill someone or other bodily harm. You can't incite a riot. If it was "complete shit" Chaplinksy would be overturned completely, but it isn't.


There are asterisks on many constitutional provisions. The press can't defame for instance.

 

[The Emperor]

Clinton: "It’s just awfully good that someone with the temperament of Donald Trump is not in charge of the law in our country"

Trump: "Because you’d be in jail"


So this is how despots happen. This is a man who threatens to jail his political opponent, vows to blow people up and start wars over rude gestures, promises to expand stop and frisk, urges supporters to monitor voting in "certain areas", claims a judge with Mexican heritage cannot fairly preside over his cases. And a thousand more.

And a huge percentage of the country applauds him. He has caused intense damage to the political system that won't be fixed even if he loses. The fact that anyone would take that as winning this debate is horrifying, because it shows how incredibly quickly we adapt to awful, anti-democratic tactics. How quickly they can become the new normal. I have hate in my heart for Donald Trump and honestly we all should. A crushing defeat in the election would help but still wouldn't fix the damage he's doing.

That is all that came to mind when he got applause for the jail comment

 

[benjipwns]

If it was "complete shit" Chaplinksy would be overturned completely, but it isn't.

No, it wouldn't. The Supreme Court allows all kinds of unconstitutional violations of liberty. It upheld fucking fugitive slave laws and enforced discrimination for decades. It upheld laws that imprisoned people for opposing slavery for fucksake!

 

[danm999]

this is a lie, most polls showed that more people where going to vote Stay. to the point where Johnston and farrar said on the day (before the vote) they were probably going to lose.

Also the brexit vote had a massive turnout, higher than the elections.

EDIT: I don't know enough about the US system to comment if a similar thing will happen, just pointing out the amount of wrong information about the Brexit vote.

Nah it's extremely close if you look at the aggregates.

The NYTs even pointed out the majority of polls in the final month had Leave winning, 17 to 15.

And given you had such a high number of undecideds, it shouldn't surprise anyone that it was totally possible Leave could win. Johnson also clearly had no idea what he was doing, so I wouldn't take his predictions with any force.

Basically, unless the US polls tighten up a bunch, Brexit isn't a useful comparison. Leave and Remain were neck and neck, and the Undecideds were high enough to swing it.

 

[captive]

In jail over the email scandal, not because she's merely a political opponent. Judging by the rest of your post, you're following the race well. There'a no need to try to trick the uninformed reader in that manner, it's simply deceptive and underhanded.

Right cause his "special prosecuter" will be totally fair and unbiased. Nevermind that she's already been investigated numerous times by the Republican lead Congress and they couldn't find enough to put her in jail for benghazi or emails. It's beyond the pale to threaten a political opponent with jail if you win.its NEVER happened in America before. And the reaction from CBS media to it was appropriate to call it beyond the pale, that it's something that only happens in banana republics. Furthermore it's only speaking to his base I imagine the general public is frankly tired of hearing about fucking emails.

 

[Lord Frieza]

this is a lie, most polls showed that more people where going to vote Stay. to the point where Johnston and farrar said on the day (before the vote) they were probably going to lose.

Yeah, but overall, the polling was close, which is what his point was, there was never a point where Leave seemed totally improbable. The overall polling in this election has not been that close. Yeah, national polls and popular vote are relatively close, but even those haven't been as close as 2012 (which ended in a blowout at the end), and electorate polling, which is much more important than the other two, has shown a Trump win to be very improbable, if not totally impossible. Only twice in the entire election has Trump been somewhat close, but otherwise he's always trailed behind with most aggregates never giving Trump more than 35% of winning. Even the more 'nuclear' possibility of 538 has never had Trump above 49%, I don't believe.

EDIT: I just remembered, 538 did give Trump a 51% chance of victory once, I think for about 10 hours. Seems like Team Alucard boasted about that once.

Not really. Turnout was about as expected. Young people (~75% of whom voted for Remain) didn't vote nearly as much as the elderly but they wouldn't have tipped the scales the other way even if they'd voted en masse for Remain.

Turnout for Brexit was high. And, contrary to initial reporting, youth turnout was high. So yes, the "complacency" narrative is a little weak in explaining Brexit, unless you're referring to the complacency of the political leaders arguing against it.

Okay, that's what I figured.

 

[benjipwns]

Nevermind that she's already been investigated numerous times by the Republican lead Congress and they couldn't find enough to put her in jail for benghazi or emails.

Not really one of Congress' powers there.

 

[ClosingADoor]

There is no difference constitutionally. General Electric routing its political statements through NBC shouldn't make them protected when four dudes forming a non-profit aren't.


It's the fucking law and it's clear as day. "No law restricting." Period.

There's no "public good" in granting the state power to suppress the press when it's unfavorable. That's Trumpian thinking.

Sure, the media isn't perfect. But if you can't see the difference between let's say CNN airing a report or opinion panel about an election, and a corporation buying ad space with the intend to promote or vilify a candidate, I don't know what to tell you.

And yes, there are restrictions on the press and speech in certain cases. Sometimes that is needed to protect the public.

 

[Tal Shiar Agent]

No, it wouldn't. The Supreme Court allows all kinds of unconstitutional violations of liberty. It upheld fucking fugitive slave laws and enforced discrimination for decades.

You are really going to compare limitations on fighting words and inciting violence to slavery? Do you really want to go down that road?

The Constitution established the 3/5ths clause and protections for slavery in its text. The Constitution isn't a perfect document, its a living document. Constantly changing and adjusting, to demand perfect absolute adherence to the specific words of the document without exception or compromise is fucking foolish.

 

[Macadinho94]

Hillary wants to arm the Kurds? She can't be serious, jesus

Yeah? The Kurds are probably the most sane and stable coalition in that region.

 

[Fallout-NL]

Hmm, watching the debate (nearly finished) but the desperation and the 'burn it all down' attitude seems to work pretty well for Trump.

 

[captive]

Not really one of Congress' powers there.

So I guess that was some other countries congressional committee that Clinton sat in front of 11 hours?

You can bet your ass if they had actually found something damming that would have done everything to get the DOJ to charge her with a crime.

 

[Peltz]

Where can I watch a recording of the 2nd debate? I missed it last night.

 

[Fallout-NL]

Where can I watch a recording of the 2nd debate? I missed it last night.

https://youtu.be/hqlB80QLr9M

 

[Peltz]

https://youtu.be/hqlB80QLr9M

Thank you!

 

[Lord Frieza]

Hmm, watching the debate (nearly finished) but the desperation and the 'burn it all down' attitude seems to work pretty well for Trump.

Yeah, it works incredibly well in Trump's reality

 

[Ganondolf]

Nah it's extremely close if you look at the aggregates.

The NYTs even pointed out the majority of polls in the final month had Leave winning, 17 to 15.

And given you had such a high number of undecideds, it shouldn't surprise anyone that it was totally possible Leave could win. Johnson also clearly had no idea what he was doing, so I wouldn't take his predictions with any force.

Basically, unless the US polls tighten up a bunch, Brexit isn't a useful comparison. Leave and Remain were neck and neck, and the Undecideds were high enough to swing it.

I was talking about polls in the UK which was what people here saw. Stay was always 4-6% ahead.

But what made the difference was the people that did not normally vote. the Brexit vote had about 3.8M voters more than the last election. As you and someone else pointed out (replying to my post) it is very different situation in the US.

 

[UnluckyKate]

French US correspondant had a very good analysis that I never heard thus far.

Trump never will be a remedy and last night I understood that he never was the poison either. He is just the symptom.

 

[Drencrom]

https://twitter.com/BunkiePerkins/status/785313727813853184/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

 

[Window]

Just started watching. The last debate could be considered entertaining (in the way watching Trump's buffoonery has been). But this is just tragic. The level of conversation here has absolutely tanked. The audience certainly didn't help. Ultimately it all reflects the fact that almost 40% of the US population is willing to vote for this man. America needs to enter into some serious introspection after this election.

French US correspondant had a very good analysis that I never heard thus far.

As an outsider observer as well, I agree. Trump's rise as not been caused by the sheer force of his own will but by the will of a large part of US voters. This should be obvious of course but the realization didn't set in till looking at what the response has been by a segment of the population over the past few days and towards the debate.

 

[Lord Frieza]

French US correspondant had a very good analysis that I never heard thus far.

Others have had this observation here (myself included...guess that comes off as a stealth brag, though I honestly don't mean it that way), and it's pretty true. But the narrative of Trump became one of this unstoppable political force formed in the primaries, and carried over into the general election. Many see Trump as this juggernaut who completely broke the political system, but the truth is he was juggernaut the political system, of the right-wing specifically, had been building for awhile. Trump himself really had little to do with his actual success in the primaries, and if there any you can learn from how he's run his campaign in the general, that shit is pretty obvious, but the "Trump is Unstoppable" narrative stuck with a lot of people.

 

[GhostTrick]

French US correspondant had a very good analysis that I never heard thus far.

That's basically what a lot of people said. The problem isn't Trump. It's the people willing to trust him. Even if Trump loses and never runs again, these people will still carry the same thinking. Trump is basically showing what's wrong with politics in America and the voters.

This country want it to be a show, hence why they a good chunk of it wants a showman as president.
Whenever you think Trump hits a new low, remember he still has a lot of people willing for him despite that.

Whenever Trump shows how much of a clown, a buffon he is, remember a lot of people are willing to entrust him with their future.

And remember that whenever Trump gets higher in the polls because he had a silly punchline or a stupid declaration... Remember a lot of people cheered him for this.

The problem isn't Trump. The problem is that a lot of people wants Trump.

 

[El-Suave]

Yeah? The Kurds are probably the most sane and stable coalition in that region.

There would be major fallout with Turkey if she did that, and that in turn wouldn't fly well with Europe because we need them and the refugee deal. Tensions between Turkey and the EU are high enough. Plus, Trump may be incompetent as f..., but there's a grain of truth about what he said about arming a party in a war more often than not backfired in the end. You have to be more committed than that.

 

[Fallout-NL]

Thank you!

Yw

Yeah, it works incredibly well in Trump's reality

Don't get me wrong, I want the guy to lose as badly as any sane person would, but eh, there's no denying that the way he does actually manage to get a laugh out of the audience every now and then makes him seem a lot more relatable than Clinton. Now, hopefully it doesn't matter given the relentless onslaught of scandal after scandal, but - in terms of perception -he does better than I had expected (especially considering the severity of the latest one).

 

[Deleted member 125677]

In jail over the email scandal, not because she's merely a political opponent. Judging by the rest of your post, you're following the race well. There'a no need to try to trick the uninformed reader in that manner, it's simply deceptive and underhanded.

So your position here is that threatening to jail a political opponent for something the justice system has already investigated and determined to not be worthy of prosecution is normal statesmanlike behavior, and not behavior we usually associate with despots in states with a questionable understanding of the basics of a constitutional democracy?

 

[Lord Frieza]

Don't get me wrong, I want the guy to lose as badly as any sane person would, but eh, there's no denying that the way he does actually manage to get a laugh out of the audience every now and then makes him seem a lot more relatable than Clinton. Now, hopefully it doesn't matter given the relentless onslaught of scandal after scandal, but he does better than I had expected (especially considering the severity of the latest one).

The fact that he's always been losing this election is probably a better sign that it doesn't matter. I also don't think Trump is as relatable as you. For most, he's a far away figure, almost demi-god like figure, and I think his supporters see it that way, too, they just don't see it as a negative

 

[teruterubozu]

The fact that he's always been losing this election is probably a better sign that it doesn't matter. I also don't think Trump is as relatable as you. For most, he's a far away figure, almost demi-god like figure, and I think his supporters see it that way, too, they just don't see it as a negative

His supporters relate to him because he's an asshole. That's what people forget with all these scandals. They LIKE that he's an asshole.

 

[A Serious Man]

The music ...

https://twitter.com/HuffPostPol/status/785355962680913920/video/1

... can't breath XD

The best version: https://twitter.com/markreviews/status/785337721266987012

I'm literally in tears.

 

[Ganondolf]

From someone look externally (from the UK) it seems to me that the American people don't really want either of them and they are picking what they believe to be the best of two bad candidates. I believe that if one of them was really good the polls would be so one sided that it would be already over.

 

[Maledict]

I was talking about polls in the UK which was what people here saw. Stay was always 4-6% ahead.

But what made the difference was the people that did not normally vote. the Brexit vote had about 3.8M voters more than the last election. As you and someone else pointed out (replying to my post) it is very different situation in the US.

No it wasn't. I'm not sure where you were reading, but as a U.K. Person the polls were absolutely not like that at all. We had HUGE amounts of panicking over the fact the polls had swung towards leave at the end in the Brexit threads in this forum over it.

I really don't understand where this Brexit myth came from. The result was completely inline with the average of the polling, and in fact leave had the slight edge in the aggregate.

 

[teruterubozu]

From someone look externally (from the UK) it seems to me that the American people don't really want either of them and they are picking what they believe to be the best of two bad candidates. I believe that if one of them was really good the polls would be so one sided that it would be already over.

I'm surprised someone from UK is relying on polls after Brexit.

 

[Fallout-NL]

The fact that he's always been losing this election is probably a better sign that it doesn't matter. I also don't think Trump is as relatable as you. For most, he's a far away figure, almost demi-god like figure, and I think his supporters see it that way, too, they just don't see it as a negative

Again, I want to stress that a Trump victory would be catastrophic for the world and I do not want him to win. Also, I do not personally think of him as relatable, not at all. The things he said on those tapes (on top of the countless other stupid or horrible things he said) paint him as the kind of person I wouldn't even want to be loosely acquainted with (let alone want to rule the free world).

I'm just hypothesizing as to what a debate like this might look like to 'the average voter' (insofar as there even is such a thing). It's just that I'm reminded of that Nixon/Kennedy debate where policy wasn't the issue. Kennedy won because he didn't sweat and looked better on tv. Radio listeners, who focused their attention on what was actually being said, actually thought Nixon 'won' the debate. So knowing that, it makes me wonder what kind of an effect a debate like this will actually have. I hope it actually matters that Clinton does have policies to present and presents them in a reasonably eloquent matter. Or that it at least matters more than the novelty of seeing a man running for president who does not appear to 'give a fuck' at all (which plays to the strength of his simultaneous 'everyman' and rich guy persona).

His supporters relate to him because he's an asshole. That's what people forget with all these scandals. They LIKE that he's an asshole.

Well, that too.

 

[Glass Joe]

So your position here is that threatening to jail a political opponent for something the justice system has already investigated and determined to not be worthy of prosecution is normal statesmanlike behavior, and not behavior we usually associate with despots in states with a questionable understanding of a constitutional democracy (say Russia or Turkey)?

No. In fact I never offered an opinion on the email scandal. Simply replying to a poster who, to me, came off as saying that Trump would jail his opponents just to do so, which is contextually misleading.

 

[Mistake]

I just finished and thought it was pretty crazy. They were both at each other so much I started chanting "JERRY! JERRY! JERRY!" Hell, if someone made a Jerry Springer version I'd probably watch it again.Trump seemed better prepared than last time, even though he still deflected some questions. For Hilary, I thought she was trying to be as direct as possible, but couldn't help getting caught up in the charade.

I can't wait for the 19th

 

[mjp2417]

From someone look externally (from the UK) it seems to me that the American people don't really want either of them and they are picking what they believe to be the best of two bad candidates. I believe that if one of them was really good the polls would be so one sided that it would be already over.

America has an extraordinarily polarized electorate. Donald Trump could promise to nuke the planet as his first order of business on entering the White House and his polling numbers would probably drop from 40% to 38%. Traditional landslides (of the 1984 election variety) just aren't possible at this moment in time. This election will almost certainly be as close to a landslide as present electoral dynamics permit.

 

[Gattsu25]

No. In fact I never offered an opinion on the email scandal. Simply replying to a poster who, to me, came off as saying that Trump would jail his opponents just to do so, which is contextually misleading.

It's not. It's a fair reading of what Trump, himself, said last night. You just chose not to believe him in that instance.

 

[Ganondolf]

I'm surprised someone from UK is relying on polls after Brexit.

I'm basing it on the news I see and the polls. it is very hard from outside of the US to see what the real feeling in the US is.