2016 US Presidential Election - Trump vs Clinton? - Part 1

[swingdog]

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

I never said it would be impactful, I said there was collusion.

And again, there's no evidence of that in a sinister way. Political journos need stories. That's why politicians 'background' them or leak info to them. Of course some whistleblowers or public servants or other stakeholders do the same thing. And of course journos can find out info in other ways, although they have far less resources to do this now that the Internet has taken away much of their revenue streams. It is also often the responsibility of a journo to relay the lines of the major parties or else they get accused of being biased (and normally there is some value in seeing what the majors are saying on any particular issue anyway). The inference from what you and people like Jose say is that there is corruption involved - that, for example, we aren't getting the full story. I didn't see anything from those emails that suggested things were being repressed or even overtly spun. We hear of journos getting yelled at from politicians for saying things they didn't like, so even if there was evidence of threats in the emails (which there weren't), it wouldn't be a suprise. Journos need politicans and politicians need journos. The better versions of both can act without being fed by the other side. That's been the reality for decades.

 

[SexyBlueGirl]

And again, there's no evidence of that in a sinister way..

I stopped reading there. Any evidence I provide about collusion will no doubt not be considered "sinister" by you.

The Chuck Todd leak alone was enough for me but you're entitled to your opinion.

I also find it revealing that you've moved the goalpost from "widespread media collusion" to "sinister" collusion.

Indeed.

 

[Happy Mastenator]

If anything a sane and fair media would have been denouncing Trump continuously for his lies and the danger he possesses, not calling him up to let him ramble on national TV or in print.

 

[coerced]

Probably all the way to November. Any other Republican candidate they wouldn't be able to get away with it.

"Hey at least we aren't Republicans" has been the pact the Democrats have made with left wingers since Clinton 1.

It's breaking down because now they actually are Republicans.

 

[coerced]

Did you listen to even one speech today?

Lol no.

Lesser evilism is the core of the Republican campaign........

I've always thought of it as more evilism.

 

[coerced]

Democrats, like Labor here, will campaign on policy. There will be plenty of negative things to say about Trump (as there should be), but trying to suggest they don't also have a vision to sell is wrong.

That vision is betrayal of the working class base that gives them legitimacy as a party and why the Labor party's primary vote is slowly sliding into oblivion.

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

I stopped reading there. Any evidence I provide about collusion will no doubt not be considered "sinister" by you.

The Chuck Todd leak alone was enough for me but you're entitled to your opinion.

I also find it revealing that you've moved the goalpost from "widespread media collusion" to "sinister" collusion.

Indeed.

No, I added the "sinister" aspect, because I realised that you could suggest 'collusion' merely meant working with each together. Hence why I explained in detail how journo/pollie relations work and suggested that there was no evidence I've seen of anything being repressed. The collusion that was being suggested was definitely along the lines of it being under-handed. If this "Chuck Todd leak" you refer to above is evidence, can you explain it? I typed his name into the website and can just see the DNC asking for him to help them contact someone else and him not doing a lot to help, but enough that he could say 'you asked me for a favour, so tell me what is going on with X' the next time a story broke. But if you aren't even going to read what I have posted in full (which is weird) then maybe there's little point to trying to find out what people like you are claiming has been revealed.

That vision is betrayal of the working class base that gives them legitimacy as a party and why the Labor party's primary vote is slowly sliding into oblivion.

That's your opinion. The Labor primary vote went up last election. They've lost votes to the Greens, a party that doesn't share a lot of the beliefs of the stereotypical "working class base".

 

[SexyBlueGirl]

No, I added the "sinister" aspect, because I realised that you could suggest 'collusion' merely meant working with each together. Hence why I explained in detail how journo/pollie relations work and suggested that there was no evidence I've seen of anything being repressed. The collusion that was being suggested was definitely along the lines of it being under-handed. If this "Chuck Todd leak" you refer to above is evidence, can you explain it? I typed his name into the website and can just see the DNC asking for him to help them contact someone else and him not doing a lot to help, but enough that he could say 'you asked me for a favour, so tell me what is going on with X' the next time a story broke. But if you aren't even going to read what I have posted in full (which is weird) then maybe there's little point to trying to find out what people like you are claiming has been revealed.

You claim there was no collusion without even knowing about the Todd leak? You should get the facts before you comment so that makes me skeptical about your objectivity.

Working together is called collaboration. Don't confuse collaboration with collusion, they are two different things. And no, I'm certainly not going to explain the Todd allegation to you. You should be capable of that yourself. I call that collusion and yes, sinister collusion (is there another kind?) to put it in your terms.

Theres nothing else to really discuss.

 

[JackNah_8]

An analysis of today's convention, some points from CNN:

Sexton: A rocky start for the Democrats
CNN
By Buck Sexton


Elizabeth Warren was not so lucky. She followed Obama's remarks, and despite her second-only-to-Bernie rock star status among the progressive wing of the party, the senator from Massachusetts was obviously overshadowed. Without delving too far into the conspiratorial, it would seem a wisely Clintonian maneuver to make sure that the speech given by Clinton's greatest female rival in the Democratic Party will be long forgotten by the time Clinton herself takes the stage.
Usually a steady voice with a calm demeanor, Sen. Cory Booker yelled for the entirety of his speech. The microphone in front of him might as well have been for mere display. The senator from New Jersey has long been a strong communicator for the Democratic Party's message, but in trying to give an outstanding speech, in the end he just tried too hard.

Full article: http://edition.cnn.com/2016/07/26/opinions/democratic-national-convention-sexton/index.html

I didn't see Warren's speech but from what Ive heard it sounded very uninspiring. Whereas Michelle is a great speaker and told us how great USA is.

 

[Cooldude]

The convention could go either way, thought it ended on a pretty big note with the Michelle Obama and Sanders speeches which were outstanding. Either it sets the tone for the rest of the convention or it goes back to the early morning negativity

I would put good money on Hillary Clinton being booed by the Bernie Bros when she accepts the nom however

 

[HenrikLundqvist]

The convention could go either way, thought it ended on a pretty big note with the Michelle Obama and Sanders speeches which were outstanding. Either it sets the tone for the rest of the convention or it goes back to the early morning negativity

I would put good money on Hillary Clinton being booed by the Bernie Bros when she accepts the nom however

Miss the part where he got heckled for having no backbone? You're a good goy.

At least Lyin' Ted fell on his sword, Bernie was just the Clinton Foundation's Ponzi scheme all along.

 

[SexyBlueGirl]

I didn't see Warren's speech but from what Ive heard it sounded very uninspiring. Whereas Michelle is a great speaker and told us how great USA is.

Played Hillary's attack dog for the most part then repeated "I'm with her" ad nauseum, which was disappointing. Michelle's was boiler plate "look after the children" type stuff. meh.

 

[happy_eagle]

Miss the part where he got heckled for having no backbone? You're a good goy.

At least Lyin' Ted fell on his sword, Bernie was just the Clinton Foundation's Ponzi scheme all along.

Its hard to take any of your posts seriously when you act like a Trump Cheerleader using phrases like this. Almost seems like you are following Trump ironically with the lack of substance nonsense you post.
Same goes for anyone who says Drumph or refers to people as cucks or libtards/leftards.

 

[Cooldude]

Miss the part where he got heckled for having no backbone? You're a good goy.

At least Lyin' Ted fell on his sword, Bernie was just the Clinton Foundation's Ponzi scheme all along.

No different to you guys missing the part where delegates went into a shouting revolt against Trump.

Lyin' Ted ain't Lyin' Ted no more when he sticks to his convictions, no? And you wingnuts were ripping into him less than a week ago so don't hate on Sanders now

Wingnuts getting giddy from the convention bounce, gonna be funny when reality hits

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

You claim there was no collusion without even knowing about the Todd leak? You should get the facts before you comment so that makes me skeptical about your objectivity.

Working together is called collaboration. Don't confuse collaboration with collusion, they are two different things. And no, I'm certainly not going to explain the Todd allegation to you. You should be capable of that yourself. I call that collusion and yes, sinister collusion (is there another kind?) to put it in your terms.

Theres nothing else to really discuss.

Huh? I was asking Jose about what the evidence was. Then you answered for him, so I repeatedly asked you. Now you claim the fact that I didn't know somehow makes me less objective and you refuse to explain the allegation. Weird.

But I'll carry on assuming it's been an over-reaction unless I see an article that says otherwise or someone explains the accusation.

An analysis of today's convention, some points from CNN:

Sexton: A rocky start for the Democrats
CNN
By Buck Sexton


Elizabeth Warren was not so lucky. She followed Obama's remarks, and despite her second-only-to-Bernie rock star status among the progressive wing of the party, the senator from Massachusetts was obviously overshadowed. Without delving too far into the conspiratorial, it would seem a wisely Clintonian maneuver to make sure that the speech given by Clinton's greatest female rival in the Democratic Party will be long forgotten by the time Clinton herself takes the stage.
Usually a steady voice with a calm demeanor, Sen. Cory Booker yelled for the entirety of his speech. The microphone in front of him might as well have been for mere display. The senator from New Jersey has long been a strong communicator for the Democratic Party's message, but in trying to give an outstanding speech, in the end he just tried too hard.

Full article: http://edition.cnn.com/2016/07/26/opinions/democratic-national-convention-sexton/index.html

I didn't see Warren's speech but from what Ive heard it sounded very uninspiring. Whereas Michelle is a great speaker and told us how great USA is.

But that's CNN, no wonder it says everything went fine -- oh, hang on... damn reality...

 

[SexyBlueGirl]

The convention could go either way, thought it ended on a pretty big note with the Michelle Obama and Sanders speeches which were outstanding. Either it sets the tone for the rest of the convention or it goes back to the early morning negativity

I would put good money on Hillary Clinton being booed by the Bernie Bros when she accepts the nom however

Probably the highlight of the night:

 

[SexyBlueGirl]

But I'll carry on assuming it's been an over-reaction unless I see an article that says otherwise or someone explains the accusation.

It's on wikileaks. Not my job to explain it to you. Do your own work.

 

[coerced]

That's your opinion. The Labor primary vote went up last election.

Dead cat bounce

 

[HenrikLundqvist]

No different to you guys missing the part where delegates went into a shouting revolt against Trump.

Lyin' Ted ain't Lyin' Ted no more when he sticks to his convictions, no? And you wingnuts were ripping into him less than a week ago so don't hate on Sanders now

Wingnuts getting giddy from the convention bounce, gonna be funny when reality hits

When did I rip into Lyin' Ted? Sticking to core principles is the admirable thing to do.

I fail to see how you could stick to your anti-establishment guns like Bernie did for that long then immediately bend the knee to the establishment. Especially when he likes to refer to himself as an independent - he's no lifelong democrat.

But hey, if you want to deflect and put this on Trump supporters instead of directing your hate to your false idol Bernie for being a spineless coward, then you do that!

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

It's on wikileaks. Not my job to explain it to you. Do your own work.

So "work" is explaining your reasoning. Something I can't do, and something that would've taken less time than your last two posts I'm sure.

I already explained that I had typed Chuck Todd into the Wikileaks website and didn't see what you referring to. There also aren't articles that back it up either (some try, but fail, like this one which says "calling Todd by his first name was all critics needed to connect their own dots").

After Jose ignored the questions and you have gone out of your way to not justify the accusations, I just have to assume that it's a bit of a beat-up. The same thing happened when everyone was calling Hillary a crook and stuff. I just wanted an explanation and there wasn't a logical one given. Since I'm not American and haven't lived in the US I don't know all the details and have to rely on articles/stories that justify these claims, or on people informing me. Your choice not to looks to me like a lack of confidence in the accusation.

 

[Happy Mastenator]

Given that the next two nights are headlined by Obama and Clinton you know there will be great speeches to come. Both are extremely talented public speakers. Had a bit of a look and it seems like Joe Biden might get bumped for Kaine.

 

[SexyBlueGirl]

So "work" is explaining your reasoning. Something I can't do, and something that would've taken less time than your last two posts I'm sure.

I already explained that I had typed Chuck Todd into the Wikileaks website and didn't see what you referring to. There also aren't articles that back it up either (some try, but fail, like this one which says "calling Todd by his first name was all critics needed to connect their own dots").

After Jose ignored the questions and you have gone out of your way to not justify the accusations, I just have to assume that it's a bit of a beat-up. The same thing happened when everyone was calling Hillary a crook and stuff. I just wanted an explanation and there wasn't a logical one given. Since I'm not American and haven't lived in the US I don't know all the details and have to rely on articles/stories that justify these claims, or on people informing me. Your choice not to looks to me like a lack of confidence in the accusation.

I already explained it to you. If you can't work it out that's your problem.

 

[Cooldude]

Probably the highlight of the night:

Safe to say they won't be inviting her back anytime soon to speak

But apparently the mood actually improved from that point on which is strange

 

[aCunningPlan]

When did I rip into Lyin' Ted? Sticking to core principles is the admirable thing to do.

I fail to see how you could stick to your anti-establishment guns like Bernie did for that long then immediately bend the knee to the establishment. Especially when he likes to refer to himself as an independent - he's no lifelong democrat.

But hey, if you want to deflect and put this on Trump supporters instead of directing your hate to your false idol Bernie for being a spineless coward, then you do that!

Maybe Bernie looked at the situation and saw that either Clinton or Trump will be the next president and prefered Clinton? She is closer ideologically to him than Trump.