• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

SayHeyDeac's Thread For Serious Political Discourse Only--Trolls Need Not Apply

birdman said:
I agree with this. Hillary hasn't run a bad campaign, necessarily, she was/is very bad candidate to start with. Almost any other Democrat would be ahead by 8 to 10 points without even trying. Even far left Bernie would probably be sitting on a comfortable 5 point lead. But the Dems hitched their wagon to a very flawed and personalityless candidate and then she got sick and nearly collapsed on camera.
Click to expand...

That's what happens when you run somebody just because they are the wife of a popular president.
 
We could let RJ write the commercials. I am sure they would be as convincing as his posts.
 
Is it legal to openly advertise trading your vote? I'd be happy to vote for Gary Johnson in Alabama if someone thinking about voting for him in NC will vote for Clinton instead.
 
ChrisL68 said:
The Sanders candidacy did damage to her with millennials. Many are convinced that the entire election was a sham and that Sanders would have won going away with a fair election. Of course this isn't true and he lost because he had no minority support among other things, but they are convinced of it.

Bernie has been a good soldier since the primaries, but I don't know if that cat can get back in the bag, and it hurt her with a constituency that she needs.
Click to expand...

lol this analysis is not only awful, but it also runs counter to most of the polling data among younger demographics that has been done since Sanders conceded.
 
Strickland33 said:
lol this analysis is not only awful, but it also runs counter to most of the polling data among younger demographics that has been done since Sanders conceded.
Click to expand...

That's why Donald Trump, who is despicable but savvy, has mentioned it several times. That's why Sanders and his surrogates have mentioned it. That's why Jill Stein harps on it. In an election that can come down to a few percent, this has caused damage.

On a side note, you can disagree with somebody without being an asshole. Try it!
 
ChrisL68 said:
That's why Donald Trump, who is despicable but savvy, has mentioned it several times. That's why Sanders and his surrogates have mentioned it. That's why Jill Stein harps on it. In an election that can come down to a few percent, this has caused damage.

On a side note, you can disagree with somebody without being an asshole. Try it!
Click to expand...

I'm also not the one blaming millennials when that talking point has been disproven many times, to you by a few posters iirc.

And yet you're continuing to repeat it, kind of like what you're accusing Trump and the good Doctor of doing.

It's cool - it's your talking point, but it's still not right. Bernie or Bust among registered Dems is just not that widespread of a phenomenon, despite what the party mainstream wants you to believe.
 
So you don't think there is any relationship to that and Clinton's enthusiasm gap among millennials which is a core constituency group? And 15% of a core constituency group can really hurt in a close election. For the record, the only one I recall having a conniption about this opinion was you.

I think it is pretty obvious, and it isn't because anybody from the establishment told me so.

BTW, here is an article from the Vanity Fair from today that says pretty much the same thing.

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/09/hillary-clinton-millennial-voters
 
Last edited:
birdman said:
Is it legal to openly advertise trading your vote? I'd be happy to vote for Gary Johnson in Alabama if someone thinking about voting for him in NC will vote for Clinton instead.
Click to expand...

Surprisingly not. The republicans for Hillary pac has set this up in a number of states. Apparently this happened in 2000 with Nader and it was challenged in court afterwards and the courts said the act was essentially protected as free speech.

Have thought about it myself (MA voter) but it just feels dirty to me.

That being said, Trump would be a disaster for the country (and the world) so I could easily rationalize doing it if it's close.
 
Last edited:
Here's the link to the R4C16 I referred to.

http://www.r4c16.org/trumptraders

If you are or once were a moderate Republican, check out this video they put together. It's a little sensational and adporn but it does an excellent job of highlighting the difference between Trump and the Republican party I grew up with and worked for. Unfortunately we have no one to blame but ourselves for this current mess.

 
ChrisL68 said:
So you don't think there is any relationship to that and Clinton's enthusiasm gap among millennials which is a core constituency group? And 15% of a core constituency group can really hurt in a close election. For the record, the only one I recall having a conniption about this opinion was you.

I think it is pretty obvious, and it isn't because anybody from the establishment told me so.

BTW, here is an article from the Vanity Fair from today that says pretty much the same thing.

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/09/hillary-clinton-millennial-voters
Click to expand...

No, I don't. You're attributing this to damage done by the Sanders campaign, if I read you correctly.

People just despise, don't trust, and are not enthusiastic about Clinton as a candidate.

Campaigning more in the general - there's still time and Clinton appears to be increasing her effort in this area - and more positively in the primary -oh well - might've done something to change that, but blaming Sanders's popularity on Clinton's lack of popularity is how Republicans win presidencies.

Personal responsibility goes a long way.

And I'm saying this as I am closer than ever before to supporting Clinton. Like most on here, a Trump presidency strikes me as a frightening prospect. If Clinton loses, then that's on the Clinton campaign, 100%.
 
Last edited:
Strickland33 said:
No, I don't. You're attributing this to damage done by the Sanders campaign, if I read you correctly.

People just despise, don't trust, and are not enthusiastic about Clinton as a candidate.

Campaigning more in the general - there's still time and Clinton appears to be increasing her effort in this area - and more positively in the primary -oh well - might've done something to change that, but blaming Sanders's popularity on Clinton's lack of popularity is how Republicans win presidencies.

Personal responsibility goes a long way.

And I'm saying this as I am closer than ever before to supporting Clinton. Like most on here, a Trump presidency strikes me as a frightening prospect. If Clinton loses, then that's on the Clinton campaign, 100%.
Click to expand...

A Clinton presidency is no less frightening, just in a different way.
 
sailordeac said:
A Clinton presidency is no less frightening, just in a different way.
Click to expand...

Not true. Clinton will essentially be a status quo presidency. She'll continue the same basic foreign policy that we've had since at least Bush 1. She'll keep the same basic economic policies and I bet the debt will get better under her 4 years of guidance if for no other reason than Congress will limit her ability to do anything substantial or spend any money. Trump on the other had has suggested dissolving NATO and that he'd be willing to use Nuclear weapons. He has specifically said that he wants to levy tarrifs that will probably lead to trade wars with China and India. Clinton basically means at least 4 more years before any real change is implemented in our government and Trump means anything from nuclear war to massive economic collapse to status quo.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top