• 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

Been happy w Obama.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk
 
Sailor the moderate

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk
 
birdman said:
Four years of status quo is faaaaaar better than 4 years of batshit crazy.
Click to expand...

So much this. Clinton's presidency will likely be more hawkish, but essentially a third term for Obama.

Trump's presidency is a car teetering on a cliff. No one can say with 100% confidence that anything is off the table for Trump.
 
ChrisL68 said:
Been happy w Obama.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

This is what it comes down to. Obama is going to leave this country in better shape than he got it. Meanwhile, Republicans are showing themselves to be incapable of governing in Congress and states all over the country.
 
PhDeac said:
This is what it comes down to. Obama is going to leave this country in better shape than he got it. Meanwhile, Republicans are showing themselves to be incapable of governing in Congress and states all over the country.
Click to expand...

In many cases, unwilling to govern may be a more accurate term than incapable. Shameful lack of governance from some.
 
Republicans love to complain about how dysfunctional the government is, and then when they get in power they do everything in their power to make it happen.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk
 
To be fair, it's their entire strategy when they're not in power.
 
ChrisL68 said:
Republicans love to complain about how dysfunctional the government is, and then when they get in power they do everything in their power to make it happen.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

It is very easy to generate data supporting your assertion that 'Government is the problem not the solution' when whenever you get in a position to govern, you cut services, run up debts and fail to pass any useful laws.
 
Strickland33 said:
This is the best (politics related) news that I've heard in awhile.
Click to expand...

Not to veer into 923's lane, but the October Atlantic issue has several relevant articles:

-An analysis of political consultants

Cracks on how much money GOP wannabes wasted on political consultants. The only statistically quantifiable ROI on campaign spending is local organizing early. Worked for Obama in 2008 and 2012 and worked for Cruz in IA & WI. Good news for HRC is that GOTV is Robby Mook's strength. Bannon and KAC are all about message and polling.

Brutal chart in the article about $/primary vote. Trump was lowest (~$50K), HRC was second lowest (~$100K), Bernie (~$120K), and Cruz (~$250K). Jeb and Carly were last (~10M+). Ad development/spending is a sink hole.

-Cover story on the debates

Long article reviewing Trump's and HRC's prior debate performance and potential strategies. Over the top passages from Jane Goodell on how chimps establish dominance, Trump's minimal facial expressions, and level of rhetoric. "Optimal" vocabulary level for political messaging is 7th grade: Trump is 4th grade, Cruz is 5th grade, and HRC/Kasich/Huckabee are at 7th grade.

Claim that Trump only got exposed publicly and dropped his guard three times in interviews/debates: Chris Matthews on abortion, Megyn Kelly in her Fox prime time interview, and Carly Fiorina in the debate.

Two options for Trump in debate(s): throw HRC off by attacks on Monica or attempt to appear presidential. HRC will probably bait him about his wealth or try to expose his glaring lack of knowledge. Both have risks since overplaying their baiting may lose moderate voters in swing states.
 
FuckmouthedRube said:
Not to veer into 923's lane, but the October Atlantic issue has several relevant articles:

-An analysis of political consultants

Cracks on how much money GOP wannabes wasted on political consultants. The only statistically quantifiable ROI on campaign spending is local organizing early. Worked for Obama in 2008 and 2012 and worked for Cruz in IA & WI. Good news for HRC is that GOTV is Robby Mook's strength. Bannon and KAC are all about message and polling.

Brutal chart in the article about $/primary vote. Trump was lowest (~$50K), HRC was second lowest (~$100K), Bernie (~$120K), and Cruz (~$250K). Jeb and Carly were last (~10M+). Ad development/spending is a sink hole.

-Cover story on the debates

Long article reviewing Trump's and HRC's prior debate performance and potential strategies. Over the top passages from Jane Goodell on how chimps establish dominance, Trump's minimal facial expressions, and level of rhetoric. "Optimal" vocabulary level for political messaging is 7th grade: Trump is 4th grade, Cruz is 5th grade, and HRC/Kasich/Huckabee are at 7th grade.

Claim that Trump only got exposed publicly and dropped his guard three times in interviews/debates: Chris Matthews on abortion, Megyn Kelly in her Fox prime time interview, and Carly Fiorina in the debate.

Two options for Trump in debate(s): throw HRC off by attacks on Monica or attempt to appear presidential. HRC will probably bait him about his wealth or try to expose his glaring lack of knowledge. Both have risks since overplaying their baiting may lose moderate voters in swing states.
Click to expand...


There are a lot of parallels between the 2000 debates and these. We have one very wonky, detail oriented, low charisma candidate and a low substance, low experience, entertainment oriented (high charisma I guess) candidate. Perhaps also similar to 2008 but the parties were reversed that year. Hilary should review Gore's performances as a "what no to do" exercise. I also think the prior expectations will play a big role. If Trump can meet some extremely low bar of not sounding like an idiot or a total asshole, the media will declare him the winner regardless of substance, much like what happened in 2000.
 
and i was ridiculed for starting this thread

fuck off dwarves and sneaky no-lifers!
 
PhDeac said:
To be fair, it's their entire strategy when they're not in power.
Click to expand...

Definitely not true. You left out:

a) playing golf,
b) watching John Candy movies,
c) eating tomato and mayo sandies.
 
knowell said:
Excellent article. Sums up exactly how I feel.

Hillary is a known disaster. Trump is a dangerous unknown.
Click to expand...

I am don't understand how people perceive these two and equally bad choices. Hillary will essentially continue the status of the executive branch that has more or less been in place since Bush 1. Domestically and economically she is marginally more liberal than Bill Clinton, and Bush 2, and more conservative than Obama. Internationally she'll probably a little less as hawkish than Bush/Cheney, but more aggressive than Obama or her husband. Four more years of that is disappointing for sure, but not DISASTROUS. A Clinton win means we are just delaying 4 years until any real change can be implemented. Trump on the other hand brings uncertainty, certainly, but what we do know is that he is open to using nuclear weapons, doesn't see the value in NATO, wants to raise tariffs against China, and he wants to build $12 billion- 40 ft high- 1000 mile long-wall along the border with Mexico. All of his articulated policy positions have disaster written all over them except the wall, which isn't disastrous, but it is wasteful and stupid. So it looks to me like Hillary is a disappointing continuation of the last 30 years and Trump is most likely a disaster.
 
Not to mention we haven't heard Trump's position on birds but we know that Hillary is for the bird status quo.
 
birdman said:
I am don't understand how people perceive these two and equally bad choices. Hillary will essentially continue the status of the executive branch that has more or less been in place since Bush 1. Domestically and economically she is marginally more liberal than Bill Clinton, and Bush 2, and more conservative than Obama. Internationally she'll probably a little less as hawkish than Bush/Cheney, but more aggressive than Obama or her husband. Four more years of that is disappointing for sure, but not DISASTROUS. A Clinton win means we are just delaying 4 years until any real change can be implemented. Trump on the other hand brings uncertainty, certainly, but what we do know is that he is open to using nuclear weapons, doesn't see the value in NATO, wants to raise tariffs against China, and he wants to build $12 billion- 40 ft high- 1000 mile long-wall along the border with Mexico. All of his articulated policy positions have disaster written all over them except the wall, which isn't disastrous, but it is wasteful and stupid. So it looks to me like Hillary is a disappointing continuation of the last 30 years and Trump is most likely a disaster.
Click to expand...

I agree that these two choices are not equal. We know that Hillary will be bad. Whatever else you think of Obama, his foreign policy was just about as bad as possible. He made almost all wrong choices when he chose sides. His negotiations were abysmal. Those who oppose the US are not at all concerned about any repercussions from poking us in the eye. Hillary was on board for most of this.

Hillary has a great resume in the same way that [Redacted] does. Lots of nice jobs but little to no accomplishments anywhere.

As for Trump, who knows. Tax policy looks to promote growth. We have to hope he will not start a trade war. I doubt the wall gets built. Maybe parts here and there. That wall will be like Obama closing Gitmo. Just will never get around to it. Trump is a lot of bluster. He has some good policies but mostly we have no idea.

If you are choosing between "guaranteed bad" and "could go either way", seems like the obvious choice is the unknown.

Fortunately we still have Gary to vote for if you cannot stand the thought of those two.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top