or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › OFFICIAL Trump v. Clinton Debate Thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

OFFICIAL Trump v. Clinton Debate Thread - Page 13

post #181 of 724
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post

The Rise of Trump has been pretty well diagrammed, but nobody really talks about how we got stuck with Hillary. I guess everyone just assumed the fix was in and it wasn't worth thinking too much about.

I'm curious who the Democrats would have come up with if Hillary wasn't the Anointed One.

Ahem. From April 2015:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

Because it's her turn.

Discuss.
post #182 of 724
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

Ahem. From April 2015:
So it's your fault, then.
post #183 of 724
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post

The Rise of Trump has been pretty well diagrammed, but nobody really talks about how we got stuck with Hillary. I guess everyone just assumed the fix was in and it wasn't worth thinking too much about.

I'm curious who the Democrats would have come up with if Hillary wasn't the Anointed One.

Ahem. From April 2015:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

Because it's her turn.

Discuss.



marchal.gif
you must be someone important
post #184 of 724
Thread Starter 
Okay, now this is awesome and easily the biggest over reaction yet. U of Windsor poly-sci professor declares Trump has "ruined political science."

http://windsorstar.com/news/local-news/trump-has-ruined-political-science-u-of-w-prof-says
post #185 of 724
You gotta love intellectuals who think the real world should mirror their study, and not the other way around.




I had figured poly sci people would be drooling over this election. There have got to be hundreds of low hanging PhD thesis topics to come from it.
post #186 of 724
Thread Starter 
I love this quote:
Quote:
Lydia Miljan, a political science professor at the University of Windsor, said Donald Trump is an anti-intellectual, serial philanderer who has broken the mould for how a presidential candidate should behave.

“He is supposed to be polite, the man doesn’t even understand what NATO is,” said Miljan.

Remove "anti-intellectual" and she just perfectly described candidate Bill Clinton and I'm willing to be she had wet panties for Bill back then. Then her direct quote is pretty much something Trump would say as WTF does being polite have to do with understanding NATO?
post #187 of 724
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

I love this quote:
Remove "anti-intellectual" and she just perfectly described candidate Bill Clinton and I'm willing to be she had wet panties for Bill back then. Then her direct quote is pretty much something Trump would say as WTF does being polite have to do with understanding NATO?

 

Tell me when a professor at a first world university starts making those claims.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by wojt View Post




marchal.gif
you must be someone important

 

I love the goals and strategy section.  "Our goal should be to get our candidate to win.  To do that, we'll draw distinctions between our candidate and potential competitors and attack them when we can."

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post


The Rise of Trump has been pretty well diagrammed, but nobody really talks about how we got stuck with Hillary. I guess everyone just assumed the fix was in and it wasn't worth thinking too much about.

I'm curious who the Democrats would have come up with if Hillary wasn't the Anointed One.

 

That's the problem on the D side right now.  They don't have any good candidates.  Maybe it will change after the election, but the Rs have a lock on a lot of areas: Senate, House, 23 states both governor and legislature, eight other states with legislature control, and eight more with governors.  That's 80% of states.  While the Republicans are losing on the Presidential side, they've been (mostly) quietly racking up wins around the country for the last six years.

Without Hillary, it probably would have been Biden though.  No way would the DNC allowed Bernie to win.  That would have splintered the Ds in a way like the the Dixiecrats or like the Teddy Roosevelt split in 1912.

post #188 of 724
Quote:
Originally Posted by brokencycle View Post

I love the goals and strategy section.  "Our goal should be to get our candidate to win.  To do that, we'll draw distinctions between our candidate and potential competitors and attack them when we can."

This is what happens to poly sci majors who don't get jobs in academia.

Quote:
That's the problem on the D side right now.  They don't have any good candidates.  Maybe it will change after the election, but the Rs have a lock on a lot of areas: Senate, House, 23 states both governor and legislature, eight other states with legislature control, and eight more with governors.  That's 80% of states.  While the Republicans are losing on the Presidential side, they've been (mostly) quietly racking up wins around the country for the last six years.

Wasserman-Schultz has been pretty roundly criticized for letting the Republicans run roughshod over the Dems at the local level. Somehow they totally missed the fact that losing local control means you get fucked on redistricting. Plus you never develop new candidates.

It's going to be interesting to see when the next generation of Democrats emerge.


I wonder at the fallout for this crop of Republicans. Can a guy like Rubio recover from being destroyed by Trump?
post #189 of 724
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post


This is what happens to poly sci majors who don't get jobs in academia.
Wasserman-Schultz has been pretty roundly criticized for letting the Republicans run roughshod over the Dems at the local level. Somehow they totally missed the fact that losing local control means you get fucked on redistricting. Plus you never develop new candidates.

It's going to be interesting to see when the next generation of Democrats emerge.


I wonder at the fallout for this crop of Republicans. Can a guy like Rubio recover from being destroyed by Trump?

 

Rubio is probably done.  Cruz after endorsing Trump is done.  Others were at the peak of their career to begin with or already on the fall - Christie, Perry, Santorum, etc.  Jeb and Rand are maybe the only two who can recover, but I don't think Jeb will, and Rand probably won't either.

 

The question will be when Hillary gets annointed, will that unify Republicans or will they continue to fracture between libertarians, social conservatives, and the beltway insider type?

post #190 of 724
Quote:
Originally Posted by brokencycle View Post

Rubio is probably done.  Cruz after endorsing Trump is done.  Others were at the peak of their career to begin with or already on the fall - Christie, Perry, Santorum, etc.  Jeb and Rand are maybe the only two who can recover, but I don't think Jeb will, and Rand probably won't either.
Jeb! is done for sure. I'm not sure he would even want to come back.

Quote:
The question will be when Hillary gets annointed, will that unify Republicans or will they continue to fracture between libertarians, social conservatives, and the beltway insider type?

That was the weird thing about the last eight years. The Republicans splintered across lines of "not hating Obama enough." They were just destroying each other on these arbitrary ideological purity tests.


The Trumpocalyse might give them a chance to reform the coalition with some more sane norms. Or at least I hope. I'd love to be able to have an alternative party to vote for at some point.
post #191 of 724
I think Trump shows party needs to move left on several social issues and left away from christian sharia, Trump has shown you can appeal to blue collar/worker class from the right as national socialist(no pun intended) if someone more sane came after Trump and made campaign on these issues he could be successful. GOP establisment in from my dirty foreigner perpective is not in synch with it's base and that;s why Trump stole them.
post #192 of 724
It's amazing that everyone can watch the same debate and come to wildly different conclusions. I think what this election cycle has unfortunately proven time and time again is that the more times you repeat a false statement, the more likely people are to believe it's true regardless of the merits of the statement. You might think it's always been this way but it really hasn't to this same degree. I think the combination of the vastness of data now available plus the proliferation of topics that can be covered in an election cycle due to the 24 hour news cycle and the ability to wage a campaign on the internet and through the media means that it's impossible for the truth to reliably win out. Instead of being hit with one big lie that we can dig into, we are hit with dozens of lies that make it impossible to defend without letting some through. The more lies there are the more get through.

One thing I would really like to know is how far over their allotted times each candidate spoke and what questions Holt was forced to cut because they ran out of time. It wouldn't surprise me if some of the final questions would have been about Clinton Foundation or the private email server as it relates to "Securing America".
Quote:
Originally Posted by brokencycle View Post

Tell me when a professor at a first world university starts making those claims

According to Trump, the US is no longer a first-world country so we may have to wait a while.
post #193 of 724
Quote:
Originally Posted by wojt View Post

I think Trump shows party needs to move left on several social issues and left away from christian sharia, Trump has shown you can appeal to blue collar/worker class from the right as national socialist(no pun intended) if someone more sane came after Trump and made campaign on these issues he could be successful. GOP establisment in from my dirty foreigner perpective is not in synch with it's base and that;s why Trump stole them.

 

I disagree for two reasons.  How much, besides Santorum at the kids table, did candidates talk about abortion or gay marriage during the primary?  Almost zero.  It was almost all about terrorism and immigration.  Those were the two primary issues.  Everything else was tertiary.

 

I would not call Trump's position on immigration to the left of anyone except maybe Castro.

post #194 of 724
Quote:
Originally Posted by UnFacconable View Post

It's amazing that everyone can watch the same debate and come to wildly different conclusions.

I see groups of people claiming lester holt was a flunkie for both sides...so I think that means he actually did a pretty good job?
Quote:
According to Trump, the US is no longer a first-world country so we may have to wait a while.

I flew out of LaGuardia this morning (and took a NJ taxi from Newark on Sunday)...He was certainly right-on with that statement.
post #195 of 724
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

Ahem. From April 2015:

Typical pool of Democratic candidates includes VPs, Senators and Governors. But a large number of Democratic governors and senators from moderate states got slaughtered in 2010 and 2014, and what was left was oldtimers with no chance, new senators from the 2012 cohort with no large constituency, or extreme liberals from coastal states.

(Most governor races are off year races btw.)

Had Hillary not run I think Kirsten Gillibrand would have taken a shot at it. As it was, the options were H, the Bern, and Mayor Carcetti.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › OFFICIAL Trump v. Clinton Debate Thread