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 15

post #211 of 724
Quote:
Originally Posted by venividivicibj View Post

I'm not sure what any of this has to do with anything trump says?

Yeah but this way it's ok because she's a bad person and suited and his ilk don't have to admit that Clinton was right that Trump says shitty things about people for no reason.
post #212 of 724
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

Sunglasses and playing the sax on Arsinio alone broke it. Admitting to pot use was a first too. And geiger, please, on the serial philandering?

Well I see it more as a normal evolution reflecting the aging and arrival of baby boomers as a dominant force than some "fuck you to elite washington" that Trump is. Clinton wasn't beyond the pale because oif who he was and hoiw he behaved.

note: I'm not praising Trump, it is not because a rebel group is opposed to ISIS than they're not possibly major manics: see Aryan first versus Aryan hand prison fight case.
post #213 of 724
If there is one thing Trump has taught his minions, it's how to avoid answering any questions directly by changing the subject to an irrational, irrelevant conspiracy theory.
Quote:
Originally Posted by venividivicibj View Post

I'm not sure what any of this has to do with anything trump says? Is she running for president? I mean... it's a nice diversion and everything, but it doesn't change anything trump said....
post #214 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,

That's the dilemma that's been wracking the Republicans for a while now, though, isn't it? A significant portion of their base is the Christian Conservative-style social conservatives. They're not just a source of votes, but an important source of fund-raising as well.
post #215 of 724
Quote:
Originally Posted by lawyerdad View Post

That's the dilemma that's been wracking the Republicans for a while now, though, isn't it? A significant portion of their base is the Christian Conservative-style social conservatives. They're not just a source of votes, but an important source of fund-raising as well.

And they can't really abandon them, because there's no other readily available pool of voters to pick up. What would the resulting voting coalition look like? Nobody knows, and so they've been trying to keep this together until the wheels fall off.
post #216 of 724
Quote:
Originally Posted by wojt View Post

it was released via wiki leaks too and i remember them saying there's no proof it's a state sponsored russian hacker, not saying it can't be, be there's no clue so far to his identity or to his affiliation, so conviently framing him as a russian spy serves a political purpose

.

It is certainly not just an HRC scenario and reflects current opinion in the USA. If it was "a gov. source reports" I'd completely believe you but as you can find out from the article below that doesn't seem to be the case.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/27/us/politics/spy-agency-consensus-grows-that-russia-hacked-dnc.html
https://threatconnect.com/blog/state-board-election-rabbit-hole/ (about some parallel attacks)
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/28/world/europe/russia-hacker-vladimir-fomenko-king-servers.html?_r=0
post #217 of 724
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post

And they can't really abandon them, because there's no other readily available pool of voters to pick up. What would the resulting voting coalition look like? Nobody knows, and so they've been trying to keep this together until the wheels fall off.
Yep, that's my non-expert sense of it as well.

In some ways, it's like the bind that many companies in shrinking industries or with a flagship product that's becoming obsolete face. You're dependent on the existing (even if stagnating or incrementally declining) revenue stream to keep yourself afloat and can't abandon it to throw the committed resources into a different, speculative venture. Do you ride it out and hope to keep things going until some black swan event suddenly occurs and changes the game in ways nobody can anticipate? Do you sell of your existing plants and product lines and hope you come out of it with enough capital to rebuild with a different focus?
post #218 of 724

I would agree with both of you if the Rs were seeing problems in other areas besides the presidency.  The Republicans are dominating every other aspect of government.  Some areas rely heavily on social conservatives while others don't.  It just doesn't translate well to the national stage, plus they have a huge problem when 1/5 of the delegates are in almost perfectly reliable blue states (CA, NY, and IL). 

 

I don't know if it is the problem they can't dump a profitable product line in a shrinking market as much as it is they have a bunch of niche products that do extraordinarily well, but they just can't quite succeed in a mass market play.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by lawyerdad View Post


Yep, that's my non-expert sense of it as well.

In some ways, it's like the bind that many companies in shrinking industries or with a flagship product that's becoming obsolete face. You're dependent on the existing (even if stagnating or incrementally declining) revenue stream to keep yourself afloat and can't abandon it to throw the committed resources into a different, speculative venture. Do you ride it out and hope to keep things going until some black swan event suddenly occurs and changes the game in ways nobody can anticipate? Do you sell of your existing plants and product lines and hope you come out of it with enough capital to rebuild with a different focus?

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post


And they can't really abandon them, because there's no other readily available pool of voters to pick up. What would the resulting voting coalition look like? Nobody knows, and so they've been trying to keep this together until the wheels fall off.
post #219 of 724
Thread Starter 
I think the Repubs are going through sort of what the Dems did in the South several decades ago. Remember, for a long time, the Dems were able to keep both the coastal liberals and the Southern whites in the same party. As can be expected, with the changing times of the 50s and 60s, it became impossible to cater to both the coastal liberals and the southern segregationists. The Repubs have to figure out how to pivot through this similar problem, and like the Dems did back then, will have to shed some planks members of the current voting block tends to find attractive, i.e. "The Wall" and economic nationalism, to gain folks that might actually find other parts of the Repub message attractive.
post #220 of 724
Quote:
Originally Posted by lawyerdad View Post

Yep, that's my non-expert sense of it as well.

In some ways, it's like the bind that many companies in shrinking industries or with a flagship product that's becoming obsolete face. You're dependent on the existing (even if stagnating or incrementally declining) revenue stream to keep yourself afloat and can't abandon it to throw the committed resources into a different, speculative venture. Do you ride it out and hope to keep things going until some black swan event suddenly occurs and changes the game in ways nobody can anticipate? Do you sell of your existing plants and product lines and hope you come out of it with enough capital to rebuild with a different focus?


There is a way for Trump to expand his base:

http://www.mofopolitics.com/2016/09/28/crunch-time-trump-40-days-pass-cocktail-party-test/
post #221 of 724
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

I think the Repubs are going through sort of what the Dems did in the South several decades ago. Remember, for a long time, the Dems were able to keep both the coastal liberals and the Southern whites in the same party. As can be expected, with the changing times of the 50s and 60s, it became impossible to cater to both the coastal liberals and the southern segregationists. The Repubs have to figure out how to pivot through this similar problem, and like the Dems did back then, will have to shed some planks members of the current voting block tends to find attractive, i.e. "The Wall" and economic nationalism, to gain folks that might actually find other parts of the Repub message attractive.

 

Is economic nationalism a plank of the Republican Party?  Trump is the only one who really ran on it (and Bernie Sanders).  I don't know any Rs running in MN that are running on populist economic policies or economic nationalism.

post #222 of 724
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by brokencycle View Post

Is economic nationalism a plank of the Republican Party?  Trump is the only one who really ran on it (and Bernie Sanders).  I don't know any Rs running in MN that are running on populist economic policies or economic nationalism.

Good point. I was thinking the obvious desire for it in the rank and file vs. what the party elite actually want.
post #223 of 724
Quote:
Originally Posted by venividivicibj View Post

I'm not sure what any of this has to do with anything trump says? Is she running for president? I mean... it's a nice diversion and everything, but it doesn't change anything trump said....

I think we can put political BS aside and admit that it's not a good idea for a presidential candidate to showcase a person involved in a murder.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post

Yeah but this way it's ok because she's a bad person and suited and his ilk don't have to admit that Clinton was right that Trump says shitty things about people for no reason.

I'm not denying that Trump insults people. I don't think Trump is some wonderful candidate, I just think he's better than Hillary. I did my best in the primary.
post #224 of 724
Trump showed that a sort of national economic socialism(or centrism) could work, coupled with right-wing approach to immigration. Nationalism and stance on immigration should be enough to sway decent portion of christians imo, I doubt libruls with their pandering to sjw/feminists and opening borders etc have a shot at stealing them.
post #225 of 724
Quote:
Originally Posted by suited View Post

I think we can put political BS aside and admit that it's not a good idea for a presidential candidate to showcase a person involved in a murder.
You mean like Darrell Issa?

I think we can all agree that your intent in bringing it up in the first place was "political BS" (which is kind of the point of the thread).
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