NationStates

Posted: **Mon Oct 10, 2016 12:50 pm**

Nazeroth wrote:
Khadgar wrote:
I'm not sure how a campaign recovers once their candidate has been caught on tape bragging about assaulting women and getting by with it by virtue of being a star. Then again Trump has had dozens of scandals that should have sunk the bastard.

same way the DNC recovered after screwing over millions of Bernie voters and having staff step down.

Remind me, how did the DNC screw over Bernie voters? Because last I checked Hillary got way more votes.

Posted: **Mon Oct 10, 2016 12:56 pm**

Khadgar wrote:
Nazeroth wrote:

same way the DNC recovered after screwing over millions of Bernie voters and having staff step down.

Remind me, how did the DNC screw over Bernie voters? Because last I checked Hillary got way more votes.

DNC just basically showed bias to hillary and controlled the debate setting.

Posted: **Mon Oct 10, 2016 12:57 pm**

After some introspection, I've decided that I'm going to try to give up my addiction to this election. It fascinates the communications major in me, but it's a goddamn miasma for the soul.

So I'm going to try to keep a healthy distance and try to be more restrained in my comments about the whole thing.

With that said... double-digits Clinton lead. Ouch.

Posted: **Mon Oct 10, 2016 12:58 pm**

Taziristan wrote:
Khadgar wrote:
Remind me, how did the DNC screw over Bernie voters? Because last I checked Hillary got way more votes.

DNC just basically showed bias to hillary and controlled the debate setting.

How wonderfully nebulous a charge.

Bias didn't lose Bernie the election. Writing off the south as unimportant lost Bernie the election. Then implying votes from red states didn't really count certainly didn't help.

Posted: **Mon Oct 10, 2016 12:58 pm**

Khadgar wrote:
Taziristan wrote:DNC just basically showed bias to hillary and controlled the debate setting.

How wonderfully nebulous a charge.

Bias didn't lose Bernie the election. Writing off the south as unimportant lost Bernie the election. Then implying votes from red states didn't really count certainly didn't help.

Also, much as I liked Bernie Sanders, he had a very difficult time reaching out to black voters.

Posted: **Mon Oct 10, 2016 1:00 pm**

Liriena wrote:
Khadgar wrote:
How wonderfully nebulous a charge.

Bias didn't lose Bernie the election. Writing off the south as unimportant lost Bernie the election. Then implying votes from red states didn't really count certainly didn't help.

Also, much as I liked Bernie Sanders, he had a very difficult time reaching out to black voters.

His consistency is certainly laudable but he didn't seem to grasp that his most often repeated refrain about the banks didn't get him traction.

Posted: **Mon Oct 10, 2016 1:01 pm**

Khadgar wrote:
Nazeroth wrote:

same way the DNC recovered after screwing over millions of Bernie voters and having staff step down.

Remind me, how did the DNC screw over Bernie voters? Because last I checked Hillary got way more votes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debbie_Wasserman_Schultz

Clinton's opponents, Martin O'Malley and Bernie Sanders, separately criticized the decision by Wasserman Schultz to schedule only six debates in the 2016 Presidential Primary, fewer than in previous election cycles, as well as the timing of the debates. [...] After Wikileaks published Democratic National Committee emails which suggested that DNC staffers had inappropriately backed Hillary Clinton in the primary campaigns while criticizing the Bernie Sanders campaign, Wasserman Schultz tendered her resignation as the head of the DNC, to become effective as of the close of the nomination convention in Philadelphia. According to reports in the Washington Post, Wasserman Schultz strongly resisted suggestions she resign, requiring a phone call from President Barack Obama to finally force her resignation.

Posted: **Mon Oct 10, 2016 1:04 pm**

Khadgar wrote:
Liriena wrote:Also, much as I liked Bernie Sanders, he had a very difficult time reaching out to black voters.

His consistency is certainly laudable but he didn't seem to grasp that his most often repeated refrain about the banks didn't get him traction.

Often, when he was asked about issues faced by minorities, he tended to give rather economicist answers. An orthodox socialist approach, which definitely did not sit well with those among said minorities who were looking for social policies, not talk about how working class whites were only racist because the top 1% were manipulating them for their own gain.

Posted: **Mon Oct 10, 2016 1:04 pm**

Donald Trump answers the question: What is 2+2?

"I have to say a lot of people have been asking this question. No, really. A lot of people come up to me and they ask me. They say, "What's 2+2"? And I tell them look, we know what 2+2 is. We've had almost eight years of the worst kind of math you can imagine. Oh my god, I can't believe it. Addition and subtraction of the 1s the 2s and the 3s. Its terrible. Its just terrible. Look, if you want to know what 2+2 is, do you want to know what 2+2 is? I'll tell you.
First of all the number 2, by the way I love the number 2. It's probably my favorite number, no it is my favorite number. You know what, it's probably more like the number two but with a lot of zeros behind it. A lot. If I'm being honest, I mean, if I'm being honest. I like a lot of zeros. Except for Marco Rubio, now he's a zero that I don't like. Though, I probably shouldn't say that. He's a nice guy but he's like, "10101000101", on and on, like that. He's like a computer! You know what I mean? He's like a computer. I don't know. I mean, you know.
So, we have all these numbers and we can add them and subtract them and add them. TIMES them even. Did you know that? We can times them OR divide them, they don't tell you that, and I'll tell you, no one is better at the order of operations than me. You wouldn't believe it. That I can tell you. So, we're gonna be the best on 2+2, believe me. OK? Alright. Thank you."

Posted: **Mon Oct 10, 2016 1:05 pm**

Tolko Temnota wrote:
Khadgar wrote:
Remind me, how did the DNC screw over Bernie voters? Because last I checked Hillary got way more votes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debbie_Wasserman_Schultz

Clinton's opponents, Martin O'Malley and Bernie Sanders, separately criticized the decision by Wasserman Schultz to schedule only six debates in the 2016 Presidential Primary, fewer than in previous election cycles, as well as the timing of the debates. [...] After Wikileaks published Democratic National Committee emails which suggested that DNC staffers had inappropriately backed Hillary Clinton in the primary campaigns while criticizing the Bernie Sanders campaign, Wasserman Schultz tendered her resignation as the head of the DNC, to become effective as of the close of the nomination convention in Philadelphia. According to reports in the Washington Post, Wasserman Schultz strongly resisted suggestions she resign, requiring a phone call from President Barack Obama to finally force her resignation.

I do remember yes. But specifically what did the DNC do to sabotage Bernie? Did they throw away Bernie ballots? Did they disenfranchise Bernie voters?

Posted: **Mon Oct 10, 2016 1:06 pm**

Khadgar wrote:
Liriena wrote:Also, much as I liked Bernie Sanders, he had a very difficult time reaching out to black voters.

His consistency is certainly laudable but he didn't seem to grasp that his most often repeated refrain about the banks didn't get him traction.

Because us Americans are stupid. Bernie hit the nail on the head when it came to banks.

Posted: **Mon Oct 10, 2016 1:09 pm**

Trump will lose the next debate, big league, my prediction.

Posted: **Mon Oct 10, 2016 1:13 pm**

Democratic peoples republic of Kelvinsi wrote:Trump will lose the next debate, big league, my prediction.

They should just cancel it. Trumps done.

Posted: **Mon Oct 10, 2016 1:15 pm**

Taziristan wrote:
Democratic peoples republic of Kelvinsi wrote:Trump will lose the next debate, big league, my prediction.

They should just cancel it. Trumps done.

He probably did at this point, though I want him to lose narrowly enough to send Clinton a message, but it seems like he will lose by at least a McCain margin.

Posted: **Mon Oct 10, 2016 1:15 pm**

Democratic peoples republic of Kelvinsi wrote:
Taziristan wrote:They should just cancel it. Trumps done.

He probably did at this point, though I want him to lose narrowly enough to send Clinton a message, but it seems like he will lose by at least a McCain margin.

But, Hillary is not going to do that, too risky, too likely it will backfire. She will just stall the next debate, and Trump will implode by himself, by his usual Trumpy self.

Posted: **Mon Oct 10, 2016 1:23 pm**

Little Flowers wrote:Thanks to Donald Chump's breaking news that Bill Clinton was a womanizer, Bill Clinton will not be able to serve a third term as President.

It is a good thing people alleged to be rapists won't be able to be President thanks to the new Chump disclosures.

Who was that fat orangutan lurking behind Hilary's back during the debate?

I am glad that new conditional amendment allows for the next President able to jail their political opponents, or if that fails assassinate them. If that isn't supporting the first and second amendment then I don't know what is.

Once Pence gets off his knees he will support these factual statements.

Unofficial warning for political nicknaming. Cut it out.

Implacable Death wrote:If I profess my undying love for Clinton, can I join your circlejerk? It seems fun!

*** Warned for trolling. *** You'd think based on your prior record you'd have learnt better by now. I suggest you clean up your act, fast.

Posted: **Mon Oct 10, 2016 1:24 pm**

If there was a way to have Obama run again, I would vote for him.

Posted: **Mon Oct 10, 2016 1:26 pm**

Taziristan wrote:If there was a way to have Obama run again, I would vote for him.

I would too, I would vote for any former president except W.

Posted: **Mon Oct 10, 2016 1:26 pm**

Democratic peoples republic of Kelvinsi wrote:
Taziristan wrote:If there was a way to have Obama run again, I would vote for him.

I would too, I would vote for any former president except W.

Living and dead?

Posted: **Mon Oct 10, 2016 1:29 pm**

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/r ... ers-229556

Well, this will be fun.

Posted: **Mon Oct 10, 2016 1:32 pm**

Mad hatters in jeans wrote:
Democratic peoples republic of Kelvinsi wrote:I would too, I would vote for any former president except W.

Living and dead?

Living.

Posted: **Mon Oct 10, 2016 1:34 pm**

Democratic peoples republic of Kelvinsi wrote:
Taziristan wrote:If there was a way to have Obama run again, I would vote for him.

I would too, I would vote for any former president except W.

If that was the case, I'd vote for Theodore Roosevelt or Ronald Reagan. Now those men were ... well, men.

Posted: **Mon Oct 10, 2016 1:53 pm**

Implacable Death wrote:
Democratic peoples republic of Kelvinsi wrote:I would too, I would vote for any former president except W.

If that was the case, I'd vote for Theodore Roosevelt or Ronald Reagan. Now those men were ... well, men.

Isn't Geert Wilders more realistic? I mean that's good for us that your situation is such.

Posted: **Mon Oct 10, 2016 1:55 pm**

Implacable Death wrote:
Democratic peoples republic of Kelvinsi wrote:I would too, I would vote for any former president except W.

If that was the case, I'd vote for Theodore Roosevelt or Ronald Reagan. Now those men were ... well, men.

I'd have thought your opposition to criminal politicians would have precluded Reagan.

Posted: **Mon Oct 10, 2016 1:59 pm**

Cymrea wrote:
Implacable Death wrote:
If that was the case, I'd vote for Theodore Roosevelt or Ronald Reagan. Now those men were ... well, men.

I'd have thought your opposition to criminal politicians would have precluded Reagan.

You'd think so, but Ronald Reagan has the benefit of hindsight now.

New Werpland wrote:
Implacable Death wrote:
If that was the case, I'd vote for Theodore Roosevelt or Ronald Reagan. Now those men were ... well, men.

Isn't Geert Wilders more realistic? I mean that's good for us that your situation is such.

Actually, I might just vote for Geert Wilders again, though VNL is a good alternative. It's really the same reason I'd vote for Trump. Not because either are so great, but because the current establishment has shown it has failed over and over again and it's time for a change. Remember how Obama said he'd change things?

NationStates

US General Election Thread IV: The Beginning of the End