Remove this ad

avatar

Beardfist

Regular User

Posts: 165

#301 [url]

Sep 29 16 6:57 AM

I caught the latter end day-of, then looked over the transcripts of the earlier parts. Overall, I think Clinton won the debate itself--she closed out stronger and seemed more composed by the end, and the Don's patience was clearly wearing thin. That said, it isn't as if she won on merit of argument--or that Trump's stronger points were on merit of argument, either. Both spouted non-truth, lies, and misrepresentation throughout the whole thing, and neither made anything close to a strong case as to why they would be the better candidate. "Winning" at any given point was more a matter of giving off the appearance of winning, even if in reality it was little more than an exercise in vanity for candidate and supporter alike.

I'm not sure if there was too strong of a loser, however. Clinton showing her hand and virtue signalling a bit too hard for the undecided is a definite blow against her, and in general she's the one that needs to stop the downward slip--but Trump's uncomfortable politicking has also offset a good number of his faithful. A lot of people are used to him brushing off and trying to work around a hard question that he can't answer--or giving a non-truth--but seeing him, on the debate stage, be asked a question only to immediately start talking about something completely unrelated and try to bury it... Well, a lot of people were uncomfortable. They expect that of Hillary, but of their boy the big T? He also missed several key opportunities to metaphorically (thank god) pounce on her, which has miffed some people.

But, in general, Trumpets will vote Trump, Clintucks will vote Clinton, and everyone else wants to die. Gary Johnson has spectacularly proven he can't waste even a mere thirty minutes a week to read about the few half-decent foreign heads of state (when I heard the question, Tsai Ing-Wen immediately popped into my head, and I'm hardly familiar with her beyond that her party doesn't take it up the ass from communists. Like, gary, c'mon), so now the center really doesn't have a candidate to feel half-good about. They're all pretty shit.

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad
avatar

SmashLampjaw

Living Spambot

Posts: 1,959

#302 [url]

Sep 29 16 7:46 AM

Reading the transcript eliminates the timing and delivery. Clinton's problem wasn't with her script, it was with her robotic recitation from memory of other people's words. You could have replaced her with an animatronic bear from Chuck-E-Cheez that had her voice and the only difference would be the smile would look more genuine. Her inability to go off-script kept showing up when she had nothing to retort to Trump with when he went way off-topic (which was for most of the questions) because nothing had been prepared for her for that. Nobody watching the debate would come away with the impression she originated anything that came out of her mouth. It also highlighted Lester Holt's set-up questions against Trump.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

Beardfist

Regular User

Posts: 165

#303 [url]

Sep 29 16 8:10 AM

Certainly, though you have to wonder if most people will care to think long enough to consider those things. Most viewers are unlikely to consider things like the moderator's bias, which is in part why CNN has been able to get away with this shit for so long. From what I've heard about the debate's start, the problems with her horrific delivery were most evident there. But around the end, at least in the parts I caught, it wasn't -as- evident. While it was clear that she had no idea how to display human emotion, tell a joke, or respond to something outside of the narrow range she'd been prepared for, there weren't as many instances where that was noticeable at the end. Had Trump not gotten into his inane rambling as often, I don't think she could have recovered from the poor showing at the start--but by the end, she would leave the stronger impression to your average dolt.

Still, her campaign was aware that the earlier clunkiness of her performance would be a sticking point if it was allowed to be analyzed, and so it immediately set about going after trump for "being a big meanie interrupting her" despite her getting high praise for stickin' it to those men when she talked over Old Man Socialism in the primaries. While I expect all politically tilted media outlets to prop their candidate up after a debate, the speed with which the usual suspects started trying to frame the debate in Clinton's favor is greatly amusing. This, coupled with their doubling-down on the PEPE IS A WHITE SUPREMACIST MEME thing (even the economist took this angle, which genuinely surprised me) expresses a growing realization that Clinton's ground is far more unsteady than she believes. And while I don't agree with him on everything, Scott Adams' belief that Trump stands poised to win tremendously is starting to seem stronger and stronger as this damage control ramps up.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

SmashLampjaw

Living Spambot

Posts: 1,959

#304 [url]

Sep 29 16 9:13 PM

I'm pretty much with you and Long Tom on the typical unimportance of debates. Both candidates screwed up, but Hillary's the only one who got hurt by it because Trump did nothing new. The Pepe thing, though... holy crap. Why is it these people are convinced if they don't admit they screwed up nobody will be sure they did, despite how blatantly obvious it is they screwed up?

Quote    Reply   
avatar

Long Tom

Living Spambot

Posts: 1,101

#305 [url]

Sep 30 16 6:45 AM

SmashLampjaw wrote:
I'm pretty much with you and Long Tom on the typical unimportance of debates. Both candidates screwed up, but Hillary's the only one who got hurt by it because Trump did nothing new. The Pepe thing, though... holy crap. Why is it these people are convinced if they don't admit they screwed up nobody will be sure they did, despite how blatantly obvious it is they screwed up?

Wishful thinking?

Quote    Reply   
avatar

ohitsyou

Living Spambot

Posts: 500

#306 [url]

Oct 1 16 10:42 AM

There have been a lot of talk about the Alt-Right, and now I am starting to believe that they don't exist. Or rather, they are another group enitrely.

http://www.nonpersons.com/2016/09/28/the-anti-defamation-league-and-pepe-setting-the-narrative/

I read this article, and the writer made some good points about what the Alt-Right actually is; A bunch of free speech advocates. Not so long ago, the left would have prescribed to the believe that they were part of the "counterculture." Now, with PC on the rise becuase of them, the left now have more control of culture and are so far removed from reality you could replace Mccarthy talking points for "conservative" instead of "commy", and they would agree to them. They are so far removed that some people rebel against them, being purosely vulgar for the sake of being vulgar, as they know it would give a rise out of the establishment. In other words, the counterculture is no longer on the lefts side.

No, I dont believe the Alt-Right is full of racist sexist conservatives. In fact, I dont believe hardly any of them are racist, sexist, liberal, conservative etc. As there goal is to be as shocking as possible, so that they can laugh at the reactions of liberals who have know idea how the internet works. Just becuase a troll on the internet says "Let niggers shoot themselves" dosent make them neccesarily racist, its possible that all there trying to do is get a rise out of you. 
 

Quote    Reply   

#310 [url]

Oct 2 16 9:15 PM

M wrote:
You underestimate these jokers. They criticize the mainstream media for not being leftist enough.

Same could be said about The Real News Network, TruthOut, CounterPunch, World Socialists Web Site, Global Research.....

Basically, radical Anarchist/Socialists who wants to destroy capitalism by any means neccesary despite being part of the capitalistic system.

Last Edited By: Melonhead Oct 3 16 7:14 AM. Edited 1 time.

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad
avatar

M

Heavy User

Posts: 205

#311 [url]

Oct 4 16 11:15 AM

Our Congress is so fucking inept it's astounding. They voted 97-1 to pass JASTA, realized they made a mistake, and then blamed it on Obama for not warning them about it (even though he did).

Both Democratic and Republican Senators are JUST NOW starting to be worried about the implications of a bill they couldn't be bothered to actually read.

How on Earth did we manage to get ourselves stuck with such an incompetent bunch of idiots?

Quote    Reply   
avatar

plarblman

Living Spambot

Posts: 1,167

#312 [url]

Oct 4 16 12:12 PM

I blame a lack of attention on local politics. These congressmen don't come out of thin air; a lot of the chaff could have been removed sooner if people actually knew what their state legislatures/governors were doing. It's bad enough that people barely pay attention to congress as it is, unless it's a hot-button issue that the media focuses on.

As for JASTA itself, it wouldn't have been an issue if the state department did admit that Saudis sponsored terrorism. The problem is that the State department is also blindingly incompetant, sending military aid to all the different factions in the middle-east only for them to turn around and attack the US or its allies. For example, NATO ally Turkey attacks the US' Kurdish allies, who at the same time are fighting US-backed anti-Assad groups that may or may not also be affiliated with ISIS. It's just one giant clusterfuck.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

Beardfist

Regular User

Posts: 165

#314 [url]

Oct 4 16 4:17 PM

Well, we used to have senators be elected by their states' government, but that got scrapped as there were "too many rich people with too much influence getting in." And we can see how that worked out--now it's too many rich people with too much influence over the ~herds~ getting in! Yes, I'm sure we didn't place limits on direct democracy for any good reason or anything like that. Most of them backed the bill on either aisle because, well. It sounded too politically catchy to dare stand out against: who wants to stand against victims of terrorism? That would make a bad headline! Which could make for a bad election cycle! Avoid at all costs--including ludicrous diplomatic headaches, opening up the legal nightmare of suing states to all sorts of people, figuring out how to balance the resources and who is to be held accountable--so on, so on. It's a tricky soup, as, as you say, a lot of these families were dicked over by the state department's inept approach to foreign policy over the course of sixteen years, and shall continue to be dicked over by the fact that this legislation doesn't open up a magical simple pathway towards comeuppance.

As to the Pepe Memester Supremester, well. My whole political shift to the center--I used to be a fairly strong lefty, though never quite "marx was right"--started when I was researching Gamergate. I never got involved in that shitstorm, and I find its remnants to mostly be annoying self-absorbed people stuck in a perpetual loop of WE DON'T CARE ABOUT THE LWS BUT LOOK AT WHAT THEY JUST DID. But looking into the boldfaced smear job that was done against the group, the way that it's been slandered and misrepresented... and that all of these different mediums were in on it, and how it was bleeding over into 'regular' journalism, with seemingly no one bothering to dig and figure out what anyone's positions were. And whenever someone with at best a passing interest would look into the thing, those were what they'd find. I found it hard to believe that the industry would take such a strong scorched-earth policy with its own consumers, but the Pepe thing reflects a lot from there that illuminates why: the target is long-term. People who look up this shit in the future, who are way too fucking lazy to do any digging, will run into these articles and form their entire opinion about history from them.

The democrats understand that, right now, they have a very strong academic and media hegemony. They don't need to worry about bold-faced lying, like is happening to the poor frog man, because they find they can accept any losses. They're on the back-foot anyway, right now, and likely expect to go into a slight recession (indeed, already have for some time in congressional and judicial regards). So the plan is more, in a decade or so... have people somehow look back at the dems in 2016 as these brave warriors fighting against racists and sexists and anti-semites and so on, so forth. For people who have no idea who the frog is, the articles are going to be all the more they find.

I think the dems, though, are stuck in the past in terms of this strategy: information disseminates much faster than they seem to expect. Indeed, the pushback against the overuse of "sexist" and "racist" shows that the same, old, tired tricks are failing rather handily anymore, and indeed playing into the oppositely bad end (people trying to get away with sexism or racism under guise of "anti-pc"). This is a problem that both parties have, but the Republicans have largely shut up and started to rethink their strategy while the strange orange man yells; the democrats believe, as usual, that they just need to go DEEPER to see some returns.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

Long Tom

Living Spambot

Posts: 1,101

#315 [url]

Oct 5 16 8:40 PM

Speaking of local election, one local candidate in my state actually ran a TV ad where he mocked both Clinton and Trump!  Never thought I would ever see something like this happen.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

plarblman

Living Spambot

Posts: 1,167

#316 [url]

Oct 6 16 9:17 AM

Another interesting thought I had from reading someone else's comment; I think we all know that the current wave of socjus-related outrage culture from the media has a lot to do with the clickbait model of journalism, and the constant need for ad revenue. But I think people don't really think about why this has only become a thing recently, and it may have a lot to do with the proliferation of ad blockers.

See, back in the early days, ads were less obtrusive, so people tolerated them. Ad blockers only really began to explode when ads became annoying; pop-ups, automatic videos, malware-laden ads, and all sorts of stuff eating bandwidth and CPU usage. Hell, I didn't mention it before, but the mobile version of this forum constantly redirects me to ads, which makes it unusable for me. If ad companies never did any of this, people wouldn't resort to ad blockers, and by extension media companies, especially the news, wouldn't resort to shitty news stories that divide people and outrage clicks. At this point it might be too late to reverse all this, even if ad companies were to go back to a less intrusive model, the damage has been done.

Just some food for thought.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

M

Heavy User

Posts: 205

#317 [url]

Oct 6 16 3:17 PM

Bleh. Advertising. One of the few things more irritating than politics. Mark my words, someday as companies will go full-on Futurama and find ways to put ads in our dreams.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

Beardfist

Regular User

Posts: 165

#318 [url]

Oct 8 16 5:15 PM

how about those NATO battalions being deployed in eastern yurop and russia shoving nuke-capable missiles over in Kaliningrad, eh? after a US-RUS ceasefire in syria ended lousily and both parties pointed the fingers at one another

I don't understand the strategic importance of prodding Russia. China I can at least understand--vital US allies (well, and the philipines) are nestled about the area and it's a crucial seaway. Russia's got its fingers in the Ukrainian civil war. No offense, but it's not really a region I'd consider of massive strategic importance, unless you specifically wanted another russian theater. good thing I'm planning to enlist with the military soon :)))))

Quote    Reply   
avatar

ohitsyou

Living Spambot

Posts: 500

#319 [url]

Oct 8 16 7:29 PM

Beardfist wrote:
how about those NATO battalions being deployed in eastern yurop and russia shoving nuke-capable missiles over in Kaliningrad, eh? after a US-RUS ceasefire in syria ended lousily and both parties pointed the fingers at one another

I don't understand the strategic importance of prodding Russia. China I can at least understand--vital US allies (well, and the philipines) are nestled about the area and it's a crucial seaway. Russia's got its fingers in the Ukrainian civil war. No offense, but it's not really a region I'd consider of massive strategic importance, unless you specifically wanted another russian theater. good thing I'm planning to enlist with the military soon :)))))

It might be becuase of how close Russia is to the US; you know, Sarah Palin saying she can see Russia from her house might sound like she's stating the obvious, but thats the point, it is obvious. Maybe we view them more as a threat becuase of that, but I'm guessing here and not saying that for certanty.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

plarblman

Living Spambot

Posts: 1,167

#320 [url]

Oct 8 16 7:35 PM

My theory is that the US and EU are trying to use Russia as a boogeyman to distract away from discontent at home. Russia was a convenient scapegoat for distracting people from just how scandalous the DNC leaks were, so as to keep people from reading what was actually in them. It's an acceptable target because they're white and unapologetically traditionalist. Yes, Russia's done some genuinely scummy stuff, but not enough to warrant any direct intervention or provocation.

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad
Add Reply

Quick Reply

bbcode help