Philadelphia DNC 2016


Off-Topic Discussions

201 to 250 of 539 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Sharoth wrote:
I am one of those people that does not really like either party. If a third party stood even a 5% chance of succeeding, then I would probably vote for them. Maybe.

The last I heard, right now a 3rd party has about a 15% chance of success. Based on polling granted, but the chance is there.


Turin the Mad wrote:
Sharoth wrote:
I am one of those people that does not really like either party. If a third party stood even a 5% chance of succeeding, then I would probably vote for them. Maybe.
The last I heard, right now a 3rd party has about a 15% chance of success. Based on polling granted, but the chance is there.

~thoughtful look~ Hmmmnnnn... ~grimaces~ Damn, but I need to do some research.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Krensky wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
And there's the lack of open primaries and the repeated failures across multiple states to allow new voters to register for the Democratic Party.

Yeah, no.

Open primaries are bad. They enable all sorts of shenanigans and in doing so destroy some of the safeguards that actually let our democracy work. Open primaries are part of the reason the GOP got Trump.

If you wish to vote in a party primary, well, than you should join the damn party!

I've got no problem with open or closed primaries. I kind of like that there's a mixture, giving some voice to allies outside the party, but not letting them dominate.

It's also worth remembering that if Bernie was at a disadvantage in the closed primary states, he was helped by the caucus states - which have tiny turnout and are easily dominated by more enthusiastic but less numerous supporters.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sharoth wrote:
I am one of those people that does not really like either party. If a third party stood even a 5% chance of succeeding, then I would probably vote for them. Maybe.

Just a third party in general or would the actual policies and plans of the third party matter?

Many people seem to see third party votes as just protests, a way of expressing discontent with the two major parties, without actually considering what they'd do if they won. Which is fine, since they won't.:)

Still, a large part of the reason third parties don't do well is that their ideas are fringe. Even in a parliamentary system which isn't so stacked against them, while the Libertarians and Greens would likely get some members elected to the legislature, they wouldn't suddenly dominate.

Edit: Also Johnson doesn't have a 15% chance of success. He's polling at 15%. There's a big difference. He's got approximately 0% chance of actually winning. He'd need to be polling at least 30 to have a noticeable chance and then only if he was pulling heavily from both candidates - just a few points of difference in polling make a huge swing in odds of winning. A 55/45 race is nearly a sure thing, not a 55% chance of the leader winning.

Liberty's Edge

Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Krensky wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
And there's the lack of open primaries and the repeated failures across multiple states to allow new voters to register for the Democratic Party.

Yeah, no.

Open primaries are bad. They enable all sorts of shenanigans and in doing so destroy some of the safeguards that actually let our democracy work. Open primaries are part of the reason the GOP got Trump.

If you wish to vote in a party primary, well, than you should join the damn party!

The "Trump" thing is just a blatant myth. Trump carried closed primaries with almost the same level of success, and would have easily won even if all the states had been closed primaries. "He'll lose the closed primaries" was the mythology JEB and Rubio promoted to reassure investors. Didn't pan out, did it? The reasons the GOP got Trump had little to do with open primaries and a lot to do with the GOP getting overrun by asshats.

And why do you think they got overrun with asshats that can't be controlled by the party leadership? Open primaries are part of that.

Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Closed primaries are a huge barrier to new voters and encourage in-party tampering in a big way. They're also one of the best tools of the mess that is the two-party system—pressure everyone to join one of the two parties for fear of losing their chance to influence the election! Especially considering that the primary is the only chance some states get to influence things, since the primaries actually often have proportional allotments. Closed primaries are devastating to those who don't like either party and don't realize that they're giving up political agency by refusing to associate.

If they're so ignorant or apathetic about the system, how is granting them a greater voice going to help anything other then a bad thing?

Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Also, "shenanigans", huh? How about the repeated instances of the Democratic Party screwing up registering thousands of new voters, then failing to let them know they weren't registered until it was too late, preventing them from voting? Sounds pretty shenanigan-y to me, but what do I know?

That's not something the party does, that's something the local board of elections does. And its something that benefits the GOP, not the Democratic Party.

Kobold Cleaver wrote:
And for what? To keep out the Independent "riffraff"? Independents make up the majority of registered voters. Closed primaries deny them a voice because—why, exactly? Is it to teach them a...

Because it forms part of the system that prevented the sort of insanity that has defined the last fifteen or so years of politics in this country.

Tell me, have you ever held office or worked for someone who has or inside a party or anything similar?


I had never heard that Jill Stein was anti-vax. Here's a statement that she made that is being passed around as proof of her anti-vax, pro-homeopathy position, but, personally, I don't see it:

Spoiler:

I don’t know if we have an “official” stance, but I can tell you my personal stance at this point. According to the most recent review of vaccination policies across the globe, mandatory vaccination that doesn’t allow for medical exemptions is practically unheard of. In most countries, people trust their regulatory agencies and have very high rates of vaccination through voluntary programs. In the US, however, regulatory agencies are routinely packed with corporate lobbyists and CEOs. So the foxes are guarding the chicken coop as usual in the US. So who wouldn’t be skeptical? I think dropping vaccinations rates that can and must be fixed in order to get at the vaccination issue: the widespread distrust of the medical-indsutrial complex.

Vaccines in general have made a huge contribution to public health. Reducing or eliminating devastating diseases like small pox and polio. In Canada, where I happen to have some numbers, hundreds of annual death from measles and whooping cough were eliminated after vaccines were introduced. Still, vaccines should be treated like any medical procedure–each one needs to be tested and regulated by parties that do not have a financial interest in them. In an age when industry lobbyists and CEOs are routinely appointed to key regulatory positions through the notorious revolving door, its no wonder many Americans don’t trust the FDA to be an unbiased source of sound advice. A Monsanto lobbyists and CEO like Michael Taylor, former high-ranking DEA official, should not decide what food is safe for you to eat. Same goes for vaccines and pharmaceuticals. We need to take the corporate influence out of government so people will trust our health authorities, and the rest of the government for that matter. End the revolving door. Appoint qualified professionals without a financial interest in the product being regulated. Create public funding of elections to stop the buying of elections by corporations and the super-rich.

For homeopathy, just because something is untested doesn’t mean it’s safe. By the same token, being “tested” and “reviewed” by agencies tied to big pharma and the chemical industry is also problematic. There’s a lot of snake-oil in this system. We need research and licensing boards that are protected from conflicts of interest. They should not be limited by arbitrary definitions of what is “natural” or not.

Meanwhile, Celebrity Leftist Heartthrob Abby Martin gets arrested at the DNC.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Krensky wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
And there's the lack of open primaries and the repeated failures across multiple states to allow new voters to register for the Democratic Party.

Yeah, no.

Open primaries are bad. They enable all sorts of shenanigans and in doing so destroy some of the safeguards that actually let our democracy work. Open primaries are part of the reason the GOP got Trump.

If you wish to vote in a party primary, well, than you should join the damn party!

If a party wants to hold a ballot just for their members, they should run their own elections.

Liberty's Edge

Berinor wrote:
Krensky wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
And there's the lack of open primaries and the repeated failures across multiple states to allow new voters to register for the Democratic Party.

Yeah, no.

Open primaries are bad. They enable all sorts of shenanigans and in doing so destroy some of the safeguards that actually let our democracy work. Open primaries are part of the reason the GOP got Trump.

If you wish to vote in a party primary, well, than you should join the damn party!

If a party wants to hold a ballot just for their members, they should run their own elections.

They used to. Then politiphobes decided that it wasn't fair and campaigned until we had direct primaries as the major selection method. It hasn't really made anything better and has made a whole g$# d$#ned lot worse.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

I had never heard that Jill Stein was anti-vax. Here's a statement that she made that is being passed around as proof of her anti-vax, pro-homeopathy position, but, personally, I don't see it:

** spoiler omitted **...

Because she answered two yes or no questions with rambling, vaguely supportive answers, pandering to the wackadoo fringe of the left instead of giving the answers you would expect from a rationalperson, especially a physician. "Vaccines work, homeopathy is b*$#$$~#."


Berinor wrote:
Krensky wrote:


If you wish to vote in a party primary, well, than you should join the damn party!
If a party wants to hold a ballot just for their members, they should run their own elections.

I'm not seeing that. The purpose of the Democratic primary -- or, for that matter, the Free Silver primary -- is to select whom that party wants to nominate to the general election. If you're not a member of the Free Silver party, why should your opinion matter?

Technically, it's not like a party primary is even needed. If I decide to create and bankroll the Illithids First! party (please note the exclamation point -- it's like the stage play Oklahoma!), I could also decide whom to nominate. Of course, there's a fair sporting chance that if I did so, that candidate would be the first person in history to receive a negative number of votes at the general election,.... but that's my risk, and more generally, the Illithids First! party's risk.

Once the general election rolls around, you can look at all the various candidates and decide whether the Democratic, the Republican, the Free Silver, or the Illithids First! candidate best matches your policy ideals and has most persuaded you that to grant your trust. But we Illithids don't actually need human input to select our candidate.


Krensky wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

I had never heard that Jill Stein was anti-vax. Here's a statement that she made that is being passed around as proof of her anti-vax, pro-homeopathy position, but, personally, I don't see it:

** spoiler omitted **...

Because she answered two yes or no questions with rambling, vaguely supportive answers, pandering to the wackadoo fringe of the left instead of giving the answers you would expect from a rationalperson, especially a physician. "Vaccines work, homeopathy is b##@+&~~."

"Vaccines in general have made a huge contribution to general health."

Sounds like "Vaccines work" to me.

"For homeopathy, just because something is untested doesn't mean it's safe....Research and licensing boards...should not be limited by arbitrary definitions of what is 'natural' or not."

Not quite "homeopathy is bullshiznit," I agree, but I don't think political candidates usually curse in position statements.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Krensky wrote:
They used to. Then politiphobes decided that it wasn't fair and campaigned until we had direct primaries as the major selection method. It hasn't really made anything better and has made a whole g#~ d*~ned lot worse.

Actually, voting access has gone way up since the development of the primary system, and the influence of the party bosses in smoke-filled rooms has gone way down. I'd say that these are improvement.

And the simple fact that I can vote for my preferred presidential candidate within walking distance of my house instead of having to head to a distance city for the state nominating convention (or worse, the national nominating convention) is a vast improvement.

I actually think the current Democratic system is a fairly sensible one. There's a large amount of public participation, and the absence of winner-take-all primaries means that every vote counts, but at the same time, the superdelegates, who are largely professional politicians and know what "electability" entails, can in theory make sure that the party doesn't nominate a dead cat and a penguin.

For all Sanders' whining earlier in the cycle, it's hard to overlook the fact that he lost. He got fewer primary votes, he got fewer delegates, and even won fewer states.


Somehow I think if Trump actually tried to launch a nuke, the Military would probably refuse his order. It's not like they are a mindless robot army or anything.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MMCJawa wrote:
Somehow I think if Trump actually tried to launch a nuke, the Military would probably refuse his order. It's not like they are a mindless robot army or anything.

Then again, who knows how many General Rippers are out there?


And for all of the whining, he's over it. He's endorsed Clinton. From his speech last night, he's fully behind her as the best way forward now.

It's only a handful of deadenders and a lot of concern trolls still fighting the primary wars. When you're seriously booing the candidate you supported for doing what he'd said from the start he'd do if he lost, who are you really supporting? What do you actually want?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MMCJawa wrote:
Somehow I think if Trump actually tried to launch a nuke, the Military would probably refuse his order. It's not like they are a mindless robot army or anything.

Okay, I really don't want to see a president elected where we have rely on mutiny to avoid nuclear war. We might as well just start campaigning for a military coup immediately on Trump's election, you know?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:

And for all of the whining, he's over it. He's endorsed Clinton. From his speech last night, he's fully behind her as the best way forward now.

It's only a handful of deadenders and a lot of concern trolls still fighting the primary wars. When you're seriously booing the candidate you supported for doing what he'd said from the start he'd do if he lost, who are you really supporting? What do you actually want?

As Sanders himself said, the movement wasn't about just getting a particular man into office. It's a movement towards making a game change that the establishment clearly did not want, and considering how they were treated during the primary process, the Sanders people can be excused their rancor. (In fact, the Clinton whips told the Clinton supporters to let the Sanders folk blow off their steam.) Monday was essentially let the Sanders crowd vent and try to make them feel welcome in the Big Tent and give them reasons to finally come in.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Berinor wrote:
Krensky wrote:


If you wish to vote in a party primary, well, than you should join the damn party!
If a party wants to hold a ballot just for their members, they should run their own elections.
I'm not seeing that. The purpose of the Democratic primary -- or, for that matter, the Free Silver primary -- is to select whom that party wants to nominate to the general election. If you're not a member of the Free Silver party, why should your opinion matter?

If primaries were run by the parties that would be an great purpose. If the parties were paying the government to administer their personal elections that would be different (and there may be some states where that happens). I might still object to them saying that the people have spoken, but it would generally make sense.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So, are we still looking at a fascist megalomaniac vs. an arguably bland career politician?

I'll take the career politician for $200, Alex.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Maneuvermoose wrote:

Chuck Schumer was WRONG! He said

Chuck Schumer wrote:
As Cole Porter said, "who could ask for anything more?"
But that quote is from "I Got Rhythm," which is the act I closing song from the 1930 musical Girl Crazy. The problem? Girl Crazy has music by George Gershwin and Lyrics by Ira Gershwin, and no involvement whatsoever from Porter. Schumer was WRONG!

Now the democrats have lied just as much as the repubicans and voting for either party is pointless!

i hates poes law


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Now the democrats have lied just as much as the repubicans and voting for either party is pointless!

I know, right? They're just the same!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

Yes one misquote is equal to a thousand racist tweets.

Is that it.


Can we get a sarcasm check in here???

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
MMCJawa wrote:
Somehow I think if Trump actually tried to launch a nuke, the Military would probably refuse his order. It's not like they are a mindless robot army or anything.
Then again, who knows how many General Rippers are out there?

Not many, if at all. Most of the people that make it up there are politicians in their own right. The most you have to worry about are one of them thinking that disobeying the order will hurt their career more than firing the nuke will. And I don't see that as being a common view.


Orville Redenbacher wrote:
Can we get a sarcasm check in here???

It's soOOOoooo not over 9,000


I'm current on all my shots, thanks for asking.


captain yesterday wrote:

Yes one misquote is equal to a thousand racist tweets.

Is that it.

Yes, exactly.

Only a political outsider, savvy businessman, and all-around humanitarian like Mr. Trump can get us back on track and Make America Great Again.


And in other news, Clinton and the DNC tried to hide that "joint fundraising" efforts were only providing about half a percent to the states involved in helping. Like, in total. ...A fair bit of outright lying seems to have been involved.


thejeff wrote:
It's only a handful of deadenders and a lot of concern trolls still fighting the primary wars.

Per a Pew poll out this morning, 90% of his supporters have converted to Clinton since April. The holdouts are now a tiny, very vocal minority.


thejeff wrote:
Edit: Also Johnson doesn't have a 15% chance of success. He's polling at 15%. There's a big difference. He's got approximately 0% chance of actually winning. He'd need to be polling at least 30 to have a noticeable chance and then only if he was pulling heavily from both candidates - just a few points of difference in polling make a huge swing in odds of winning. A 55/45 race is nearly a sure thing, not a 55% chance of the leader winning.

Repeating this, because it's an important lesson in election polling and statistics. The proportion of people who support you isn't the same as the chance of you winning the election. At all. Trump and Clinton are polling very close to one another, nationally, but election forecasts and betting markets give Clinton a much better chance of winning than Trump. Johnson is sitting at 0.4% on the betting markets - lower than Sanders. And you can expect that figure to drop as the race progresses.


The amount of attention we pay to polls given the fact that the president isn't elected by popular vote is kinda weird.

Just ask Al...


bugleyman wrote:

The amount of attention we pay to polls given the fact that the president isn't elected by popular vote is kinda weird.

Just ask Al...

Please don'. I don't want to have to talk him off the cliff again.


Orville Redenbacher wrote:
Can we get a sarcasm check in here???

Sorry. My meter exploded a few days back.


bugleyman wrote:

The amount of attention we pay to polls given the fact that the president isn't elected by popular vote is kinda weird.

Just ask Al...

Well, the national polls aren't that useful, though large differences are suggestive at the very least. If someone's actually up by 5% or so, that's going to translate to an electoral college victory, unless the demographics are really, really skewed.

State polling, especially swing state polling shows a lot.


bugleyman wrote:

The amount of attention we pay to polls given the fact that the president isn't elected by popular vote is kinda weird.

Not really. The number of times that a President has been elected without winning the popular vote is very small -- four, to be specific, and only once in living memory. (The actual dates are 1824, 1876, 1888, and 2000.) The poll numbers are a good (and easily shared) stand-in for a much more complex system, rather like the Dow Jones Industrial Average or the S&P 500 indices can be used as a stand-in for "the stock market as a whole" or even "the economy as a whole." In fact, the poll numbers are a much better stand-in.

While Clinton doesn't need to win the popular vote to win the Presidency, it certainly won't hurt her chances. If she's polling worse nationwide after the Republican convention, that's hard to spin as a positive accomplishment or a step forward. One could argue -- and I do -- that convention bumps are well understood, and that the actual election wonks know this and account for it in their models (see fivethirtyeight.com for an example), and one could also argue that this is the silly season when polls are at their least reliable or informative.

But it's really hard to argue that narrowing the nationwide gap between herself and Trump represents a major achievement on behalf of the Clinton campaign.


MMCJawa wrote:
Somehow I think if Trump actually tried to launch a nuke, the Military would probably refuse his order. It's not like they are a mindless robot army or anything.

If he just randomly ordered a launch because of an insult or something, they'd likely refuse.

If his blustering recklessness got us into a tense confrontation and he did so in a moment of crisis ...

And given that he's already talked about not defending NATO members in some cases, that's kind of an open invitation to at least test the waters.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver & Krensky wrote:
Open vs Closed Primaries discussion
I live in SW FL, so my candidate choices in the primaries are nearly all Republicans and "Independents" (Tea-Partiers) who spend all their campaign money running "My Republican Opponent Isn't Regressive Conservative/Batsh!t Crazy Enough, Therefore They Are An Obama-Loving Liberal". In Florida, the primaries are Closed unless it becomes a Universal Open Primary:
Florida election website wrote:

There are times when all registered voters can vote in a primary election, regardless of which major or minor political party they are registered or even if they are registered without a specific party affiliation. During these elections, the race is considered to be a Universal Primary Contest:

If all the candidates for an office have the same party affiliation and the winner of the primary election will not face any opposition in the general election (i.e. no write-in candidates have qualified), then all registered voters can vote for any of the candidates for that office in the primary election.

When races for nonpartisan (i.e., free from party affiliation) judicial and school board offices, nonpartisan special districts or local referendum questions are on the primary election ballot, then all registered voters, including those without party affiliation are entitled to vote those races on the ballot.

The current candidates for FL State Senator faced this current situation, so the primary would be open, allowing all voters, regardless of their party registration, to vote among these Repubs. So the incumbent Senator persuaded an associate/friend to register as an write-in challenger... and thus, the primary was Closed, and only voters registered as Repubs can now chose from the Repub candidates. (The "write-in" candidate has done no campaigning or advertising, and doesn't seem to have any plans too.)

I don't think open primaries are some magical fix to this, because ratf!ckers gonna ratf!ck. Edit: Wikipedia article that Paizo's messageboard screws up the URL

I would definitely like to see the Florida and other state governments take direct action in several areas: 1) more ease and transparency in getting voters registered, 2) in allowing voters to more easily change their party affiliation with clear noted late deadlines, and 3) greater access to voting (no picture ID requirements, extended hours & weekends early voting, and a greater push for mail-in ballots). I think these actions would do more to help achieve truer representation in the local, state, and federal candidates and legislation/amendments than making the state all open primaries.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
MMCJawa wrote:
Somehow I think if Trump actually tried to launch a nuke, the Military would probably refuse his order. It's not like they are a mindless robot army or anything.

If he just randomly ordered a launch because of an insult or something, they'd likely refuse.

If his blustering recklessness got us into a tense confrontation and he did so in a moment of crisis ...

And given that he's already talked about not defending NATO members in some cases, that's kind of an open invitation to at least test the waters.

That's my concern/fear as well.

Trump has said, specifically, that he would only come to the aid of the various Baltic States (Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania) if they "have fulfilled their obligations to us."

All three of these countries share borders with Russia; Russia could put troops into Estonia with something like an hour's notice. And the Estonian Defense Forces have about 6,500 men and women; there's an entire Army (the 6th, I believe) just down the road in St. Petersburg. (Indeed, there's an airborne division, the 76th Guards Air Assault division, within an easy walk of the Estonian border at Pskov. With about 12,000 men, this division could take Estonia by itself.)

If Putin doesn't think that Estonia can count on NATO support -- which, let's face it, largely means US support; who else has the quick response capacity? -- what will keep him from simply rolling the tanks in some Friday night with the intent to have annexed Estonia by Sunday morning?

I'm not sure how most of our generals would react in this case; if the President ordered the nukes launched in response to this provocation, is this a legitimate defense of our allies, or a psychotic warmonger trying to destroy the world?


Orfamay Quest wrote:
Not really. The number of times that a President has been elected without winning the popular vote is very small -- four, to be specific, and only once in living memory. (The actual dates are 1824, 1876, 1888, and 2000.) The poll numbers are a good (and easily shared) stand-in for a much more complex system, rather like the Dow Jones Industrial Average or the S&P 500 indices can be used as a stand-in for "the stock market as a whole" or even "the economy as a whole." In fact, the poll numbers are a much better stand-in.

I suppose it is useful shorthand, but I also think it's part of the lie we tell ourselves (we're a democracy). Then again, maybe that's just me... ;-)


bugleyman wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Not really. The number of times that a President has been elected without winning the popular vote is very small -- four, to be specific, and only once in living memory. (The actual dates are 1824, 1876, 1888, and 2000.) The poll numbers are a good (and easily shared) stand-in for a much more complex system, rather like the Dow Jones Industrial Average or the S&P 500 indices can be used as a stand-in for "the stock market as a whole" or even "the economy as a whole." In fact, the poll numbers are a much better stand-in.
I suppose it is useful shorthand, but I also think it's part of the lie we tell ourselves (we're a democracy). Then again, maybe that's just me... ;-)

That the United States is a democracy is not a lie. A lot of people think that you need to be a direct democracy to be a democracy, but that's simply untrue. The US is a representative democracy, because even in the 18th century, it was well-understood that direct democracy is unworkable for something as large as a medium-sized city.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Krensky wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
And there's the lack of open primaries and the repeated failures across multiple states to allow new voters to register for the Democratic Party.

Yeah, no.

Open primaries are bad. They enable all sorts of shenanigans and in doing so destroy some of the safeguards that actually let our democracy work. Open primaries are part of the reason the GOP got Drumpf.

If you wish to vote in a party primary, well, than you should join the damn party!

So you know... the most vocal person advocating the theory that those who voted for Trump weren't already Republicans... was Trump.

The data I've seen largely suggests that Trump is *shocked face* wrong. The people who voted for Trump were often new to Primary/Caucus voting, but something around 90% of them had voted Republican in 3 out of 4 of the last presidential races. Usually in the 4th, they hadn't voted.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

*Looks in again, takes a shot of Dr. Pepper, laughs, writes this*

You guys are funny to watch.


Poe's Law wrote:
captain yesterday wrote:

Yes one misquote is equal to a thousand racist tweets.

Is that it.

Yes, exactly.

Only a political outsider, savvy businessman, and all-around humanitarian like Mr. Trump can get us back on track and Make America Great Again.

Don't forget that Trump will do the best job defending Article XII of the Constitution!


So, since this thread is supposedly about the convention, not about Trump or refighting primary wars, did anyone actually watch any of it last night?

Highlights?
Good speeches?
Major gaffes?
Anything?

Contrast with the RNC? The tone was definitely hugely different. Even the parts aimed at Trump were a far cry from "Lock her up!"


Conservative Anklebiter wrote:

*Looks in again, takes a shot of Dr. Pepper, laughs, writes this*

You guys are funny to watch.

"Whaddaya mean we're funny? Funny how? Like funny 'ha ha' or funny strange?"


Orfamay Quest wrote:
thejeff wrote:
MMCJawa wrote:
Somehow I think if Trump actually tried to launch a nuke, the Military would probably refuse his order. It's not like they are a mindless robot army or anything.

If he just randomly ordered a launch because of an insult or something, they'd likely refuse.

If his blustering recklessness got us into a tense confrontation and he did so in a moment of crisis ...

And given that he's already talked about not defending NATO members in some cases, that's kind of an open invitation to at least test the waters.

That's my concern/fear as well.

Trump has said, specifically, that he would only come to the aid of the various Baltic States (Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania) if they "have fulfilled their obligations to us."

All three of these countries share borders with Russia; Russia could put troops into Estonia with something like an hour's notice. And the Estonian Defense Forces have about 6,500 men and women; there's an entire Army (the 6th, I believe) just down the road in St. Petersburg. (Indeed, there's an airborne division, the 76th Guards Air Assault division, within an easy walk of the Estonian border at Pskov. With about 12,000 men, this division could take Estonia by itself.)

If Putin doesn't think that Estonia can count on NATO support -- which, let's face it, largely means US support; who else has the quick response capacity? -- what will keep him from simply rolling the tanks in some Friday night with the intent to have annexed Estonia by Sunday morning?

I'm not sure how most of our generals would react in this case; if the President ordered the nukes launched in response to this provocation, is this a legitimate defense of our allies, or a psychotic warmonger trying to destroy the world?

The really sad part is no one reminds Trump or his supporters that NATO's Article 5 was only invoked once, in support of the U.S..


thejeff wrote:

So, since this thread is supposedly about the convention, not about Trump or refighting primary wars, did anyone actually watch any of it last night?

Highlights?
Good speeches?
Major gaffes?
Anything?

Contrast with the RNC? The tone was definitely hugely different. Even the parts aimed at Trump were a far cry from "Lock her up!"

Probs not.

Sovereign Court

thejeff wrote:
So, since this thread is supposedly about the convention, not about Trump or refighting primary wars, did anyone actually watch any of it last night?

I thought Michelle's speech was the highlight. She made great references and her points were inspiring. There wasn't much in the way of policy, but I appreciated the lack of name calling and finger pointing.

I was glad to see MN so represented last night! First we had a fun bit by Al Franken (which honestly I don't think the audience appreciated much)and later Keith Ellison got to introduce Bernie Sanders. Keith was pumped and stumbled a bit, but im sure it was an intimidating and exhilarating experience for him at the same time.

Warren brought the policy and finger pointing for the night. This was the point most like the RNC (IMO) but I suppose the audience needs some red meat.

Bernie was good I liked his message. He dropped into the policy stuff and asked for his supporters to support Hilary. I think the most moving part of it was the audience. Lots of folks were crying and chanting his name. You could see that things were a bit divided and how much they believed in the Bern.

Earlier marked the biggest contrast to the RNC. They had some minorities talking about their experiences and why they support Hilary. They even got a woman who went to Trump U to talk about her experiences. It was far more directed inside America and a call for helping our own people. The RNC had some of this, but it was usually folks calling for a step up in military and immigration reform Essentially, the RNC was more concerned about happenings outside of America.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:

So, since this thread is supposedly about the convention, not about Trump or refighting primary wars, did anyone actually watch any of it last night?

Highlights?
Good speeches?
Major gaffes?
Anything?

Contrast with the RNC? The tone was definitely hugely different. Even the parts aimed at Trump were a far cry from "Lock her up!"

Yeah, I tuned in just as Sarah Silverman and Al Franken took the stage.

  • Franken seemed a bit flat, and the repartee with Silverman seemed overly-rehearsed, but they accomplished their goal. I enjoyed Silverman's passionate pro-Sanders stumping and her bringing it around to full support for Clinton. I loved her adlib, "Can I just say: To the 'Bernie or Bust' people, you're being ridiculous."
  • I'm not the biggest fan of Cory Booker for his stances on Newark public schools (pro-charter schools, pro-merit pay for teachers tied to testing, friendliness with for-profit education corporations), but he hit the right notes and delivered it passionately, albeit a bit heavy-handedly.
  • I enjoyed Elizabeth Warren's speech, but I was dismayed about how obnoxiously butthurt the Bernie-or-Busters were to her.
  • I had little reaction to Paul Simon's musical performance.
  • Michele Obama eloquently delivered a passionate and moving speech, very persuasive. It was a superb left jab...
  • ...followed by Bernie Sanders' decisive right cross. At the beginning, I was a bit paranoid where he was going with it, but he unequivocally and persuasively built a winning case for Clinton. Just as importantly, he built a convincing case about the need for continuing action and further reforms. By now, any f!cks I had left for the still booing Bernie-or-Busters were long gone, and the earth was thoroughly salted.
I tried to watch as much of the RNC as I could, but there were limits to my ability to shrug off that much hate, fear, Othering, out-right lies, and utter bullsh!t.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pillbug Toenibbler wrote:


  • ...followed by Bernie Sanders' decisive right cross. At the beginning, I was a bit paranoid where he was going with it, but he unequivocally and persuasively built a winning case for Clinton. Just as importantly, he built a convincing case about the need for continuing action and further reforms. By now, any f!cks I had left for the still booing Bernie-or-Busters were long gone, and the earth was thoroughly salted.
  • I liked that he built that winning case on his issues.

    201 to 250 of 539 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
    Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / Philadelphia DNC 2016 All Messageboards

    Want to post a reply? Sign in.