The Democratic National convention is about to start!

[happyhoix]

Jul 29, 2016 8:18:21 GMT -5 swamp said:

Jul 28, 2016 23:00:34 GMT -5 justme said:

I'm registered republican, though more like actually libertarian. Definitely not trump but I don't really like her either. I liked her speech well enough but pretty much rolled my eyes and tuned her out once she started getting into more specific policies I'm not the aligned with at the end. Didn't really pay attention again until the balloons fell.

but she actually talked about some policies, instead of just scaring us and saying she will make it all better.

Instead of saying she is the ONLY one who can make it all better, so you damn well better elect me!!

(I actually saw Trump saying something like this in a news clip this AM - telling people they may not like him but they better elect him because of the supreme court.)

Winning through fear and intimidation - I think that's a chapter in his book (that a ghostwriter wrote for him).

[justme]

Jul 29, 2016 8:18:21 GMT -5 swamp said:

Jul 28, 2016 23:00:34 GMT -5 justme said:

I'm registered republican, though more like actually libertarian. Definitely not trump but I don't really like her either. I liked her speech well enough but pretty much rolled my eyes and tuned her out once she started getting into more specific policies I'm not the aligned with at the end. Didn't really pay attention again until the balloons fell.

but she actually talked about some policies, instead of just scaring us and saying she will make it all better.

Very true. I don't like a lot of hers, but at least I know what they are.

Honestly my vote will come down to the end. My state has a lot of crazies and old people and generally likes to go crazy with elections so a dear god we can't choose trump vote may be needed.

[Pants]

So, AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP what was your impression of HRC's speech last night? 

[tallguy]

Donald Trump is likely THE most unqualified, unsuited-for-the-office candidate any major party has nominated at least in our lifetimes.  I don't think that can even be in dispute.  He offers no plans of substance on most issues, the ones he has put out there are not real plans but instead apparently "starting points" for discussions, and he changes them almost by the day.  I doubt there is a single person outside his inner circle (and maybe not even them) who can truly tell what the man believes.  He offers ZERO reason to support him other than, "I'm great and I can fix it!"  No, Mr. Trump, you can't even fix your damn hair!

There are a couple of scenes from the movie The American President which come to mind when I think about this election.

Lewis Rothschild: You have a deeper love of this country than any man I've ever known. And I want to know what it says to you that in the past seven weeks, 59% of Americans have begun to question your patriotism.

President Andrew Shepherd: Look, if the people want to listen to-...

Lewis Rothschild: They don't have a choice! Bob Rumson is the only one doing the talking! People want leadership, Mr. President, and in the absence of genuine leadership, they'll listen to anyone who steps up to the microphone. They want leadership. They're so thirsty for it they'll crawl through the desert toward a mirage, and when they discover there's no water, they'll drink the sand.

President Andrew Shepherd: Lewis, we've had presidents who were beloved, who couldn't find a coherent sentence with two hands and a flashlight. People don't drink the sand because they're thirsty. They drink the sand because they don't know the difference.

I've known Bob Rumson for years, and I've been operating under the assumption that the reason Bob devotes so much time and energy to shouting at the rain was that he simply didn't get it. Well, I was wrong. Bob's problem isn't that he doesn't get it. Bob's problem is that he can't sell it! We have serious problems to solve, and we need serious people to solve them. And whatever your particular problem is, I promise you, Bob Rumson is not the least bit interested in solving it. He is interested in two things and two things only: making you afraid of it and telling you who's to blame for it. That, ladies and gentlemen, is how you win elections. You gather a group of middle-aged, middle-class, middle-income voters who remember with longing an easier time, and you talk to them about family and American values and character....

Change Bob Rumson to Donald Trump....  And yes, he has far too large a segment of the American public drinking the sand.




  

[swamp]

Jul 29, 2016 9:33:36 GMT -5 Pants said:

So, AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP what was your impression of HRC's speech last night? 

I saw somewhere on another thread: She's a screechy shrew who offended everyone, pandered to everyone else, and doesn't have a chance at winning because the 7 million secret Trump voters in his pocket are riled up.

[Tennesseer]

Jul 29, 2016 9:33:36 GMT -5 Pants said:

So, AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP what was your impression of HRC's speech last night? 

Probably, "Trump set a trap, and the left walked right into it.".

[Virgil Showlion]

Notice how you ladies and gentlemen care about Paul's assessment.

I could only wish you were as devoted to finding out what I thought about the issues.

[Wisconsin Beth]

Jul 29, 2016 9:40:52 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Donald Trump is likely THE most unqualified, unsuited-for-the-office candidate any major party has nominated at least in our lifetimes.  I don't think that can even be in dispute.  He offers no plans of substance on most issues, the ones he has put out there are not real plans but instead apparently "starting points" for discussions, and he changes them almost by the day.  I doubt there is a single person outside his inner circle (and maybe not even them) who can truly tell what the man believes.  He offers ZERO reason to support him other than, "I'm great and I can fix it!"  No, Mr. Trump, you can't even fix your damn hair!

There are a couple of scenes from the movie The American President which come to mind when I think about this election.

Lewis Rothschild: You have a deeper love of this country than any man I've ever known. And I want to know what it says to you that in the past seven weeks, 59% of Americans have begun to question your patriotism.

President Andrew Shepherd: Look, if the people want to listen to-...

Lewis Rothschild: They don't have a choice! Bob Rumson is the only one doing the talking! People want leadership, Mr. President, and in the absence of genuine leadership, they'll listen to anyone who steps up to the microphone. They want leadership. They're so thirsty for it they'll crawl through the desert toward a mirage, and when they discover there's no water, they'll drink the sand.

President Andrew Shepherd: Lewis, we've had presidents who were beloved, who couldn't find a coherent sentence with two hands and a flashlight. People don't drink the sand because they're thirsty. They drink the sand because they don't know the difference.

I've known Bob Rumson for years, and I've been operating under the assumption that the reason Bob devotes so much time and energy to shouting at the rain was that he simply didn't get it. Well, I was wrong. Bob's problem isn't that he doesn't get it. Bob's problem is that he can't sell it! We have serious problems to solve, and we need serious people to solve them. And whatever your particular problem is, I promise you, Bob Rumson is not the least bit interested in solving it. He is interested in two things and two things only: making you afraid of it and telling you who's to blame for it. That, ladies and gentlemen, is how you win elections. You gather a group of middle-aged, middle-class, middle-income voters who remember with longing an easier time, and you talk to them about family and American values and character....

Change Bob Rumson to Donald Trump....  And yes, he has far too large a segment of the American public drinking the sand.




  

I've been thinking of those exact scenes off and on for months now.

[tallguy]

It's okay, Virgil.  I'm sure they only "care" about Paul's assessment to see how much he'll try to spin it into the ridiculous.  


  Feel better now?

[tallguy]

Jul 29, 2016 11:56:25 GMT -5 Wisconsin Beth said:

Jul 29, 2016 9:40:52 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Donald Trump is likely THE most unqualified, unsuited-for-the-office candidate any major party has nominated at least in our lifetimes.  I don't think that can even be in dispute.  He offers no plans of substance on most issues, the ones he has put out there are not real plans but instead apparently "starting points" for discussions, and he changes them almost by the day.  I doubt there is a single person outside his inner circle (and maybe not even them) who can truly tell what the man believes.  He offers ZERO reason to support him other than, "I'm great and I can fix it!"  No, Mr. Trump, you can't even fix your damn hair!

There are a couple of scenes from the movie The American President which come to mind when I think about this election.

Change Bob Rumson to Donald Trump....  And yes, he has far too large a segment of the American public drinking the sand.




  

I've been thinking of those exact scenes off and on for months now.

Pretty hard not to see the parallels.

I should have corrected something though.  Trump does care about two other things above ALL else.  His brand and his ego. 

[Pants]

Jul 29, 2016 9:57:07 GMT -5 swamp said:

Jul 29, 2016 9:33:36 GMT -5 Pants said:

So, AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP what was your impression of HRC's speech last night? 

I saw somewhere on another thread: She's a screechy shrew who offended everyone, pandered to everyone else, and doesn't have a chance at winning because the 7 million secret Trump voters in his pocket are riled up.

Oh good, I was worried we were watching the same convention.Glad to know that isn't the case!

[Virgil Showlion]

Jul 29, 2016 11:59:34 GMT -5 tallguy said:

It's okay, Virgil.  I'm sure they only "care" about Paul's assessment to see how much he'll try to spin it into the ridiculous.  


  Feel better now?

Caring is caring, my tall friend.

It's not that you agree with him or "value" his input in the conventional sense. It's more akin to "I want Ms. Clinton to win the election, and perhaps that's why I like her speech. I wonder what somebody wholly opposed to Ms. Clinton thinks of her speech? Is there something critical I missed? Did they pick up on some of the flaws that I noticed or will they fixate on something absurd? Should I boldly proclaim the speech was 'great', or am I setting myself up for ridicule?"

Paul represents the answer to all of these questions. Because everyone here knows--implicitly--that if there's any fatal flaw in Ms. Clinton's speech, any checkable fact she forgot to check, any bobble, any gaffe, any cringe-worthy moment, any misstep we hoped nobody would notice, any great oration that may not be as great as we thought it was, anything at all flawed or mediocre or assailable, Paul will be the one who knows about it.

He's the bearer of news from the enemy camp, so to speak. You may not like him, but when he talks, you listen. He's giving you a portal into what the enemy thinks and what the flaws in your defense could possibly be. And that means that you care about what he thinks.

You can take it to heart that he cares about what you think too, for the very same reason. Just... not as much.

[tallguy]

Jul 29, 2016 12:21:32 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Jul 29, 2016 11:59:34 GMT -5 tallguy said:

It's okay, Virgil.  I'm sure they only "care" about Paul's assessment to see how much he'll try to spin it into the ridiculous.  


  Feel better now?

Caring is caring, my tall friend.

It's not that you agree with him or "value" his input in the conventional sense. It's more akin to "I want Ms. Clinton to win the election, and perhaps that's why I like her speech. I wonder what somebody wholly opposed to Ms. Clinton thinks of her speech? Is there something critical I missed? Did they pick up on some of the flaws that I noticed or will they fixate on something absurd? Should I boldly proclaim the speech was 'great', or am I setting myself up for ridicule?"

Paul represents the answer to all of these questions. Because everyone here knows--implicitly--that if there's any fatal flaw in Ms. Clinton's speech, any checkable fact she forgot to check, any bobble, any gaffe, any cringe-worthy moment, any misstep we hoped nobody would notice, any great oration that may not be as great as we thought it was, anything at all flawed or mediocre or assailable, Paul will be the one who knows about it.

He's the bearer of news from the enemy camp, so to speak. You may not like him, but when he talks, you listen. He's giving you a portal into what the enemy thinks and what the flaws in your defense could possibly be. And that means that you care about what he thinks.

You can take it to heart that he cares about what you think too, for the very same reason. Just... not as much.

No,  Paul will be the one who makes it up or twists it beyond recognition.  But the other side can always take comfort in the fact that he is virtually NEVER right in his political pronouncements.  

[mmhmm]

Excuse me, but I've said this too many times to count - this thread is not about Paul; nor, is it about any other poster. This thread is about the DNC. Keep it that way, please. Otherwise, posts are going to start to disappear and I'm not going to bother with notifications. Those of you who are indulging your need to focus on other posters know who you are and know what you're doing. Just stop.

mmhmm, Politics Moderator experiencing flagging patience

[Pants]

Jul 29, 2016 12:21:32 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Jul 29, 2016 11:59:34 GMT -5 tallguy said:

It's okay, Virgil.  I'm sure they only "care" about Paul's assessment to see how much he'll try to spin it into the ridiculous.  


  Feel better now?

Caring is caring, my tall friend.

It's not that you agree with him or "value" his input in the conventional sense. It's more akin to "I want Ms. Clinton to win the election, and perhaps that's why I like her speech. I wonder what somebody wholly opposed to Ms. Clinton thinks of her speech? Is there something critical I missed? Did they pick up on some of the flaws that I noticed or will they fixate on something absurd? Should I boldly proclaim the speech was 'great', or am I setting myself up for ridicule?"

Paul represents the answer to all of these questions. Because everyone here knows--implicitly--that if there's any fatal flaw in Ms. Clinton's speech, any checkable fact she forgot to check, any bobble, any gaffe, any cringe-worthy moment, any misstep we hoped nobody would notice, any great oration that may not be as great as we thought it was, anything at all flawed or mediocre or assailable, Paul will be the one who knows about it.

He's the bearer of news from the enemy camp, so to speak. You may not like him, but when he talks, you listen. He's giving you a portal into what the enemy thinks and what the flaws in your defense could possibly be. And that means that you care about what he thinks.

You can take it to heart that he cares about what you think too, for the very same reason. Just... not as much.

Virgil, you are partially right. And part of it goes back to trying to win an unwinnable fight. Last night Hillary gave a great speech. She had conservatives on the internet saying they liked her, that she was using their rhetoric, etc. (Which, of course, were the parts of the speech lefty me didn't like!) But pretty much everyone I've seen thought it went gangbusters. 

Then you have Paul. The way-out-of-right-field guy who thinks he's the just-slight-of-right-middle. My question is more along the lines of, did any of it penetrate? Did the fact that people who are read and respected and conservative think that she was talking to them and swaying them move him at all?

Would he even acknowledge that it was less than a total disaster? 

I suspect I know the answer, but curiosity is ever getting the best of me... 

[Pants]

Jul 29, 2016 12:47:50 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Excuse me, but I've said this too many times to count - this thread is not about Paul; nor, is it about any other poster. This thread is about the DNC. Keep it that way, please. Otherwise, posts are going to start to disappear and I'm not going to bother with notifications. Those of you who are indulging your need to focus on other posters know who you are and know what you're doing. Just stop.

mmhmm, Politics Moderator experiencing flagging patience

mmhmm- I apologize if you're referencing me here. I'm not trying to be inflammatory - please let me know if there are posts I should edit or delete? 

[Virgil Showlion]

Pants : Use indeterminate references in the third person plural and carry on as usual.

To wit:

Virgil, you are partially right. And part of it goes back to trying to win an unwinnable fight. Last night Hillary gave a great speech. She had conservatives on the internet saying they liked her, that she was using their rhetoric, etc. (Which, of course, were the parts of the speech lefty me didn't like!) But pretty much everyone I've seen thought it went gangbusters.

But of course you have the way-out-of-right-field posters who think they're just-slight-of-right-middle. My question is more along the lines of, did any of it penetrate? Did the fact that people who are read and respected and conservative think that she was talking to them and swaying them move them at all?

Would they even acknowledge that it was less than a total disaster?

I suspect I know the answer, but curiosity is ever getting the best of me...

It's wacky, I know, but them's the rules.

[mmhmm]

Jul 29, 2016 12:56:23 GMT -5 Pants said:

Jul 29, 2016 12:47:50 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Excuse me, but I've said this too many times to count - this thread is not about Paul; nor, is it about any other poster. This thread is about the DNC. Keep it that way, please. Otherwise, posts are going to start to disappear and I'm not going to bother with notifications. Those of you who are indulging your need to focus on other posters know who you are and know what you're doing. Just stop.

mmhmm, Politics Moderator experiencing flagging patience

mmhmm- I apologize if you're referencing me here. I'm not trying to be inflammatory - please let me know if there are posts I should edit or delete? 

I'm not going to delete posts retroactively, but thanks for offering. I'm just letting posters know so they can think before they post. Quoting what another poster has posted in order to comment on the post is fine. It's fine to disagree, or to agree. It's fine to refer to another poster's post to back up/clarify a point. What's not fine is to make the thread about another  poster in order to denigrate (or, for that matter, defend) that poster. As long as posts are on target with the subject of the thread, there isn't a problem. 

mmhmm, Politics Moderator

[ken a.k.a OMK]

 Virgil. Speak. 

[happyhoix]

To me, the most stirring speech at the DNC last night.

www.nytimes.com/2016/07/29/us/elections/khizr-humayun-khan-speech.html?_r=0

Fox news cut away to a video of someone talking about the threat of ISIS, then a video of Katy Perry singing during this time period.

mediamatters.org/blog/2016/07/28/fox-news-plays-benghazi-commercial-over-khazir-khans-anti-trump-speech-democratic-national/212012

Of course, Fox isn't being biased because we know only the liberal media is biased.

[Icelandic Woman]

And true to form. He can dish it out but cannot take it!

www.cnn.com/2016/07/28/politics/donald-trump-dnc-response/index.html

[djAdvocate]

Jul 29, 2016 13:49:40 GMT -5 Icelandic Woman said:

And true to form. He can dish it out but cannot take it!

www.cnn.com/2016/07/28/politics/donald-trump-dnc-response/index.html

metaphorically speaking, of course.  because he is a big sissy.

[weltschmerz]

Jul 29, 2016 12:21:32 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Jul 29, 2016 11:59:34 GMT -5 tallguy said:

It's okay, Virgil.  I'm sure they only "care" about Paul's assessment to see how much he'll try to spin it into the ridiculous.  


  Feel better now?

Caring is caring, my tall friend.

It's not that you agree with him or "value" his input in the conventional sense. It's more akin to "I want Ms. Clinton to win the election, and perhaps that's why I like her speech. I wonder what somebody wholly opposed to Ms. Clinton thinks of her speech? Is there something critical I missed? Did they pick up on some of the flaws that I noticed or will they fixate on something absurd? Should I boldly proclaim the speech was 'great', or am I setting myself up for ridicule?"

Paul represents the answer to all of these questions. Because everyone here knows--implicitly--that if there's any fatal flaw in Ms. Clinton's speech, any checkable fact she forgot to check, any bobble, any gaffe, any cringe-worthy moment, any misstep we hoped nobody would notice, any great oration that may not be as great as we thought it was, anything at all flawed or mediocre or assailable, Paul will be the one who knows about it.

He's the bearer of news from the enemy camp, so to speak. You may not like him, but when he talks, you listen. He's giving you a portal into what the enemy thinks and what the flaws in your defense could possibly be. And that means that you care about what he thinks.

You can take it to heart that he cares about what you think too, for the very same reason. Just... not as much.

Well, here's the thing.
The fact that she cleared her throat several times is a fatal flaw, according to him.
He already referenced it in another thread.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Jul 29, 2016 13:57:17 GMT -5 weltschmerz said:

Jul 29, 2016 12:21:32 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Caring is caring, my tall friend.

It's not that you agree with him or "value" his input in the conventional sense. It's more akin to "I want Ms. Clinton to win the election, and perhaps that's why I like her speech. I wonder what somebody wholly opposed to Ms. Clinton thinks of her speech? Is there something critical I missed? Did they pick up on some of the flaws that I noticed or will they fixate on something absurd? Should I boldly proclaim the speech was 'great', or am I setting myself up for ridicule?"

Paul represents the answer to all of these questions. Because everyone here knows--implicitly--that if there's any fatal flaw in Ms. Clinton's speech, any checkable fact she forgot to check, any bobble, any gaffe, any cringe-worthy moment, any misstep we hoped nobody would notice, any great oration that may not be as great as we thought it was, anything at all flawed or mediocre or assailable, Paul will be the one who knows about it.

He's the bearer of news from the enemy camp, so to speak. You may not like him, but when he talks, you listen. He's giving you a portal into what the enemy thinks and what the flaws in your defense could possibly be. And that means that you care about what he thinks.

You can take it to heart that he cares about what you think too, for the very same reason. Just... not as much.

Well, here's the thing.
The fact that she cleared her throat several times is a fatal flaw, according to him.
He already referenced it in another thread.

The clearing of the throat...

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

However, the bigger picture is that it doesn't matter. Because I'm not interested in style, but substance and everyone knows every time a Democrat says something sensible, it's insincere-- so what difference, at this point, does it make what she says?

[mmhmm]

Jul 30, 2016 22:47:25 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

However, the bigger picture is that it doesn't matter. Because I'm not interested in style, but substance and everyone knows every time a Democrat says something sensible, it's insincere-- so what difference, at this point, does it make what she says?

No, everyone doesn't know that. I'm pretty sure every time a politician says something sensible it's insincere. I'm fully capable of admitting, however, I don't know what everyone thinks.

[tallguy]

Jul 30, 2016 22:47:25 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

However, the bigger picture is that it doesn't matter. Because I'm not interested in style, but substance and everyone knows every time a Democrat says something sensible, it's insincere-- so what difference, at this point, does it make what she says?

So you choose to back the most self-absorbed, self-aggrandizing twit either party has put forward in maybe, ever?  A man who would not be able to discern the word "substance" if it were in big gold block letters down the side of a building?  Yeah, okay.  

I guess we shouldn't really be surprised, considering....    

[Shooby]

  If anyone bought into this phony show, then you deserve the govt you get and we will soon be going the way of Europe.

[djAdvocate]

Jul 31, 2016 9:50:17 GMT -5 Shooby said:

  If anyone bought into this phony show, then you deserve the govt you get and we will soon be going the way of Europe.

toward lower poverty, lower crime, better medical care, and longer life expectancy? 

[tallguy]

Jul 31, 2016 9:50:17 GMT -5 Shooby said:

  If anyone bought into this phony show, then you deserve the govt you get and we will soon be going the way of Europe.

The REALLY phony show was the week before in Cleveland, when the RNC struggled to find anyone who could put a thoughtful, coherent, truthful (and ORIGINAL) statement together.