Hillary Clinton

"

Xavderion написал:

"

MrSmiley21 написал:

Tronald Dump got rekt in the debate, enuff said.

Not really. He lost, but not by much. In terms of percentages I'd say it went 60:40 for Killary.

Scott "I created Dilbert" Adams, sscholar of persuasion techniques, scoring the debate:

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/151007796236/i-score-the-first-debate

"

Clinton tried to look healthy, and as I mentioned, I don’t think she completely succeeded. But Trump needed to solve exactly one problem: Look less scary. Trump needed to counter Clinton’s successful branding of him as having a bad temperament to the point of being dangerous to the country. Trump accomplished exactly that…by…losing the debate.

Trump was defensive, and debated poorly at points, but he did not look crazy. And pundits noticed that he intentionally avoided using his strongest attacks regarding Bill Clinton’s scandals. In other words, he showed control. He stayed in the presidential zone under pressure. And in so doing, he solved for his only remaining problem. He looked safer.

By tomorrow, no one will remember what either of them said during the debate. But we will remember how they made us feel.

Clinton won the debate last night. And while she was doing it, Trump won the election. He had one thing to accomplish – being less scary – and he did it.

It's been reported that 84 MILLION households tuned in to the debate Monday night. That only counts households being metered, as in Nielsen or other monitoring programs, and does not include all other households watching on TV, or all those using internet access to watch. And it begs the question of what portion of the total electorate that represented.

I watched the debate online (on C-Span), as did many of my friends. As for the numbers, this clearly reflects a sense of interest and enthusiasm on the part of some voters. Which voters? Well, consider Hillary's supporter demographics. How many of them do you think are the types of voters to watch a televised debate, compared to Trump supporters? Then consider the enthusiasm gap between Hillary and Trump supporters at rallies and other public events.

I think that Monday night's debate represents the best "polling" we've yet seen. While the proportions of Hillary vs. Trump supporters cannot be specified, there is enough to work from to know that the Trump Wave is very real, and will carry him into the White House. We'll see in November.

=^[.]^=

crooked

Raycheetah shows us that feelz > realz. Tell Sanders how much that enthusiasm and big crowds helped him at the end.

"

NeroNoah написал:

Raycheetah shows us that feelz > realz. Tell Sanders how much that enthusiasm and big crowds helped him at the end.

The thing is, Sanders chose the party of the real; a Democrat says "I'm going to increase government spending" and does it. Trump chose the party of lies; a Republican says "I'm going to decrease government spending" then invariably does the opposite. The feels are much more important in one party than the other.

There's no way Trump ever would have made it as a Dem.

That's a simple way of seeing things. Republicans do want to cut stuff, it's just impossible politically because few really want pretend libertarianism, mostly are on it for stupid reasons (see religious zealots and Trump). Democrats have cut stuff in the past to my understanding (wasn't Bill Clinton a center right politician?). It's a question of being reasonable. Being unrealistic and uncompromising means achieving nothing or pissing off enough people to make it unviable.

I do care less about small or big government and more about lean government generally, so this just weirds me out. It's like talking about more cheese and less cheese rather than how to do a good dish.

PS: by the way, if someone says Trump didn't look truly stupid in the debate, it's probably he/she can fall for that nigerian prince scam. I mean, look at this:

"

CLINTON: ... The other day, I saw Donald saying that there were some Iranian sailors on a ship in the waters off of Iran, and they were taunting American sailors who were on a nearby ship. He said, you know, if they taunted our sailors, I'd blow them out of the water and start another war. That's not good judgment.

TRUMP: That would not start a war.

CLINTON: That is not the right temperament to be commander-in- chief, to be taunted. And the worst part...

TRUMP: No, they were taunting us.

and tell me he is not a dangerous moron?

"

NeroNoah написал:

That's a simple way of seeing things. Republicans do want to cut stuff, it's just impossible politically because few really want pretend libertarianism, mostly are on it for stupid reasons (see religious zealots and Trump). Democrats have cut stuff in the past to my understanding (wasn't Bill Clinton a center right politician?). It's a question of being reasonable. Being unrealistic and uncompromising means achieving nothing or pissing off enough people to make it unviable.

I do care less about small or big government and more about lean government generally, so this just weirds me out. It's like talking about more cheese and less cheese rather than how to do a good dish.

PS: by the way, if someone says Trump didn't look truly stupid in the debate, it's probably he/she can fall for that nigerian prince scam. I mean, look at this:

"

CLINTON: ... The other day, I saw Donald saying that there were some Iranian sailors on a ship in the waters off of Iran, and they were taunting American sailors who were on a nearby ship. He said, you know, if they taunted our sailors, I'd blow them out of the water and start another war. That's not good judgment.

TRUMP: That would not start a war.

CLINTON: That is not the right temperament to be commander-in- chief, to be taunted. And the worst part...

TRUMP: No, they were taunting us.

and tell me he is not a dangerous moron?

See the other thread for why your assessment on this is incorrect.

"

NeroNoah написал:

Raycheetah shows us that feelz > realz. Tell Sanders how much that enthusiasm and big crowds helped him at the end.

Feelz > Realz is the modus operandi of the entire liberal movement.

Hillary and Obama's "Tough on Iran" has a nice feel to it. But the realz continue to show it was a bad deal full of shadow secrets:

................

"WASHINGTON—The Obama administration agreed to back the lifting of United Nations sanctions on two Iranian state banks blacklisted for financing Iran’s ballistic-missile program on the same day in January that Tehran released four American citizens from prison, according to U.S. officials and congressional staff briefed on the deliberations.

The U.N. sanctions on the two banks weren’t initially to be lifted until 2023, under a landmark nuclear agreement between Iran and world powers that went into effect on Jan. 16.

The U.N. Security Council’s delisting of the two banks, Bank Sepah and Bank Sepah International, was part of a package of tightly scripted agreements—the others were a controversial prisoner swap and transfer of $1.7 billion in cash to Iran—that were finalized between the U.S. and Iran on Jan. 17, the day the Americans were freed.

The new details of the delisting have emerged after administration officials briefed lawmakers earlier this month on the U.S. decision.

According to senior U.S. officials, a senior State Department official, Brett McGurk, and a representative of the Iranian government signed three documents in Geneva on the morning of Jan. 17.

One document committed the U.S. to dropping criminal charges against 21 Iranian nationals, and Tehran to releasing the Americans imprisoned in Iran.

Another committed the U.S. to immediately transfer $400 million in cash to the Iranian regime and arrange the delivery within weeks of two subsequent cash payments totaling $1.3 billion to settle a decades-old legal dispute over a failed arms deal.

The U.S. agreed in a third document to support the immediate delisting of the two Iranian banks, according to senior U.S. officials. In the hours after the documents were signed at a Swiss hotel, the different elements of the agreement went forward: The Americans were released, Iran took possession of the $400 million in cash, and the U.N. Security Council removed sanctions on Bank Sepah and Bank Sepah International, these officials said.
“Lifting the sanctions on Sepah was part of the package,” said a senior U.S. official briefed on the deliberations. “The timing of all this isn’t coincidental. Everything was linked to some degree.

Administration critics and some congressional officials said they believed the move broke the commitments the administration made to Congress about the deal.

The Obama administration had told Congress that under the deal the U.S. would lift sanctions only on companies and individuals tied to Iran’s nuclear development. Sanctions on those involved in missile development were to remain in place, these critics said.

The Obama administration has repeatedly said it is committed to rolling back Iran’s ballistic missile program.

“By agreeing to remove U.N. and EU sanctions eight years early on Iran’s main missile financing bank, the administration effectively greenlighted their nuclear warhead-capable ballistic missile program,” said Mark Dubowitz, a top critic of the Iran nuclear deal at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a Washington think tank.

The U.S. Treasury Department sanctioned Bank Sepah, Bank Sepah International and its then-chairman in 2007 for their alleged role in backing Iran’s missile program. The designation didn’t mention what direct role the entities allegedly played in helping Iran’s nuclear program.

At the time, the Treasury said that Bank Sepah and Bank Sepah International had provided financial support to Iranian-state owned companies and organizations developing Iran’s missile program. These included Iran’s Aerospace Industries Organization and the Shahid Hemmat Industries Group.

“Bank Sepah is the financial linchpin of Iran’s missile procurement network and has actively assisted Iran’s pursuit of missiles capable of carrying weapons of mass destruction,” the Treasury said in a January 2007 statement.

Iran has conducted up to 10 ballistic missile tests since the forging of the nuclear agreement in July 2015."

..............

http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-signed-secret-document-to-lift-u-n-sanctions-on-iranian-banks-1475193723

Nice to know I can post something with multiple points of analysis, offer some speculation, and can expect the usual suspect keyboard warriors to reply with some glib, BS throwaway one-liner (noted in the post of someone whose posts contain orders of magnitude more substance). It reassures me that ignoring those folks is the correct course. =^[.]^=

"

NeroNoah написал:

Democrats have cut stuff in the past to my understanding (wasn't Bill Clinton a center right politician?).

During Bill Clinton's time as president, the government balanced the budget and slashed more spending than the other presidents of the past 40 years combined. A Democrat is the leading example of government conservatism on economic issues in our generation.

I do think some credit goes to the Republican Congress of the time, but Clinton was a force unto himself. Wanted to get an appropriations (aka government spending) bill passed 1992-2000? Good fucking luck.

"

ScrotieMcB написал:

"

NeroNoah написал:

Democrats have cut stuff in the past to my understanding (wasn't Bill Clinton a center right politician?).

During Bill Clinton's time as president, the government balanced the budget and slashed more spending than the other presidents of the past 40 years combined. A Democrat is the leading example of government conservatism on economic issues in our generation.

I do think some credit goes to the Republican Congress, but Clinton was a force unto himself. Wanted to get an appropriations (aka government spending) bill passed 1992-2000? Good fucking luck.

Bill Clinton's Administration also repealed the Glass-Steagull act and anyone who's up to date with banking and the crisis of 2006 knows how that ended up.

So top lels