wiffleball 4,660 Posted September 2, 2016 I don't seem to recall past elections being like this. For example, it seems to be (especially Fox and CNN) a case where the media hears less from the candidates and/or experts and just gathers half a dozen people to talk over each other about the other candidate. On the Trump side, it's particularly new/bizarre. Clinton's folks at least have titles like "senior communications director" or whatever, but on the Trump side, they're so disorganized, more often than not it's "On this side, Holly Freebush, Trump supporter". WTF? What's her background? Why should I be listening to her. Even the ones with titles are idiots - see Trump's "National Spokesperson". - who thought Obama started the Afghan invasion. At a minimum, could you at least give us a little background as to why these people were selected to speak on behalf of the candidate? Have they even MET the candidate? What's their education and/or experience? I guess it must be generating ratings, but for me, when multiple people start talking over each other and purposefully fillibustering, I just have to turn the channel. First, I can't understand you and Second, if you think 'winning' is shouting louder and longer than the other guy, I have no respect for you. A stupid electorate gets exactly what they deserve. And cable news and bloviating "commentators" have a lot to do with it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MDC 5,934 Posted September 2, 2016 I don't watch it at all. They ALL have an agenda, whether that's partisan or just sensationalism for ratings. And almost 100% of the discussion is about the horse race and not about policy at all. There is literally no reason to watch cable news unless you're part of the choir and you want to be preached to. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Djgb13 2,338 Posted September 2, 2016 I don't watch it at all. They ALL have an agenda, whether that's partisan or just sensationalism for ratings. And almost 100% of the discussion is about the horse race and not about policy at all. There is literally no reason to watch cable news unless you're part of the choir and you want to be preached to. Yea I don't want either. I don't watch debates, I don't watch speeches by the candidates, and I don't watch the news about it. Not interested this year. Past elections you at least had candidates that you could listen to. This year they all suck and I have no desire to see more than I have to of them Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hardcore troubadour 12,866 Posted September 2, 2016 I'll sum it up: Hillary has Michael Browns mother up on her stage, Trump has real victims up on his. Who do you stand with? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wiffleball 4,660 Posted September 2, 2016 Yea I don't want either. I don't watch debates, I don't watch speeches by the candidates, and I don't watch the news about it. Not interested this year. Past elections you at least had candidates that you could listen to. This year they all suck and I have no desire to see more than I have to of them I have to admit, I watch now more than ever. Which is what Trump wants, but for the wrong reasons. Pretty much every day becomes more an more a cross between Tim Russert and the Daily Show. Just yesterday, they did a split screen of Trump in Messico vs. Trump a few hours later in Arizona. It could have been a page out of Russert's playbook - or a bit on TDS. Pretty much, I love the shiit show. It's a focking trainwreck. No way in hell are any of the networks getting this kind of ratings if Jeb Bush is on the ticket. I mean, literally everything Trump has said - he's reversed or modified. I honestly think he got into this not as a joke, but as a vanity project - and even HE is going "Holy crap - how did I get this far?" Nero didn't fiddle while Rome burned, he laughed out loud. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Djgb13 2,338 Posted September 2, 2016 Nero didn't fiddle while Rome burned, he laughed out loud. Not trying to sound like an ass but I'm surprised someone here actually knows about Nero and Rome. His neck beard is something I imagine GF having Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MDC 5,934 Posted September 2, 2016 Yea I don't want either. I don't watch debates, I don't watch speeches by the candidates, and I don't watch the news about it. Not interested this year. Past elections you at least had candidates that you could listen to. This year they all suck and I have no desire to see more than I have to of them I watch the debates just for the lolz. I know it's all a farce and I learn nothing. I read the news online and I have to admit I will stare at cable news on the treadmill but I'm listening to music. That's it. I can't wait for the Trump - Hillary debates though. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wiffleball 4,660 Posted September 2, 2016 And BTW, for those of you who do follow this stuff, every Friday is known as "take out the trash day". It's when you dump stories because you know most people (and networks) don't really do much of the news thing on the weekend. But TODAY is a special kind of take out the trash day. Right before Labor Day? There's a reason why the HRC email notes were released when they were. Same too with Trump's bribing of a Florida Attorney General. That's right kiddos, doesn't matter what color the pieces are, we're playing checkers while they're playing chess. ....and right now, more people are worried about whether 'tapeface' makes it to the final show on Americas Got Talent... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rholio 339 Posted September 2, 2016 I'll sum it up: Hillary has Michael Browns mother up on her stage, Trump has real victims up on his. Who do you stand with? Neither. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rholio 339 Posted September 2, 2016 Cliff notes? Trump's an idiot, Hillary's evil, Gary Johnson is weird. Pick weird. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
fandandy 3,311 Posted September 2, 2016 Who would most Johnson supporters vote for were he not running? It seems like Perot took more votes away from Bush, but Johnson I believe is taking more away from Clinton. Since we have so many Johnson supporters here, what are your thoughts? It's obviously a wasted vote, if they vote that way, but I like it because I think it's hurting Clinton more. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wiffleball 4,660 Posted September 2, 2016 Who would most Johnson supporters vote for were he not running? It seems like Perot took more votes away from Bush, but Johnson I believe is taking more away from Clinton. Since we have so many Johnson supporters here, what are your thoughts? It's obviously a wasted vote, if they vote that way, but I like it because I think it's hurting Clinton more. Last I checked, you had to be on the ballot to hurt anyone. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
fandandy 3,311 Posted September 2, 2016 Last I checked, you had to be on the ballot to hurt anyone. I don't understand. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hardcore troubadour 12,866 Posted September 3, 2016 Last I checked, you had to be on the ballot to hurt anyone. Fockin brilliant Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
giraldi02 470 Posted September 3, 2016 Last I checked, you had to be on the ballot to hurt anyone. https://www.lp.org/2016-presidential-ballot-access-map Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wiffleball 4,660 Posted September 3, 2016 https://www.lp.org/2016-presidential-ballot-access-map Somehow, Joe Paterno had something to do with this. Still, he doesn't have enough in the polls to get to the debates. Which is weird, because I'm pretty sure every single male millenial is a Johnson-lover. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
KSB2424 3,086 Posted September 3, 2016 I abstain. Two worst candidates in my lifetime. And the media are culpable for them being there. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Baker Boy 1,500 Posted September 6, 2016 Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hoytdwow 202 Posted September 6, 2016 Who would most Johnson supporters vote for were he not running? I would've written in either Paul or Kasich, and would happily have voted for either had they been the nominee. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
patweisers44 709 Posted September 6, 2016 The political ads are particularly troublesome this time around as well. Normally they will give a smidgeon of what the candidate stands for, but this cycle they are completely about blasting the other candidate. Neither one talks about what they stand for, just about how bad the other one is. Its like a microcosm of this place when it comes to trump v hillary. Truth be told, they both are pieces of shiot. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wiffleball 4,660 Posted September 6, 2016 The political ads are particularly troublesome this time around as well. Normally they will give a smidgeon of what the candidate stands for, but this cycle they are completely about blasting the other candidate. Neither one talks about what they stand for, just about how bad the other one is. Its like a microcosm of this place when it comes to trump v hillary. Truth be told, they both are pieces of shiot. But like I said earlier, it seems like in this case, the Clinton camp's ads are pretty much just airing Trump's own words. It's one thing to say "my opponent would create/cause xxxxxx...." But quite another to just have the other guy spouting off about how he knows more about ISIS than 'the generals'. Problem is, I think most of his stuff has now lost its shock value. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
patweisers44 709 Posted September 6, 2016 But like I said earlier, it seems like in this case, the Clinton camp's ads are pretty much just airing Trump's own words. It's one thing to say "my opponent would create/cause xxxxxx...." But quite another to just have the other guy spouting off about how he knows more about ISIS than 'the generals'. Problem is, I think most of his stuff has now lost its shock value. And the trump ads just lay out hillarys track record. Which sadly makes me reluctantly cast a vote for Trump. We all KNOW Hillary's track record and right now Trump is just promising to be a buffoon. The hope being is he gets elected, surrounds himself with the right people and is reigned in big time and the vast majority of crap his is proposing gets killed by gridlock, common sense (of his trusted advisors) or whatever. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Thornton Melon 546 Posted September 6, 2016 Who would most Johnson supporters vote for were he not running? It seems like Perot took more votes away from Bush, but Johnson I believe is taking more away from Clinton. Since we have so many Johnson supporters here, what are your thoughts? It's obviously a wasted vote, if they vote that way, but I like it because I think it's hurting Clinton more. Philosophically and historically, Libertarians take away from the Republican. I doubt Johnson is taking away more from Clinton than Trump. He may be taking away more Democrats than usual simply because it's Clinton, though. If so....good. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hoytdwow 202 Posted September 6, 2016 This is the year when a 3rd party candidate should do great. But people are too inclined to let the media push the 2-party system down their throats to vote for him or her. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tanatastic 2,061 Posted September 6, 2016 Is it nice and veiny? I like a good thickness when im...oh wait, wrong thread. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wiffleball 4,660 Posted September 6, 2016 Is it nice and veiny? I like a good thickness when im...oh wait, wrong thread. I thought you were talking about HRC Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tanatastic 2,061 Posted September 6, 2016 I thought you were talking about HRC Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
