SteevLWhat can I do for you?Registered Userregular
My wife's childhood friend on FB, who is a Trump supporter, reacted to the debate at the end by complaining that Hillary wasn't wearing a flag pin. If I actually engaged people posting about politics, I'd make a North Korea reference with their required pins.
She also has had a tendency since the Republican convention to post stuff like "USUSUSUSUSUSUSUSUSUSUS" which really confused me, but now I realize it's probably some American flag graphic that only displays for people who have a certain FB plugin or app or whatever.
This was the first time my wife and I watched one of this year's presidential debates. We've already voted, so we were just hoping to see Clinton perform well. And overall, I think she did quite well. Trump just proved to us that he's awful. I'm still nervous about what happens after this election; not the immediate aftermath, but over the next few years.
And why do they come in what looks like a cardboard box?
That does not look sanitary
That's actually pretty normal for frozen meats and other frozen products. There used to be companies that would deliver stuff like this from a truck (Ice cream, frozen meats, etc) on a subscription or mail-order basis for whatever reason. Schwann's was one of them where I grew up. They always came in a cardboard box with a folding top.
Main difference being that Schwann's didn't charge $50 a pound for their frozen products. Trump steak packages ran as high as $999 for 16 steaks and 24 burgers (fucking BURGERS?!?).
This is the silliest conspiracy theory after the "he's a Clinton plant" one.
No, Donald Trump's goal was not something other then the Presidency. Have you seen Donald Trump? Have you watched his personality and behaviour? He's running to win. Because that's what feeds his ego and his desperate need for attention and praise.
Sure.
Trump is running to win the same way that he wants to offer you the best steaks on planet Earth:
If Trump was seriously running to win, he would be pumping campaign dollars into his actual campaign, rather than on hats and Trump properties.
The fact that he's doing the latter and not the former tells me that this is less about winning, and more about the grift.
Do these look super unappetizing to anyone else?
They don't look like beef.
Those look like... I don't know. Ham steaks maybe? The color is off for it being either beef or ham.
It's super weird.
They look like pork chops cut to look like steaks.
+11
Options
IlpalaJust this guy, y'knowTexasRegistered Userregular
Schwan's is fucking great, and some of their stuff is sold in cardboard boxes containing sealed plastic bags of whatever you're hankering for.
Also this debate was predictably a shitshow, the question list had a decidedly conservative bent but Wallace was middling to fair in the actual act of moderating so whatever.
FF XIV - Qih'to Furishu (on Siren), Battle.Net - Ilpala#1975
Switch - SW-7373-3669-3011
Fuck Joe Manchin
This is the silliest conspiracy theory after the "he's a Clinton plant" one.
No, Donald Trump's goal was not something other then the Presidency. Have you seen Donald Trump? Have you watched his personality and behaviour? He's running to win. Because that's what feeds his ego and his desperate need for attention and praise.
Sure.
Trump is running to win the same way that he wants to offer you the best steaks on planet Earth:
If Trump was seriously running to win, he would be pumping campaign dollars into his actual campaign, rather than on hats and Trump properties.
The fact that he's doing the latter and not the former tells me that this is less about winning, and more about the grift.
Do these look super unappetizing to anyone else?
That looks like a perfectly edible piece of pork or chicken.
Bitchsplainin is copyright me. If you're gonna use it you gotta pay up.
And needless to say, if you ain't a lady, you're probably not using it right
Wait, could you somehow elaborate on it's correct usage in some way?
lol its just some tongue in cheek i've said when i'm making some long effortpost that ends up being a patronizing basic poli sci 101 lecture about how we have three branches of government
Hakkes, I was giving you the set up for some prime bitchsplainin about the nature of bitchsplainin so we could all partake of the excellent meta bitchsplainin.
Really just searching for anything to get the trumpsplainin from last night out of my head.
Bitchsplainin is copyright me. If you're gonna use it you gotta pay up.
And needless to say, if you ain't a lady, you're probably not using it right
Wait, could you somehow elaborate on it's correct usage in some way?
lol its just some tongue in cheek i've said when i'm making some long effortpost that ends up being a patronizing basic poli sci 101 lecture about how we have three branches of government
Hakkes, I was giving you the set up for some prime bitchsplainin about the nature of bitchsplainin so we could all partake of the excellent meta bitchsplainin.
Really just searching for anything to get the trumpsplainin from last night out of my head.
Damn, I whiffed on a softball like ya name chris wallace
A politifact representative was on MSNBC this morning. She rated Clinton's statement about Trump using undocumented laborers to build his hotel "True". I know that was a point of contention at some point last night.
This is the silliest conspiracy theory after the "he's a Clinton plant" one.
No, Donald Trump's goal was not something other then the Presidency. Have you seen Donald Trump? Have you watched his personality and behaviour? He's running to win. Because that's what feeds his ego and his desperate need for attention and praise.
Sure.
Trump is running to win the same way that he wants to offer you the best steaks on planet Earth:
If Trump was seriously running to win, he would be pumping campaign dollars into his actual campaign, rather than on hats and Trump properties.
The fact that he's doing the latter and not the former tells me that this is less about winning, and more about the grift.
Again, have you seen Trump, his behaviour and his personality. He's 100% trying to win. That's why he's fucking melting down right now, on state in front of the entire nation. Because he can't lose so he has to make an excuse.
Your reasoning here assumes he's good at what he does, which all evidence indicates he is not. He's a terrible manager. He's shit at it. The only thing he's good at is conning people and dumping his loses on someone else.
That he's trying to make money off this run and not lose any of his own does not preclude that he's in this to win in order to satisfy his own rather obvious narcissism.
Any hint at a Trump TV something is merely a backup plan to keep the grift going.
+8
Options
No-QuarterNothing To FearBut Fear ItselfRegistered Userregular
Now I'm hungry but visions of Trump steaks are nauseating.
I want a waffle with my usual side of bacon, chocolate milk, and coffee.
Trump only seems like he's running a long con/trying to lose/etc because he is a rather unintelligent man with no filter and no sense of shame. The stuff you hear him spout is fundamentally the same as any 58-year-old racist middle manager who thinks they're God's gift to women despite being physically and psychologically repulsive, and believes they're qualified to run the country despite not being able to run the floor of the widget plant properly, deflecting blame on a subordinate when necessary and spending most of their time locked in the office looking at sleazy porn.
There are millions of those guys. Trump is one of them. He just got lucky, and was born into a family with a shitton of money, and has smart accountants on payroll who keep bailing him out of his own dumbass schemes.
Trump's superpower is the uncanny ability to announce grandiose, expensive ventures and then make mind-bogglingly stupid decisions that crater the whole thing but somehow position himself so he's personally insulated against the inevitable catastrophe. He can then claim his quite-obvious failure was really a success and move on to the next scheme.
It's like a Xanatos Gambit minus the actual competence.
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKERS
I think it's been clear for a while now that the media and the political establishment at large has had Hillary in mind as their favored candidate, and so has focused their considerable resources accordingly.
According to the report, eight of America’s most influential news outlets wrote coverage "negative in tone" about Clinton 84 percent of the time — compared to just 43 percent for Donald Trump, and 17 percent for Bernie Sanders.
To what degree did outsize media coverage of Donald Trump contribute to his unexpected victory in the race for the Republican presidential nomination? A great deal, according to some vocal political scientists.
The reality is in fact the exact opposite of what you state. The press dislikes Clinton and has continually hit at her with negative coverage. More then any other candidate.
At the same time they've have fed Trump a massive amount of free publicity which had a direct impact on his poll numbers during the primary. They have also done much to normalise his statements, positions and behaviour.
I disagree with this assessment because simply showing trump being himself is actually negative to a large majority of people, and notably to the journalists making these decisions.
This is demonstratively not true.
A new report from Harvard Kennedy School’s Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy analyzes news coverage of the 2016 presidential candidates in the year leading up to the primaries. This crucial period, labeled “the invisible primary” by political scientists, is when candidates try to lay the groundwork for a winning campaign—with media exposure often playing a make or break role.
The report shows that during the year 2015, major news outlets covered Donald Trump in a way that was unusual given his low initial polling numbers—a high volume of media coverage preceded Trump’s rise in the polls. Trump’s coverage was positive in tone—he received far more “good press” than “bad press.” The volume and tone of the coverage helped propel Trump to the top of Republican polls.
but not by most anchors. they can't stop his surrogates but in any instance I've seen he's being ridiculed and virtually disqualified for saying these things. yesterday someone on msnbc said that he lowered the casket door on himself and nailed it shut with that line. idk how much more negative you can get than that.
the cited analysis was months ago and in no way deals with what hes saying now and how 'the media' is responding. just from looking at headlines in these threads it's clearly with a whole lot of negativity.
Oh, so after they propped up an authoritarian narcissist for a year, then they finally turned on him?
Yeah, that neither rebuts the point that was made not does it make them look any better.
Trump's superpower is the uncanny ability to announce grandiose, expensive ventures and then make mind-bogglingly stupid decisions that crater the whole thing but somehow position himself so he's personally insulated against the inevitable catastrophe. He can then claim his quite-obvious failure was really a success and move on to the next scheme.
It's like a Xanatos Gambit minus the actual competence.
It's a weird superpower because if he never used it he'd have had even more money.
Trump's superpower is the uncanny ability to announce grandiose, expensive ventures and then make mind-bogglingly stupid decisions that crater the whole thing but somehow position himself so he's personally insulated against the inevitable catastrophe. He can then claim his quite-obvious failure was really a success and move on to the next scheme.
It's like a Xanatos Gambit minus the actual competence.
It's a weird superpower because if he never used it he'd have had even more money.
Well his secondary mutation is terminal narcissism.
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKERS
+6
Options
ResIpsaLoquiturNot a grammar nazi, just alt-write.Registered Userregular
Here's my post mortem:
In a vacuum, considering only the 3 debates, each candidate and the moderator hit their highest and lowest points during the debate.
- There were places where Trump did well, but his awful answers were supremely awful.
- Clinton had a few excellent answers, and was able to contrast really well against Trump, but some of her pivots were pretty awkward.
- Wallace did a good job at points really pressing Trump in particular, but never once called either out on not answering the question, and some of his questions were based on just plain factually untrue foundations (no pun intended).
Thinking ahead to the next three weeks:
- The moderator won't matter, except in polishing his own conservative bona fides; he definitely felt like his version of neutrality was "#NeverTrump GOP".
- I predict Trump supporters will call Wallace biased on his follow ups, Clinton supporters will complain about the bad questions and interruptions, but the portion of the electorate who could be persuaded or who will remain undecided won't notice.
- I do think Wallace did a service to the GOP and Trump when it comes to very low information voters who wouldn't notice the factual inaccuracies in his question, but at this point it's a really small number.
- Trump made some progress making single issue voters on abortion feel comfortable voting for him, but how much motivation that adds remains to be seen. His tone and tenor should still make the more reasonable portion of that electorate wince.
- Trump failed hard on his impromptu final statement. He simply could not offer a reason why people should vote against him rather than merely voting against Hillary.
- Holy crap did he say some awful things. If Trump's goal was to motivate the part of the GOP that isn't his rabid base, I don't think he accomplished it.
- Hillary did fine, and as I said above, had some real highlights. I don't think she dove into the mud the same way Trump did, and that will help.
- Overall, she didn't knock it out of the park, but she didn't have to. She kept her cool, and did better than merely treading water, which is a win in my playbook.
- Hillary will be able to mine the debate to make new advertisements against Trump much more effectively than vice-versa, which again is a win.
League of Legends: MichaelDominick; Blizzard(NA): MichaelD#11402; Steam ID: MichaelDominick
The Trump campaign has written off independents at this point, they have to. It's down to turning out the smoldering kernel at the bottom of the bag that is ultra-conservative Republicans. And depressing all other turnout.
The Trump campaign has written off independents at this point, they have to. It's down to turning out the smoldering kernel at the bottom of the bag that is ultra-conservative Republicans. And depressing all other turnout.
I don't know. I was reminded in the main election thread that he went for a "state's rights" position on abortion, and I don't think that's at all the position of the ultra-conservatives, who otherwise get themselves all hot-and-bothered over those two words. Hell, I'm not sure WHO that's meant to pander to.
League of Legends: MichaelDominick; Blizzard(NA): MichaelD#11402; Steam ID: MichaelDominick
The Trump campaign has written off independents at this point, they have to. It's down to turning out the smoldering kernel at the bottom of the bag that is ultra-conservative Republicans. And depressing all other turnout.
I don't know. I was reminded in the main election thread that he went for a "state's rights" position on abortion, and I don't think that's at all the position of the ultra-conservatives, who otherwise get themselves all hot-and-bothered over those two words. Hell, I'm not sure WHO that's meant to pander to.
States rights is absolutely the conservative position on abortion, because it means that Roe v Wade has been overturned. Which puts us back in de facto illegal territory.
The Trump campaign has written off independents at this point, they have to. It's down to turning out the smoldering kernel at the bottom of the bag that is ultra-conservative Republicans. And depressing all other turnout.
I don't know. I was reminded in the main election thread that he went for a "state's rights" position on abortion, and I don't think that's at all the position of the ultra-conservatives, who otherwise get themselves all hot-and-bothered over those two words. Hell, I'm not sure WHO that's meant to pander to.
States rights is absolutely the conservative position on abortion, because it means that Roe v Wade has been overturned. Which puts us back in de facto illegal territory.
And he's not wrong. Congress would never legalize it legislatively so it'd end up being a state by state thing
The Trump campaign has written off independents at this point, they have to. It's down to turning out the smoldering kernel at the bottom of the bag that is ultra-conservative Republicans. And depressing all other turnout.
I don't know. I was reminded in the main election thread that he went for a "state's rights" position on abortion, and I don't think that's at all the position of the ultra-conservatives, who otherwise get themselves all hot-and-bothered over those two words. Hell, I'm not sure WHO that's meant to pander to.
States rights is absolutely the conservative position on abortion, because it means that Roe v Wade has been overturned. Which puts us back in de facto illegal territory.
The Trump campaign has written off independents at this point, they have to. It's down to turning out the smoldering kernel at the bottom of the bag that is ultra-conservative Republicans. And depressing all other turnout.
I don't know. I was reminded in the main election thread that he went for a "state's rights" position on abortion, and I don't think that's at all the position of the ultra-conservatives, who otherwise get themselves all hot-and-bothered over those two words. Hell, I'm not sure WHO that's meant to pander to.
States rights is absolutely the conservative position on abortion, because it means that Roe v Wade has been overturned. Which puts us back in de facto illegal territory.
Hell, even with Roe v Wade it's practically illegal in many areas because of that kind of state-run deferment.
+10
Options
GoodKingJayIIIThey wanna get mygold on the ceilingRegistered Userregular
I think it's been clear for a while now that the media and the political establishment at large has had Hillary in mind as their favored candidate, and so has focused their considerable resources accordingly.
So when Trump says the election is rigged, he isn't exactly wrong. Hyperbolic perhaps, but not wrong. The boldest gamble he could make under such circumstances was to therefore do what he did and withhold his commitment to accept the election results, which is somehow supposed to be shocking to us when the system itself has left him with little alternative.
It's an ugly existential situation when we're faced with the prospect of having to question whether our democratic system is still truly effective, but that's exactly what Trump has done and in the process rattled a lot of establishment elites who would rather the general public continue being lethargic and pliant.
There's something bigger at work here, and if Trump can't work within the system to effect necessary change, he may very well have to work without it. A direct march on Washington with the proof of his overwhelming support rallied en masse and firmly behind him?
Where evolution fails but something still has to give, revolution oftentimes intervenes to pick up the slack and give society the fresh transfusion it so desperately needs in order to adapt and survive. And when you leave people with no choice in a system so clearly and critically broken, they'll inevitably forge their own path forward.
Basically, if the lawful way fails because it so obviously serves the interests of certain groups, then the only recourse is more drastic action, delivered swiftly and decisively with profound implications for the future.
Up until this point your /pol/ performance art has been pretty cute but I draw the line when you start suggesting violent "revolution" will be the outcome of a Trump loss.
Luckily that's not going to happen. No revolution is coming. I don't doubt that a few unhinged individuals will conduct some horrible shit, but that's it. Like Trump, his supporters are big talk and no game. There will be no glorious revolution to unseat the corrupt elite. Just a bunch of very disappointed people betrayed by a charlatan, their only recourse to keep following him to his next pathetic venture until he sucks them dry of any self worth or respect.
Posts
Poorly cooked pork chops.
She also has had a tendency since the Republican convention to post stuff like "USUSUSUSUSUSUSUSUSUSUS" which really confused me, but now I realize it's probably some American flag graphic that only displays for people who have a certain FB plugin or app or whatever.
This was the first time my wife and I watched one of this year's presidential debates. We've already voted, so we were just hoping to see Clinton perform well. And overall, I think she did quite well. Trump just proved to us that he's awful. I'm still nervous about what happens after this election; not the immediate aftermath, but over the next few years.
My Backloggery
That's actually pretty normal for frozen meats and other frozen products. There used to be companies that would deliver stuff like this from a truck (Ice cream, frozen meats, etc) on a subscription or mail-order basis for whatever reason. Schwann's was one of them where I grew up. They always came in a cardboard box with a folding top.
Main difference being that Schwann's didn't charge $50 a pound for their frozen products. Trump steak packages ran as high as $999 for 16 steaks and 24 burgers (fucking BURGERS?!?).
They look like pork chops cut to look like steaks.
Also this debate was predictably a shitshow, the question list had a decidedly conservative bent but Wallace was middling to fair in the actual act of moderating so whatever.
Switch - SW-7373-3669-3011
Fuck Joe Manchin
That looks like a perfectly edible piece of pork or chicken.
What do you mean it's supposed to be steak?
Posers
Straight up, the reason to buy exorbitantly priced Trump stuff is so you can talk about how expensive it was
They look like chicken or pork. Not the first thing I think of when I hear 'steak'.
Hakkes, I was giving you the set up for some prime bitchsplainin about the nature of bitchsplainin so we could all partake of the excellent meta bitchsplainin.
Really just searching for anything to get the trumpsplainin from last night out of my head.
No one, apparently
With those heel spurs??
Damn, I whiffed on a softball like ya name chris wallace
NNID: Hakkekage
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
I could really go for some steamed hams.
Again, have you seen Trump, his behaviour and his personality. He's 100% trying to win. That's why he's fucking melting down right now, on state in front of the entire nation. Because he can't lose so he has to make an excuse.
Your reasoning here assumes he's good at what he does, which all evidence indicates he is not. He's a terrible manager. He's shit at it. The only thing he's good at is conning people and dumping his loses on someone else.
That he's trying to make money off this run and not lose any of his own does not preclude that he's in this to win in order to satisfy his own rather obvious narcissism.
Any hint at a Trump TV something is merely a backup plan to keep the grift going.
I want a waffle with my usual side of bacon, chocolate milk, and coffee.
There are millions of those guys. Trump is one of them. He just got lucky, and was born into a family with a shitton of money, and has smart accountants on payroll who keep bailing him out of his own dumbass schemes.
It's like a Xanatos Gambit minus the actual competence.
This is demonstratively not true. http://shorensteincenter.org/pre-primary-news-coverage-2016-trump-clinton-sanders/
You can disagree with this assessment but it's no more supported them your continued disagreement with the evidence showing Clinton got the most negative coverage.
The truth is right there in two studies.
Oh, so after they propped up an authoritarian narcissist for a year, then they finally turned on him?
Yeah, that neither rebuts the point that was made not does it make them look any better.
It's a weird superpower because if he never used it he'd have had even more money.
Well his secondary mutation is terminal narcissism.
In a vacuum, considering only the 3 debates, each candidate and the moderator hit their highest and lowest points during the debate.
- There were places where Trump did well, but his awful answers were supremely awful.
- Clinton had a few excellent answers, and was able to contrast really well against Trump, but some of her pivots were pretty awkward.
- Wallace did a good job at points really pressing Trump in particular, but never once called either out on not answering the question, and some of his questions were based on just plain factually untrue foundations (no pun intended).
Thinking ahead to the next three weeks:
- The moderator won't matter, except in polishing his own conservative bona fides; he definitely felt like his version of neutrality was "#NeverTrump GOP".
- I predict Trump supporters will call Wallace biased on his follow ups, Clinton supporters will complain about the bad questions and interruptions, but the portion of the electorate who could be persuaded or who will remain undecided won't notice.
- I do think Wallace did a service to the GOP and Trump when it comes to very low information voters who wouldn't notice the factual inaccuracies in his question, but at this point it's a really small number.
- Trump made some progress making single issue voters on abortion feel comfortable voting for him, but how much motivation that adds remains to be seen. His tone and tenor should still make the more reasonable portion of that electorate wince.
- Trump failed hard on his impromptu final statement. He simply could not offer a reason why people should vote against him rather than merely voting against Hillary.
- Holy crap did he say some awful things. If Trump's goal was to motivate the part of the GOP that isn't his rabid base, I don't think he accomplished it.
- Hillary did fine, and as I said above, had some real highlights. I don't think she dove into the mud the same way Trump did, and that will help.
- Overall, she didn't knock it out of the park, but she didn't have to. She kept her cool, and did better than merely treading water, which is a win in my playbook.
- Hillary will be able to mine the debate to make new advertisements against Trump much more effectively than vice-versa, which again is a win.
Seems replacing the dog whistle with an air horn doesn't work out so well.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
I don't know. I was reminded in the main election thread that he went for a "state's rights" position on abortion, and I don't think that's at all the position of the ultra-conservatives, who otherwise get themselves all hot-and-bothered over those two words. Hell, I'm not sure WHO that's meant to pander to.
The "I'm not against women rights but..." crowd actually cared about their excuses to feel good about themselves.
States rights is absolutely the conservative position on abortion, because it means that Roe v Wade has been overturned. Which puts us back in de facto illegal territory.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
And he's not wrong. Congress would never legalize it legislatively so it'd end up being a state by state thing
Also known as "Fuck female Texans".
Hell, even with Roe v Wade it's practically illegal in many areas because of that kind of state-run deferment.
Up until this point your /pol/ performance art has been pretty cute but I draw the line when you start suggesting violent "revolution" will be the outcome of a Trump loss.
Luckily that's not going to happen. No revolution is coming. I don't doubt that a few unhinged individuals will conduct some horrible shit, but that's it. Like Trump, his supporters are big talk and no game. There will be no glorious revolution to unseat the corrupt elite. Just a bunch of very disappointed people betrayed by a charlatan, their only recourse to keep following him to his next pathetic venture until he sucks them dry of any self worth or respect.
"Necessary change" @glyph? What exactly do you think Trump wants to do that is necessary?
It's not like this is a close race where a recount screwed it over again. This is going to be a demolishing
Also, that feeling when you can hug your daughter and she doesn't instinctively dodge.
That taunt.
Well played.
This is gibberish on several levels. Kudos to Trump for managing that in only a few characters.