Trumped

[red321]

15 minutes ago, Adam said:

This is interesting. Trumps campaign was more policy focused 

 

http://reason.com/blog/2017/03/09/trump-ads-trumped-clinton-on-policy

That's not quite what the article said. Clinton's campaign certainly had significantly more detailed out policies than Trumps, just comparing the websites it was obvious.

But her campaign ads weren't reflective of that, as this article attests to. It's not just enough to tell people why you shouldn't vote for the other guy...at some point you have to sell yourself as well.

[Glen]

http://www.businessinsider.com/ivanka-trump-and-jared-kushners-landlord-is-feuding-with-the-us-government-2017-3

Nothing fishy here.

[Jason]

41 minutes ago, Adam said:

This is interesting. Trumps campaign was more policy focused 

 

http://reason.com/blog/2017/03/09/trump-ads-trumped-clinton-on-policy

Either she didn't have any policies to discuss or she just assumed that she was a shoe in for the gig. Could be both

[Thomas]

55 minutes ago, Adam said:

This is interesting. Trumps campaign was more policy focused 

http://reason.com/blog/2017/03/09/trump-ads-trumped-clinton-on-policy

 

36 minutes ago, red321 said:

That's not quite what the article said. Clinton's campaign certainly had significantly more detailed out policies than Trumps, just comparing the websites it was obvious.

But her campaign ads weren't reflective of that, as this article attests to. It's not just enough to tell people why you shouldn't vote for the other guy...at some point you have to sell yourself as well.

I think the two things working against her were:

1. Her policies were too detailed and unwieldy. She needed to focus on themes, not details.
2. Between made up and legitimate scandals against her it wasn't the easiest sell when she focuses on her past.
3. Trump has a gift of eliciting these emotional and irrational responses from his opponents who should know better than to respond in kind. But he still gets them to all the same.

[Adam]

56 minutes ago, red321 said:

That's not quite what the article said. Clinton's campaign certainly had significantly more detailed out policies than Trumps, just comparing the websites it was obvious.

But her campaign ads weren't reflective of that, as this article attests to. It's not just enough to tell people why you shouldn't vote for the other guy...at some point you have to sell yourself as well.

Well 90% of voters make their decisions based on the ads...

[gotbeer]

1 hour ago, Adam said:

This is interesting. Trumps campaign was more policy focused 

 

http://reason.com/blog/2017/03/09/trump-ads-trumped-clinton-on-policy

 

Make America Great Again.  Those 4 words are what Clinton lost to.  Those words connected with a lot of voters, and Clinton and her SJW army had no counter.

[Thomas]

 

6 minutes ago, cezero said:

fun new strategy from the turd.

when his sec of state goes abroad, don't allow any media to come along, making it so the only narrative citizens get is from the state department itself. 

 

Can it be in the 1930's and 40's Newsreel style?

[Thomas]

10 minutes ago, gotbeer said:

Make America Great Again.  Those 4 words are what Clinton lost to.  Those words connected with a lot of voters, and Clinton and her SJW army had no counter.

You mean "I'm with her" wasn't the bestest thing ever?

[RallyMo]

10 minutes ago, cezero said:

fun new strategy from the turd.

when his sec of state goes abroad, don't allow any media to come along, making it so the only narrative citizens get is from the state department itself. 

 

It's unbelievable, and some will be just okey dokey with it because "liberals sad" or some other pass that they're giving themselves for abandoning their former values in the name of partisanship.

[Jay]

4 minutes ago, RallyMo said:

It's unbelievable, and some will be just okey dokey with it because "liberals sad" or some other pass that they're giving themselves for abandoning their former values in the name of partisanship.

You have to admit you do sound pretty sad in this post.

 

[red321]

48 minutes ago, Adam said:

Well 90% of voters make their decisions based on the ads...

True...another example where what people say what they want...and what they actually want...are two different things

[RallyMo]

1 minute ago, Jay said:

You have to admit you do sound pretty sad in this post.

 

I suppose I would seem that way to you, at least according to the persona that you put forth on this board. I have no idea how true to life keyboard Jay is, though. I'm not as much sad as I am baffled that so many people would seemingly abdicate their values and expectations in exchange for our current leader.

[red321]

9 minutes ago, Jay said:

You have to admit you do sound pretty sad in this post.

 

And as he continually likes to attest to...that's about the depth of Jay's political beliefs

[Amazing Larry]

5 minutes ago, RallyMo said:

I suppose I would seem that way to you, at least according to the persona that you put forth on this board. I have no idea how true to life keyboard Jay is, though. I'm not as much sad as I am baffled that so many people would seemingly abdicate their values and expectations in exchange for our current leader.

Isn't Tillerson just saying that reporters might not be coming on the plane with him to Asia?

[Thomas]

21 minutes ago, RallyMo said:

It's unbelievable, and some will be just okey dokey with it because "liberals sad" or some other pass that they're giving themselves for abandoning their former values in the name of partisanship.

It's the same as the liberal left seeing the abuses of the intelligence communities that they screamed and warned about for years but now it's laid bare and barely a "meh".  Maybe there is only a finite amount of outrage we can muster?

[Glen]

2 minutes ago, Thomas said:

It's the same as the liberal left seeing the abuses of the intelligence communities that they screamed and warned about for years but now it's laid bare and barely a "meh".  Maybe there is only a finite amount of outrage we can muster?

 

 

Sometimes, even a perpetual outrage machine needs a recharge.

[Adam]

I can muster just a sliver of outrage and it is typically about Aidan - this mother effer on my t-ball team who doesn't listen. 

[Thomas]

1 minute ago, Adam said:

I can muster just a sliver of outrage and it is typically about Aidan - this mother effer on my t-ball team who doesn't listen. 

Um...it's T-Ball?

[Jay]

14 minutes ago, red321 said:

And as he continually likes to attest to...that's about the depth of Jay's political beliefs

Yes I wish I were so very deep like you red321.

 

[Kevin]

6 minutes ago, Adam said:

I can muster just a sliver of outrage and it is typically about Aidan - this mother effer on my t-ball team who doesn't listen. 

Trade him but be careful. He might hit four home runs against your team next time just to stick it to you. 

[gotbeer]

43 minutes ago, Adam said:

I can muster just a sliver of outrage and it is typically about Aidan - this mother effer on my t-ball team who doesn't listen. 

 

Well duh.  His name is Aiden.  Should have been your first sign indicator of don't draft.

[RallyMo]

48 minutes ago, Thomas said:

It's the same as the liberal left seeing the abuses of the intelligence communities that they screamed and warned about for years but now it's laid bare and barely a "meh".  Maybe there is only a finite amount of outrage we can muster?

Precisely. It's apparent that the amount of rage that many can muster is inversely proportional to the amount of cheerleading they do for who/what should be justly receiving scorn. Also, it would seem that you can also reliably adjust up or down on the basis how childish a person seems to be as well.

[RallyMo]

55 minutes ago, Adam said:

I can muster just a sliver of outrage and it is typically about Aidan - this mother effer on my t-ball team who doesn't listen. 

Aidan's mommy detects a corresponding sliver of sadness in your behavior. She enjoys it.

[Thomas]

16 minutes ago, gotbeer said:

 

Well duh.  His name is Aiden.  Should have been your first sign indicator of don't draft.

The hockey team I coach has three.  We haven't won a game this year.

[Thomas]

54 minutes ago, Kevin said:

Trade him but be careful. He might hit four home runs against your team next time just to stick it to you. 

Adam clearly is a terrible coach. His team has already tuned him out. What makes you think (besides genetics) that he'd be a good GM?