The US Election 2016, Part IX

[Raithe]

And Danny Elfman decided to put a score to the debate...

 

 

Watching Trump lurching behind Hillary during the debate felt a bit like a zombie movie," Elfman told Funny or Die. "Like at any moment he was going to attack her, rip off her head, and eat her brains."

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22jF3txC3_M

Edited October 19, 2016 by Raithe

[Zoraptor]

 

If it's true even with an agenda, it's not propaganda is it?

 

 

Per Hurlshot, it still has to be a reasonable approximation of fair/ not give a false impression to avoid being propaganda. Indeed, the best propaganda is almost always in the 'technically true' category, or at least the unprovable one.

 

"Russia is bombing civilians, the international coalition are bombing ISIS". Both clauses are absolutely true, clear propaganda though. Both sides are bombing ISIS and civilians, the only dispute is the proportions of each and whether anyone is targeting civilians 'deliberately'. It's even better if your statement is backed up with statistics from some guy living in Coventry and being paid by British intelligence- ie the 'Syrian Observatory for Human Rights'; a name which is both technically accurate and also propaganda as well.

 

You do also get propaganda that is based on lies, of course. And what might be termed 'technically untrue' statements where you take a true statement and drown it in conditionals. Both the technically true/ untrue statements are used extensively by supposedly objective things such as 'fact checkers' to massage their results to what is convenient for their favoured candidate. Thus when Trump said that Syria/ Russia were fighting ISIS his statement got rated as untrue (which is absolute propaganda since the rating is outright false) to 'half true' because 'not enough' of the Russian/ Syrian forces were fighting ISIS; a technically untrue answer since they clearly are fighting ISIS and the conditionals to get to half true are not applied evenly- the US clearly isn't using anywhere near its full resources to fight ISIS either.

Edited October 19, 2016 by Zoraptor

[redneckdevil]

The thing is that I'm wondering about Wikileaks that assad has released is how is it propaganda? It seems more like he's just dumping evidence out there for people to read as in emails and such.

[Hurlshort]

The thing is that I'm wondering about Wikileaks that assad has released is how is it propaganda? It seems more like he's just dumping evidence out there for people to read as in emails and such.

 

Slowly releasing personal emails a month before the election in order to make the Clinton campaign look bad is pretty clearly a biased act.  It's also a dangerous precedent to set, Rubio had a pretty good response to the situation:

 

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/exclusive-rubio-talk-wikileaks-donald-trump/story?id=42895586

[Zoraptor]

It's not propaganda though.

 

To be propaganda there not only has to be a desire to gain a particular reaction, there has to be manipulation to achieve it. There's no manipulation of the content to get a particular reaction- there's been no actual accusation that the stuff is editorialised, altered or similar; it appears to be the raw output of Podesta/ DNC etc; any reaction garnered is from the contents they wrote, not from wikileaks. The timing of release means little as well since they can only release stuff when they receive it, and 'Collateral Murder' with at least as anti Bush as their current releases are anti Clinton. In order to be propaganda they would have to suppress any 'positive' parts of the leaks, or know they were getting stuff from Russians (Assange at least has strongly implied they came from Seth Rich), or make the releases up.

 

And, absolutely crucially, they could hardly release the DNC stuff on collusion between them and Hillary a year ago or whatever. We know they didn't have it then because it hadn't even happened yet. If they're releasing stuff on the election cycle their choices are, and can be, only two: (1) release it now and be accused of trying to influence the result or (2) wait... until it isn't relevant and Hillary is already elected. It's clear what any proper media should choose in that situation.

[Gromnir]

 

The thing is that I'm wondering about Wikileaks that assad has released is how is it propaganda? It seems more like he's just dumping evidence out there for people to read as in emails and such.

 

Slowly releasing personal emails a month before the election in order to make the Clinton campaign look bad is pretty clearly a biased act.  It's also a dangerous precedent to set, Rubio had a pretty good response to the situation:

 

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/exclusive-rubio-talk-wikileaks-donald-trump/story?id=42895586

 

not to be too cynical, but the rubio approach could be as calculated as those who is pointing out all clinton's wikileak wackiness.  make certain the wikileaks issue is raised at every presser, interview and barnyard hootenanny, and then lament how terrible such attempts at propaganda is for the electoral process.  simple mention "clinton" and "wikileaks" keeps all the nonsense fresh in the public consciousness, but rubio gets to appear as being enlightened and above the fray. 

 

...

 

Gromnir don't resort to that kinda thing as am too ethical.  nope, never. 

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Malcador]

 

The thing is that I'm wondering about Wikileaks that assad has released is how is it propaganda? It seems more like he's just dumping evidence out there for people to read as in emails and such.

 

Slowly releasing personal emails a month before the election in order to make the Clinton campaign look bad is pretty clearly a biased act.  It's also a dangerous precedent to set, Rubio had a pretty good response to the situation:

 

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/exclusive-rubio-talk-wikileaks-donald-trump/story?id=42895586

 

I sense a huge diatribe being in response to this

 

Mercifully only saw a bit of the debate, only saw Trump talking about how the element of surprise was lost at Mosul and name dropping MacArthur and Patton for some reason. Have to think it's a bit hard to launch a surprise attack on an entrenched city, though.

[Longknife]

Finishing the final debate all like:

 

[Wrath of Dagon]

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/ecuador-cuts-julian-assanges-internet-access-wikileaks-002425066.html

 

So its confirmed, Ecuador has indeed cut Assanges Internet access, this will drive him insane with boredom and it serves him right

 

I wonder how long he will will last now before surrendering to the UK authorities?

 

When cheering for those in power, is it the only time when it you feel like you are part of something larger than you? Making history? Finding meaning or purpose?

 

Just curious.

 

He might get something from Madonna. Too bad he can't vote here. Not that it stops a lot of other aliens.

[Zoraptor]

Boring debate. Far prefer the Town Hall style, at least for these two candidates as it's far more entertaining at least. Neither is going to give decent, nuanced policy statements anyway so it may as well be entertaining.

 

 

Mercifully only saw a bit of the debate, only saw Trump talking about how the element of surprise was lost at Mosul and name dropping MacArthur and Patton for some reason. Have to think it's a bit hard to launch a surprise attack on an entrenched city, though.

 

 

Everyone in Iraq/ Syria announces their attacks early for some reason. Except ISIS, and that may just be because people are too afraid to end up on A List if they read their output.

[Malcador]

Well, easy enough as that's PR for back home. Just that they already know Mosul, for an example, is a target eventually and it's hard to just move those forces around stealthily these days what with you being able to get a recon force of sorts off Amazon. In any event, Trump's complaint was the ISIS leaders leaving, but if they do, there's an army left to kill still and a city to retake.

[licketysplit]

Lol at all media outlets fearmongering over Trump hinting at a corrupt election. It's undermining our democracy! What about, I don't know, all the possible illegal things both of them have done up to this point? 

[Longknife]

Entire debate could basically be summed up as Trump either spewing total BS or not being educated enough on matters to even utilize wikileaks info properly (though I guess at least he referenced it), whereas Hillary often didn't even answer questions and spent much of the time slandering Trump. Was wondering why the moderator kept asking Trump questions first cause Trump answering first = Hillary wouldn't answer the question herself.

 

Favorite question where Trump looked dumb had to be at the end when it was mentioned entitlements (Social Security) were one of the biggest issues for US debt and the US economy and how they would remedy it, Trump answered by cutting taxes like a FRIGGIN GENIUS.

 

Favorite question where Hillary looked like a lizard folk wearing human skin is when wikileaks came up about 45 minutes in and she started screaming "MUH RUSSIA" and trying to paint Trump as a Russian sympathizer (modern-day communist hot button??) for not condemning wikileaks. Favorite question where Hillary looked dumb had to be when she set Trump up for repeating his best answer from the last debate. Dude last time you brought up his tax returns he slaughtered you with it by turning it around, confessing to it and saying you had 30 years to produce legislature to prevent cheating and tax dodging from the rich and you didn't do it because your rich friends like that option. It was his best-received answer of the second debate. Why the HELL would you walk back into that trap a second time??

[Malcador]

Lol at all media outlets fearmongering over Trump hinting at a corrupt election. It's undermining our democracy! What about, I don't know, all the possible illegal things both of them have done up to this point?

Well, that is par for the course for a politician.

[Longknife]

Favorite part of that I'm only realizing now:

 

Didn't they frame the question like "accepting the results is what seperates America from third world countries?"

No it isn't! Not rigging the election is supposed to be what seperates us!

[Enoch]

Dude last time you brought up his tax returns he slaughtered you with it by turning it around, confessing to it and saying you had 30 years to produce legislature to prevent cheating and tax dodging from the rich and you didn't do it because your rich friends like that option. It was his best-received answer of the second debate. Why the HELL would you walk back into that trap a second time??

 

Best-received by whom?  Besides the whole "pretending that one Senator can change things all by herself" thing, I don't really see how "people who support you also evade taxes" is an effective retort to an accusation that the actual candidate for POTUS, who has bucked decades of precedent by keeping his own tax information secret, did the same. 

 

(Also, Warren Buffett shot Trump down.  Tonight, Trump, as is his typical practice, disregarded any evidence contradicting what he wants to believe and repeated himself.) 

 

I do love that they got this into the transcript:

 

 

TRUMP: Nobody has more respect for women than I do. Nobody.

 

(LAUGHTER)

[Enoch]

 

 

Mercifully only saw a bit of the debate, only saw Trump talking about how the element of surprise was lost at Mosul and name dropping MacArthur and Patton for some reason. Have to think it's a bit hard to launch a surprise attack on an entrenched city, though.

 

 

Everyone in Iraq/ Syria announces their attacks early for some reason. Except ISIS, and that may just be because people are too afraid to end up on A List if they read their output.

 

Part of that is because they're trying to reduce civilian casualties, warning non-combatants to get out of the way.  But the main reason is that every move has to be worked out beforehand between different factions with lots of competing interests.  Americans are providing intel, air support, and special ops, but the forces involved are a smattering of Iraqi security folks, the Kurdish Peshmerga, Sunni tribesmen, and Shia militiamen (with the Turks not directly involved, but watching very closely), all of whom have their reasons for opposing ISIS, but who also want very different things out of the operation.  MacArthur and Patton could act with "surprise" because the soldiers they were dealing with answered to their commands.  Operations like this require hours and hours of negotiations beforehand. 

Edited October 20, 2016 by Enoch

[Longknife]

 

Dude last time you brought up his tax returns he slaughtered you with it by turning it around, confessing to it and saying you had 30 years to produce legislature to prevent cheating and tax dodging from the rich and you didn't do it because your rich friends like that option. It was his best-received answer of the second debate. Why the HELL would you walk back into that trap a second time??

 

Best-received by whom?  Besides the whole "pretending that one Senator can change things all by herself" thing, I don't really see how "people who support you also evade taxes" is an effective retort to an accusation that the actual candidate for POTUS, who has bucked decades of precedent by keeping his own tax information secret, did the same.

 

It's easily the most talked/praised about response I've seen that he gave alongside the "you'd be in jail" line, though that one isn't a response to a question. It highlighted that she had the power to try and do something about such practices, had knowledge of such practices, and did nothing about it, suggesting she did nothing exactly because she and her rich friends all benefit from it while confessing most rich benefit from it. It calls out hypocrisy and that she's disingenuine about the concern for tax dodging as she's done nothing to oppose it in her entire political career. It was an elegant deflection of one of his faults to pull her down with him while also painting her as a disingenuine hypocrite, so yeah, it damages her more than it does him, I'd say.

 

Furthermore, when both Trump and Hillary are habitual liars in their own way, yes, it's very refreshing to see one of them actually fess up to a crime instead of trying to deflect onto the other or trying to deflect onto a scapegoat like Russia. It paints Trump as human while Hillary is still trying to comprehend human emotions and strange non-fly-based cuisine. Everybody and their mother knows these two lie constantly and are dishonest, but in that brief moment, Trump acknowledged a lie for once. I cannot think of another moment in either of their campaign's histories where one of them fessed up to a lie, and that's precisely why it received the praise that it did.

Edited October 20, 2016 by Longknife

[Guard Dog]

I can tell you exactly who won: The Cubs. 

[Zoraptor]

 

 

 

Mercifully only saw a bit of the debate, only saw Trump talking about how the element of surprise was lost at Mosul and name dropping MacArthur and Patton for some reason. Have to think it's a bit hard to launch a surprise attack on an entrenched city, though.

 

 

Everyone in Iraq/ Syria announces their attacks early for some reason. Except ISIS, and that may just be because people are too afraid to end up on A List if they read their output.

 

Part of that is because they're trying to reduce civilian casualties, warning non-combatants to get out of the way.  But the main reason is that every move has to be worked out beforehand between different factions with lots of competing interests.  Americans are providing intel, air support, and special ops, but the forces involved are a smattering of Iraqi security folks, the Kurdish Peshmerga, Sunni tribesmen, and Shia militiamen (with the Turks not directly involved, but watching very closely), all of whom have their reasons for opposing ISIS, but who also want very different things out of the operation.  MacArthur and Patton could act with "surprise" because the soldiers they were dealing with answered to their commands.  Operations like this require hours and hours of negotiations beforehand. 

 

 

There's some justification when the US is doing it for the reasons stated, and also because when it comes right down to it they can just escalate/ continue until they do win no matter how much lead notice their enemies have. But the Syrian rebels regularly announce attacks ahead of time, the Syrian government does it too occasionally, the Iraqis do it even when they aren't using US air resources etc. Nobody has any operational security and most of the time they're giving official press releases announcing where they will attack next. Only time I've seen it have a positive effect is when the Syrian Kurds announced they were about to attack Raqqa and it was a bluff as they then went across the Euphrates instead to attack Manbij.

 

I presume he mostly invokes Patton and MacArthur for their mystique as two famous successful (mostly) generals rather than anything else.

 

TRUMP: Nobody has more respect for women than I do. Nobody.

 

(LAUGHTER)

 

 

He said that exact line at the previous debate as well. Pretty sure there was some laughter then too, though I doubt they'd minute the reactions at a Town Hall since they are so much more frequent.

 

Favorite part of that I'm only realizing now:

 

Didn't they frame the question like "accepting the results is what seperates America from third world countries?"

 

No it isn't! Not rigging the election is supposed to be what seperates us!

 

That's the crucial thing. Accepting the result is fine if the process isn't rigged; if it's fraudulent then it's not being a bad loser not to accept it, it's your duty not to. Or else it will not be fixed and it will be fraudulent next time as well.

 

I'm not, however, sure that media collusion and the like- which is probably the charge Trump would be level- can be in any way construed as actually being fraudulent.

[BruceVC]

I find the actual analysis of the debate more interesting and insightful than the actual debates

 

According to the latest  CNN/ORC  poll numbers Hilary won 52 % to 39 %

 

 

http://edition.cnn.com/election

 

Yes I know people like LK and some Trump supporters dismiss the poll results  " who can trusts polls  " ....or " the media controls the polls, I get my information from Reddit..its unbiased "

 

But for most of this these types of numbers matter....this final debate should signal victory for Hilary in the US elections   

[BruceVC]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/donald-trump-makes-history-declining-022705054.html

 

 

Trump is still saying he may not accept the final November 2016 presidential results .....its an appalling and disgraceful attitude to have and again this is an attack of one of the most important foundations of what the US stands for, the principle and legitimacy  of the Democratic process 

 

To quote him from the debate 

 

 "Moderator Chris Wallace asked Donald Trump directly if he would accept the results, owing to Trump’s recent rhetoric the election is rigged. Wallace noted Trump’s running mate Mike Pence, and his daughter Ivanka, both said they absolutely would accept the results of this election.

“I will look at it at the time,” Trump said. “What I have seen is so bad. First of all, the media is so dishonest and corrupt and the pile-on is amazing.” The media, he said, has “poisoned the mind of voters.”

[Meshugger]

The impotent rage of moral busybodies caused by what Trump says is the fuel for fun.

[BruceVC]

The impotent rage of moral busybodies caused by what Trump says is the fuel for fun.

Yeah  because dismissing a legitimate election result within  an established  Democratic system  should only concern   "  moral busybodies " 

 

 

Time to face facts my captious friend....Trump is going to lose the election 

[Meshugger]

 

The impotent rage of moral busybodies caused by what Trump says is the fuel for fun.

Yeah  because dismissing a legitimate election result within  an established  Democratic system  should only concern   "  moral busybodies " 

 

 

Time to face facts my captious friend....Trump is going to lose the election 

 

 

Oh, i wasn't talking about you even if you spew the same talking points in verbatim. No, I was talking about those who claim that it was unprecedented, how outrageous it is to even suggest that their holy temple is corrupt and how concerned other people must be by such comments, all while ignoring, downplaying or even accepting the methods shown in the wikileaks documents. 

 

Hell, you don't even need a leaked document, you can always ask the FBI on what they think on page 56 in the following document: https://vault.fbi.gov/hillary-r.-clinton/hillary-r.-clinton-part-04-of-04/view