DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Presidential Election Campaigns 2016 part 3

jc

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/148844611656/the-greatest-cognitive-dissonance-trap-of-all-time

Are we allowed to post blogs as sources now?

Also my question for the blogger, what exactly does Trump have to say to have you think differently? It can be argued he's doing the same thing he's accusing the media of.

I am actually not sure what the rules are on that. In any case, I do not think it would really apply here because he is not making any factual claim. It's just his opinion on persuasion and he is an expert on that.

The blogger (the Dilbert guy) is not a Trump guy. He has said many times that neither candidate represents his views, and that he officially supports Hillary Clinton because it is dangerous to say anything positive about Donald Trump where he lives in California. He mostly focuses on persuasion and outside the box topics relating to the election.

Being 100% honest you'd know the rules on this site better than me. I have zero clue what's allowed to be said and posted on here anymore.

The rules have changed on some things over the years and I really haven't done a good job of keeping up either. I think the mods want to keep the board family safe more or less so I just try to go by that generic guideline.

The problem with the blog is he's assuming trump is doing this on purpose.

The authors entire article is based on one factor: speculation.

The author has no idea if trump is doing this on purpose or not.

Conclusion: this article. Lol.

Trump has been doing something along these lines for quite a while. It goes something like:

- Say something that, on the surface, seems outrageous. Leave some degree of ambiguity.

- People get outraged and discuss Trump's statement at length.

- Bingo, free advertising for Team Trump and he gets to steer the conversation in a beneficial way.

You can change some of the details here and there. In this case there was little ambiguity but there was a clear out in that it could have just been a joke or whatever. Either way it's similar enough. This is how he plowed his way through the Republican primaries and is still competitive in the general election, despite being less funded, anti-establishment, having the media against him, and unfavorable demographics.

That's all fine and dandy if his goal wasn't to win the election.

^^^ and again, just like the blogger, it's speculation when y'all talk about:

- is he a plant by Clinton?
- is he serious?
- is he just joking?

Speculation. Here's the facts: trump is the GOP nominee trying to win the general election.

The issue with yours and this bloggers theory is that trump has doubled down on more than half the nonsense he says.

Is spokesperson(s) have been doing the same thing.

This is what won him over in the primary election for the Republican Party.

Why I completely laughed at this article is that it's a failed attempt to spin his failed campaign in the general election as a positive.

Trump isn't fooling anybody. Yes, he has said the same level of rhetoric in the primaries.

But the general election is different. Most people aren't buying his crap.

Because the reality is that this blogger doesn't write this article if Trump is winning.

less funded - he self funded his own campaign. Now he has billionaire donors. He's less funded because he doesn't have to be. He's a reality tv star. He will always have the media running his stories.

Anti establishment- it is mind boggling that you believe that line of crap. Honestly, you're smarter than that. He's been donating to both establishments since...when again? Since forever. He helped create the damn establishment. Don't be gullible.

Media against him - who does he have to blame, again? Haus, answer this question

Did anybody make trump say those things, or did he say them all on his own? It's time to be honest with yourself.

Unfavorable demographics- again, who does he have to blame for that? The media didn't make him say those things. Liberals didn't make him say those things. Conservatives didn't make him say those things. He needs to look in the mirror as to why he has unfavorable demographics in this election cycle.

You, just like this blogger, is making a lot of excuses, instead of realizing that trump has nobody to blame for his current situation except his damn self.

Also:

How Donald Trump’s bizarre voter-watch effort could get the GOP in trouble

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-...gop-in-trouble/

Your bloggers article also falls apart since the majority of conservatives do indeed take him seriously.

People are already signing up to be on this voter-watch effort.

But lemme guess, he isn't REALLY serious about that, right?

It is funny how his supporters blame the media for reporting on the stupid public statements Trump makes. If he didn't continuously say stupid things, there would be nothing to report.

And you are right about another thing.

Trump has been in the middle of the establishment playing both ends against the middle for what seems like forever. That's no "outsider".

I guess his supporters don't wish to discuss how many people he's failed to pay and contracts he's refused to honor by using frivolous lawsuits which have put people out of business. If you support small business, Trump isn't your guy. If you are against frivolous lawsuits, Trump isn't your guy. He's been in the middle of thousands of lawsuits.

Sure Hillary is a terrible candidate. Very few dispute that. But trying to claim Trump is actually a viable solution is just as stupid as claiming Hillary is a saint.

When I wrote anti-establishment, I meant it more along the lines that the establishment is against him. That was sloppy wording on my part (he does have some views that are against the establishment, but again, that's not really what I meant by it).

Providing a list of donors to each campaign would make this point more clear. I can't do it right now, but I might be able to get around to it later or tomorrow.

I feel you.

Look, the Democratic Party lines up with my views. It ain't perfect. Hell, it ain't even good. It's just close.

The GOP lines up with other people's views. Same thing, not perfect, maybe not good.

The libertarian party as a whole doesn't line up with me. Gary kinda does, however. But for some people, the libertarian party is right up their alley.

People are making up crazy reasons why the GOP establishment is against them.

Is it because he threatens their power? Maybe. Is it because he can't be controlled? Maybe.

Again, that's all speculation.

But in defense of the GOP, I'm going off of the facts.

And here's the facts:

After the 2012 election, the GOP came out with a report talking about how they have to do a better job appealing to other demographics. Latinos, blacks, etc.

Talked about diversity and all that.

Actually, here:

http://goproject.gop.com/rnc_growth_opportunity_book_2013.pdf

That's the report.

So just reading that report, it's obvious as day why the GOP can't stand trump. Everything they worked/working on just went right out the freaking window the moment Trump came on the scene.

****disclaimer***** not bashing, just an observation *disclaimer*

I'm not gonna pretend to speak for Pit, DC, Arch, and other conservatives on this board.

But I can only imagine the look on their faces at the rhetoric their fellow conservative voters were saying in support of Trump. And continue to do so.

At this point, all the center-right conservative/republicans are now officially called RINOs. Which is completely ass backwards of the progress the GOP establishment was hoping to make.

The establish, in general, wanted to appeal to a more diverse America.

Then Trump came.

If I ran the establishment, I'd be pissed too. Because one guy is single handily(as a politician) destroying the party. And hard right conservative voters are helping it along. We(speaking as a GOP leader) at least had a plan of action to change the direction of our party. Mitt showed us what went wrong, but now Trump has moved us 10 steps backwards.

I'm not pissed because of some rhetoric about losing status quo. I'm not pissed because some "outsider"(who we all know isn't) is the main guy.

I'm pissed because we yet again found a worse candidate than what the dems out out. We're trying to appeal to everybody, try to prove that no, we aren't the party of "no".

But instead, I gotta spend my work day defending some idiot, playing damage control. I can't even go to a press conference announcing a policy push without the reporter asking me about Trumps latest comments.

It's the opposite of productive.

This is just my observation, guys.

You guys like to say country before party.

And I absolutely agree with that 100%. But for a movement to be successful and implement the majority of ideas that you as a group believe in, there has to be unity.

Unity and the GOP, which includes trump btw, is non existent.

Well that's one way to get the Nazi vote out, let the Brown Shirts sign up to be election poll Trump Gestapo. It's really kind of brilliant, so it must be a mistake.

Random comment on China, but regardless of who becomes president China is screwed. They are going through an aging crisis because of their one child policy. The older generations that depend on social security won't be able to have it. Not enough people in the millennial generation will be able to financially support all of them because of the one child policy decreasing that generation.

China is going to have to choose between spending on their military or supporting their people.

China is also building a middle class. Some people don't realize that China outsources to India on some products.

It's gonna be a cluster.

I know China owes India money as well. India is more likely to become the next global super power before them.

Let's keep things real. Here is an excerpt from an article.



But, no one wants to talk about the national debt. Amazing!

Prediction: India will never become a global superpower. China might. They're certainly well on their way: world's largest population (large majority is Han Chinese), Mandarin has the most speakers of any language in the world, world's largest economy by purchasing power parity, they have built the world's fastest supercomputer, in many cases their military technology is similar to that of the West, etc.

Meanwhile, 500 million people in India still crap in public. I wish I was making that up.

??

there's been like 10 threads on the national debt since i've been on this board.

dunno what you're talking about.

man bro are you paying attention to what's going on in india?

they going through their own little tech boom right now. manufacturing is going up.

their poverty is still some of the worst in the world. but you gotta start somewhere.

they are on the up.

meanwhile in china, they keep building structures, but look how many ghost cities they have. look how many empty apartments and such.

Vice did an episode on China's infrastructure a while back. it ain't all good over there, either.

hey guys, was trump being sarcastic when he said there's no drought in california?

I do follow world news and politics but I don't go out of my way to follow what is going on in India beyond the fact that it's an important player in the world with its enormous population and such. Hopefully that (kind of) answers your question.

Your comments about tech, manufacturing, poverty, and having to start somewhere are interesting. They paint a rosy picture, and I hope they do well and continue to improve. However, I think India lacks some important preconditions that would ever allow it to ascend to the level of a superpower. I'd rather not contribute to derailing this thread any more than I already have, so I'll just leave it at that.

edit, just because: Here's an interesting article written from the perspective of an Indian: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/china-versus-india-race-lost-even-before-could-start-ishank-sagar

Good points, I'm mostly Republican...my biggest bone to pick with your comments would be "unity" comment...JMHO, we humans have NEVER been unified- WWII might be closest for our country, sneak attack, but we weren't unified-black/white issues, faith, you name all the non-unity issues....I like NEITHER of our two main choices...read "Crisis of Character" excepts about dear, sweet Hillary....and she's been in leadership positions for years...damn, if that's the best we got, we are surely in the sewer...pray of the country....WOW!!! An idiot and liar...nice choices!!!!

The unity comment is true. We are a nation that is politically becoming more and more divided. Regardless of whether Hillary or Trump wins, the other side will hate the president with a passion. That is a pretty scary thought in addition to whatever negative things you think about the candidates to begin with.

J/C. I'm betting many the posters here that say they will vote a third party ticket are actually too embarrassed to say they support and will vote Trump.

It's ok admitt it.

I get what you're saying.

I guess by unity I mean as far as social issues.

For example, is liberals for the most part are on the same page as far as healthcare, civil rights and such. Our disagreements come on how to accomplish that.

And this ties into Haus's response to you just now. Politically, the divide is bad.

From what older people tell me, back in the day, that was the biggest different between republican/democrat.

Social issues were basically the same. Just differ on how to accomplish the goals. Same with the economy. Each party wants a strong economy. Just differ on how to achieve it.

That's not the case anymore.

There's seems to be a huge split within the Republican Party with all those issues. I know I've only been alive going on 29 years, but I never seen so much divisiveness within a group before.

Not everybody is suppose to agree with each other. There will be debates. But what's going on in the Republican Party is basically a political civil war. It's bad.

We don't have that in the Democratic Party.

Yet. Key word: yet.

I'm not sure you can accurately do that. Trump has now joined in doing what most presidential candidates always do. He has his own super PAC now. I understand that's how the game is played and I'm not faulting him for that. However, I don't believe there's any way of finding out who is contributing to and backing him through that super PAC.

I find it amusing how Trump says things that makes it virtually impossible for many people to promote him then cries about how everyone is against him. Funny how that works.

I was speaking about the candidates.

I do feel bad for Trump when it comes to the people working for him. His top guy made a comment about unemployment reaching 102 million people. Well damn. 1/3 of the ENTIRE United States is unemployed? That's catastrophic levels of unemployment.

Then the rep named Katrina really makes things even worse. Trump needs to grill these people.

The confederate states were doing just fine before Obama decided to free the slaves

- Katrina Peirson.

...and the only thing holding ISIL back for 15 years was the lack of a "community organizer"....

No, it was the presence of the United States Military, which Obama pulled out before the people we liberated were able (if they were ever going to be) to stand on their own.

Ted.

Come on bro.

How it looks to me my friend. Wasn't that the reason GW always said he didn't want to give a date for withdrawal?

So it had nothing to do with invading the wrong country, overthrowing a dictator which started a crap storm, then some radicals not taking too kindly to what we did and forming a terrorist organization?

Call me crazy, but isn't ISIS made up of former Iraqi Republican Guard? Given Hussein's conduct you could call them a state sponsored terrorist organization over their own people could you not?

You could.

So, yeah, going into Iraq was a mistake I'll concede these 13 years after we initially went there.

But leaving, and leaving our toys, which ISIS rides around in wasn't too smart either,

...and that happened under Obama.

I understand what you're saying and definently agree with most of it. However, if we never invade Iraq, ISIS never forms. We then spend most of our days just dealing with Al Qaeda.

You're correct about ISIS and the former Hussein generals. The generals gathered up all of the radical civilians, taught them how to fight, and formed what we see today.

You guys are also forgetting two important points:

1. The withdrawal was negotiated under bush(I agree with the withdrawal). So if Obama makes an executive order to not do it, he would've got blasted anyway.

2. Obama/Bush were stuck between a rock and a hard place.

Y'all don't seem to understand that no matter WHICH decision got made, stay or leave, whoever was in charge was going to get criticized.

Withdrawal - current situation

Stay - civil war still happens(was happening when we was still there) AND we all would've been pissed because we would STILL have American soldiers DYING in a country we had no business being in in the first place.

Damned if they do, damned if they don't.

Assad still commits terrible crap. The refugee crisis still happens.