Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

2020 US Presidential Election (aka: The Trump Coronation)

Options
1…103104106108109…331

Comments

  • Options
    #3152
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,470 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Quin_Dub wrote: »
    The point is that the message is always the negative slant - "Vote for us, because the other side are terrible" rather than "Vote for us , we'll make it better"

    You could of course argue that those are both the same message - "Vote for us" , but it's the continuous monotonous negativity that grates with me.

    I have the same view with the (actual) Socialist parties here in Ireland , they only ever complain about everyone else , they never tell people why they'd be a better choice.

    Promote the positives of voting for your candidates , not exclusively the negatives of voting for the other side.

    when your candidate has no positives the only thing you can do is try and find negatives in your opponent.


  • Options
    #3153
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    Quin_Dub wrote: »
    The point is that the message is always the negative slant - "Vote for us, because the other side are terrible" rather than "Vote for us , we'll make it better"

    You could of course argue that those are both the same message - "Vote for us" , but it's the continuous monotonous negativity that grates with me.

    I have the same view with the (actual) Socialist parties here in Ireland , they only ever complain about everyone else , they never tell people why they'd be a better choice.

    Promote the positives of voting for your candidates , not exclusively the negatives of voting for the other side.
    We do promote the positives. But when the mainstream media is in the tank for democrats someone needs to let the people know what is really going on over at the opposite party.

    And negative ads against the opposition has been a tried-and-true effective campaign method forever here so it won't ever stop, no matter how much people complain about it.

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Options
    #3154
    Melanchthon
    Registered Users Posts: 1,118 ✭✭✭Melanchthon


    Quin_Dub wrote: »
    You can do exactly the same with Trump if you want , I've posted links to them in this thread. Trump today is clearly less coherent , less polished , less measured than he was before

    The fundamental point is that the GOP aren't challenging on any kind positive message - The whole campaign is "Biden is Not Well/Corrupt/beholden to the radical left/Going to take your guns"

    Everything they do is about stirring up fear of change , fear of "the other".

    Their message is not "Vote for us , we'll make it better" it's "Vote for us, because the other side is worse".

    I literally say that in my post that Trump has gone downhill mentally, What's your point???

    I agree that the Republicans are running on a generally negative tact at the minute it seems, the thing is though lowering the turnout was a successful strategy for them in 2016.

    To some extent I understand why Biden was picked, he isn't a revolutionary type figure, he genuinely seems pretty centerist and shouldn't put of middle ground voters, the thing is he isn't the Biden of a few years ago and is clearly less sharp.

    The issue is that the Republicans can negatively campaign from two directions, try suppress the BernieBros/further left/lib turnout by focusing on Bidens negatives to them, despite the rhetoric that's being deployed nobody owes or is entitled to anybodies vote.

    On the other side they can use the fact the more fact that more liberal/left/sjw types have become more prominent in the Democratic party to scare more traditionalist/conservative voters. There seems to be a truism that the American left wing is centerist in European terms, I don't think this is true figures like AOC and Ilhan omar would be firmly left wing in Europe and Ilhan Omar would arguably have got herself expelled from the British Labour party these days due to her comments on Jewish money in politics.

    The prominence of these figures is an potential handicap, the standard response to raising this is to accuse the person of being a Trump supporter or bigot but that's bullsh#t, I'm not a big Pelosi fan but she is obviously aware of the issues this group causes as can be seen by the tensions between them and nobody can argue that Nancy Pelosi hasn't fought very very hard for the Democrats.

    What's your thoughts on Bidens gun plans? In a way they seem a bit pointless , enough to antagonise those motivated gun owners with the assault weapons focus but likely to do very little for violent gun deaths as that seems to be hand guns (and a significant amount of those being already illegally held hand guns*). This is an issue I don't have particularly strong opinions and despite my criticism think Biden is probably making the right move as he has to say something and the voters he will loose are already gone.


    * In a way I don't think either side in American actually cares much about gun deaths, mass killings are a tiny fraction of violent gun deaths, if you actually cared a lot you'd bring in mandatory heavy sentences for illegally held hand guns e.g 5-10 years jail and really restrict pistols but leave long guns alone, this wouldn't go down well with part of the democrats base and the Republicans have all the gun nuts on their side who wouldn't like it


  • Options
    #3155
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    I’ve got to give Kayleigh McEnany, President Trump’s new press secretary, and a round of applause. Throwing anyone into that den of Trump-hating media lions is a really trough job, and so far she has proven herself their match. Just recently she exposed more biased media hypocrisy. When Trump announced he was taking hydroxychloroquine to help prevent contracting the coronavirus almost all the mainstream media’s collective heads exploded.

    Recently on CNN Chris Cuomo who recently recovered from COVID-19 (brother of Andrew Cuomo the NY governor and sentencer of nursing home patients to their deaths) stated “The president knows that hydroxychloroquine is not supported by science…” “He knows that it has been flagged by people in his own administration. He knows that his own task force took a non-position on the drug…”

    Cuomo even tweeted the following…

    https://twitter.com/CuomoPrimeTime/status/1262553778110304256

    So when she came under fire at the press briefing regarding Trump's use of the drug she called out Chris Cuomo for his hypocritcy.

    “You had Chris Cuomo saying, ‘The president knows that hydroxychloroquine is not supported by science. He knows it has been flagged by his own people and he’s using it.’ Well, Cuomo mocked the president for this, and interestingly, I found this out just before coming here. Hydroxychloroquine, of course, is an FDA-approved medication with a long-proven track record for safety, and it turns out that Chris Cuomo took a less-safe version of it called quinine which the FDA removed from the market in 2006 for its serious side-effects, including death.”

    BAM!

    She found out Chris Cuomo used quinine because his wife Christina detailed the treatment Chris was taking for COVID-19 in the 'Purist,' a wellness magazine she founded. She revealed part of his treatment was taking “potentized quinine” three times a day.

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Options
    #3156
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 83,566 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    notobtuse wrote: »
    The morbidly repugnant human being called Trump morbidly obese regarding his taking of hydroxychloroquine under a doctor’s supervision for the last 10 days as a preventative caution against COVID-19.

    gcMbX.jpg

    "Preventative"


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3157
    MeMen2_MoRi_
    Registered Users Posts: 1,982 ✭✭✭MeMen2_MoRi_


    notobtuse wrote: »
    I’ve got to give Kayleigh McEnany, President Trump’s new press secretary, and a round of applause. Throwing anyone into that den of Trump-hating media lions is a really trough job, and so far she has proven herself their match. Just recently she exposed more biased media hypocrisy. When Trump announced he was taking hydroxychloroquine to help prevent contracting the coronavirus almost all the mainstream media’s collective heads exploded.

    Recently on CNN Chris Cuomo who recently recovered from COVID-19 (brother of Andrew Cuomo the NY governor and sentencer of nursing home patients to their deaths) stated “The president knows that hydroxychloroquine is not supported by science…” “He knows that it has been flagged by people in his own administration. He knows that his own task force took a non-position on the drug…”

    Cuomo even tweeted the following…

    https://twitter.com/CuomoPrimeTime/status/1262553778110304256

    So when she came under fire at the press briefing regarding Trump's use of the drug she called out Chris Cuomo for his hypocritcy.

    “You had Chris Cuomo saying, ‘The president knows that hydroxychloroquine is not supported by science. He knows it has been flagged by his own people and he’s using it.’ Well, Cuomo mocked the president for this, and interestingly, I found this out just before coming here. Hydroxychloroquine, of course, is an FDA-approved medication with a long-proven track record for safety, and it turns out that Chris Cuomo took a less-safe version of it called quinine which the FDA removed from the market in 2006 for its serious side-effects, including death.”

    BAM!

    She found out Chris Cuomo used quinine because his wife Christina detailed the treatment Chris was taking for COVID-19 in the 'Purist,' a wellness magazine she founded. She revealed part of his treatment was taking “potentized quinine” three times a day.

    How she got to talking about Cuomo I haven't a clue, she was asked a basic question (not coming under fire as you're putting it) "Where was trump getting his figure's about thousands of frontline workers taking hydroxi as a preventative for covid"?

    She responded by saying there's a trial about to start/started looking into it at John Hopkins.. the reporter also had quotes from the nurses union denying that there's "thousand's" of frontline workers taken this medication as a preventative

    Should she be asked soft ball questions like where she got her eye lashes done, where she got her lovely salmon jacket? It was a basic question backed up with a with comments from the nurses union.. this should bog standard stuff


  • Options
    #3158
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    MeMen2_MoRi_ wrote: »
    How she got to talking about Cuomo I haven't a clue, she was asked a basic question (not coming under fire as you're putting it) "Where was trump getting his figure's about thousands of frontline workers taking hydroxi as a preventative for covid"?

    She responded by saying there's a trial about to start/started looking into it at John Hopkins.. the reporter also had quotes from the nurses union denying that there's "thousand's" of frontline workers taken this medication as a preventative

    Should she be asked soft ball questions like where she got her eye lashes done, where she got her lovely salmon jacket? It was a basic question backed up with a with comments from the nurses union.. this should bog standard stuff
    She'd never be asked softball questions by the mainstream media... she's not a democrat.

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Options
    #3159
    2u2me
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,693 ✭✭✭2u2me


    notobtuse wrote: »
    I’ve got to give Kayleigh McEnany, President Trump’s new press secretary, and a round of applause.

    I was thinking she was very impressive also. She won't last long, Trump doesn't like anyone outshining him :D


  • Options
    #3160
    MeMen2_MoRi_
    Registered Users Posts: 1,982 ✭✭✭MeMen2_MoRi_


    notobtuse wrote: »
    She'd never be asked softball questions by the mainstream media... she's not a democrat.

    A bog standard question nothing more, definitely not in the realm's of "coming under fire" as you're describing it.
    Or maybe it is, republicans seem to take offense to being asked any kind of questions.

    All hail king trump.


  • Options
    #3161
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    So now it comes out Obama’s cronies at the FBI offered British spy Christopher Steele significant amounts of money to dig up dirt on Michael Flynn, just weeks before the 2016 election.

    Obamagate is real... and it’s spectacular.

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3162
    Brian?
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 21,436 Mod ✭✭✭✭Brian?


    notobtuse wrote: »
    So now it comes out Obama’s cronies at the FBI offered British spy Christopher Steele significant amounts of money to dig up dirt on Michael Flynn, just weeks before the 2016 election.

    Source?
    Obamagate is real... and it’s spectacular.


    Only in your imagination.

    they/them/theirs


    And so on, and so on …. - Slavoj Žižek




  • Options
    #3163
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 83,566 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    notobtuse wrote: »
    Obamagate is real... and it’s spectacular.

    Explain it to me then?


  • Options
    #3164
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    Brian? wrote: »
    Source?




    Only in your imagination.
    https://dailycaller.com/2020/05/20/christopher-steele-michael-flynn-svetlana-lokhova-cambridge/

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Options
    #3165
    Cody montana
    Registered Users Posts: 5,331 ✭✭✭Cody montana


    Overheal wrote: »
    Explain it to me then?

    He copied and pasted his last opinion on Obamagate.
    So, I wouldn't get my hopes up.


  • Options
    #3166
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users Posts: 25,597 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    notobtuse wrote: »
    https://dailycaller.com/2020/05/20/christopher-steele-michael-flynn-svetlana-lokhova-cambridge/

    The daily caller lol, everything you need to know about that rag.
    The Daily Caller is a right-wing news and opinion website based in Washington, D.C. It was founded by now Fox News host Tucker Carlson and political pundit Neil Patel 


  • Options
    #3167
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 83,566 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    The daily caller lol, everything you need to know about that rag.

    I get a giggle when Tucker cites his own trash news site on his talk show.


  • Options
    #3168
    Blueshoe
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,964 ✭✭✭Blueshoe


    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    The daily caller lol, everything you need to know about that rag.

    No worse than posting an article from the guardian


  • Options
    #3169
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,483 ✭✭✭weisses


    notobtuse wrote: »
    I’ve got to give Kayleigh McEnany, President Trump’s new press secretary, and a round of applause. Throwing anyone into that den of Trump-hating media lions is a really trough job, and so far she has proven herself their match. Just recently she exposed more biased media hypocrisy. When Trump announced he was taking hydroxychloroquine to help prevent contracting the coronavirus almost all the mainstream media’s collective heads exploded.

    Recently on CNN Chris Cuomo who recently recovered from COVID-19 (brother of Andrew Cuomo the NY governor and sentencer of nursing home patients to their deaths) stated “The president knows that hydroxychloroquine is not supported by science…” “He knows that it has been flagged by people in his own administration. He knows that his own task force took a non-position on the drug…”

    Cuomo even tweeted the following…

    https://twitter.com/CuomoPrimeTime/status/1262553778110304256

    So when she came under fire at the press briefing regarding Trump's use of the drug she called out Chris Cuomo for his hypocritcy.

    “You had Chris Cuomo saying, ‘The president knows that hydroxychloroquine is not supported by science. He knows it has been flagged by his own people and he’s using it.’ Well, Cuomo mocked the president for this, and interestingly, I found this out just before coming here. Hydroxychloroquine, of course, is an FDA-approved medication with a long-proven track record for safety, and it turns out that Chris Cuomo took a less-safe version of it called quinine which the FDA removed from the market in 2006 for its serious side-effects, including death.”

    BAM!

    She found out Chris Cuomo used quinine because his wife Christina detailed the treatment Chris was taking for COVID-19 in the 'Purist,' a wellness magazine she founded. She revealed part of his treatment was taking “potentized quinine” three times a day.

    I literally quoted the FDA a few pages back stating the opposite of what you are saying. ... Can you post the relevant FDA documents stating it's an approved medication for covid ? ... Thanks


  • Options
    #3170
    Igotadose
    Registered Users Posts: 13,606 ✭✭✭✭Igotadose


    Blueshoe wrote: »
    No worse than posting an article from the guardian

    Multiple-times worse. Daily Caller's just a pile of lies masquerading as a website.


  • Options
    #3171
    Silentcorner
    Registered Users Posts: 6,506 ✭✭✭Silentcorner


    Igotadose wrote: »
    Multiple-times worse. Daily Caller's just a pile of lies masquerading as a website.

    As is The Guardian...once a news source abandons objectivity and balance it is done....they are all the same these days...they are all like the National Enquirer!!!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3172
    2u2me
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,693 ✭✭✭2u2me


    Silentcorner wrote: »
    As is The Guardian...once a news source abandons objectivity and balance it is done....they are all the same these days...they are all like the National Enquirer!!!

    Or the 'History' Channel! Have you seen their listings recently.


  • Options
    #3173
    Silentcorner
    Registered Users Posts: 6,506 ✭✭✭Silentcorner


    2u2me wrote: »
    Or the 'History' Channel! Have you seen their listings recently.

    I haven't ... is it bad? Used to be a great channel last time I had access to it!


  • Options
    #3174
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Silentcorner wrote: »
    As is The Guardian...once a news source abandons objectivity and balance it is done....they are all the same these days...they are all like the National Enquirer!!!

    That's nonsense tbh. I'm happy to say that a publication can sway to the left or the right but when they report manifestly untrue items as news(on a regular basis). That's not a news source. Guessing that's why they're not an approved news site on google news.


  • Options
    #3175
    Silentcorner
    Registered Users Posts: 6,506 ✭✭✭Silentcorner


    Deleted User wrote: »
    That's nonsense tbh. I'm happy to say that a publication can sway to the left or the right but when they report manifestly untrue items as news(on a regular basis). That's not a news source. Guessing that's why they're not an approved news site on google news.

    My opinion is nonsense...in your opinion!!!

    The Guardian distribute their content the same way they all do...use preferably negative emotive headlines to increase reader engagement.

    All news networks distribute content this way.

    The industry is in flames...keeping people angry is not a long term sustainable model.


  • Options
    #3176
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    The daily caller lol, everything you need to know about that rag.
    When you can't comment on the content you attack the source, eh? Typical!

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Options
    #3177
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Silentcorner wrote: »
    My opinion is nonsense...in your opinion!!!

    The Guardian distribute their content the same way they all do...use preferably negative emotive headlines to increase reader engagement.

    All news networks distribute content this way.

    The industry is in flames...keeping people angry is not a long term sustainable model.

    The Daily Caller is known for inventing stories so it's drastically different to most news sources.


  • Options
    #3178
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 83,566 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    notobtuse wrote: »
    When you can't comment on the content you attack the source, eh? Typical!

    As has been argued just now it’s not a source it’s a gossip mill.

    The piece cites a justice department document. Surely you can find the document, if it is part of the public discourse?


  • Options
    #3179
    Brian?
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 21,436 Mod ✭✭✭✭Brian?


    notobtuse wrote: »
    https://dailycaller.com/2020/05/20/christopher-steele-michael-flynn-svetlana-lokhova-cambridge/

    Absolutely no chance I’m giving the Daily Caller traffic. Any other source?

    they/them/theirs


    And so on, and so on …. - Slavoj Žižek




  • Options
    #3180
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users Posts: 25,597 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    notobtuse wrote: »
    When you can't comment on the content you attack the source, eh? Typical!

    Not as if you would do such a thing right? ;)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3181
    Silentcorner
    Registered Users Posts: 6,506 ✭✭✭Silentcorner


    Deleted User wrote: »
    The Daily Caller is known for inventing stories so it's drastically different to most news sources.

    They all do...it's opinion driven content that is the basis of all news outlets...and then stories that reflect that editorial direction....it's why the industry is so polarized.

    If you consume media all day every day, there is a good chance that not only are you being misinformed (by the omission of balance)...you are being whipped into hysteria!


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement